Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gregg E. Meyer
Miss the point. Gregory should have the right to own a 30 round mag. Such laws clearly violate the intent of the 2nd Amend. in my opinion - despite Scalia arguing that some weaponery can be banned legitimately. A 30 round mag isn't a nuke.
|
I'll go beyond that.
Although I know Frank Ettin will (because he has in the past) disagree, I remain of the belief that Mr. Justice Scalia erred very seriously and fundamentally when he penned the majority decision in
Heller. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. My position is that we should be able to read any law according to what it says, and once we get past the militia clause, the language of the 2nd Amendment is about as clear and succinct as it can possible get: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
There are no weasel words in there, no exceptions, no mention of "unreasonably infringed." It's an absolute statement imposing a blanket prohibition on infringements. And what is a regulation if not an infringement?
Frank argues that legal precedent has allowed other rights to be "reasonably" regulated. But what other right do we have that is
specifically and explicitly protected against ANY regulation? Certainly not the 4th Amendment. That protects us against "unreasonable" searches and seizures, so that door is automatically open for the courts to then have to determine where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable.
There is no such door in the 2nd Amendment. The
Heller decision was wrong, flawed ... not because it correctly affirmed an individual right as opposed to a collective right tied to militia service, but because it ignored the plain language of the law and suggested that some regulations are Constitutional when the law itself plainly says they are not allowed.