View Single Post
Old February 26, 2013, 09:08 PM   #72
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,684
Aldisert is clearly uncomfortable with the result -- to him the state may require "an objective need for self defense" under the 2A.
As a technical writer, editor, and native speaker of English -- but not an attorney -- it strikes me that there is and cannot be any "objective" need for self-defense. I once received a vaguely threatening letter. Neither the local police nor the FBI ever determined who sent it, and there was only one. I very much felt threatened and believed that I had a need to be able to defend myself. The local police, on the other hand, treated it as more of a joke, and used it to teach a rookie detective how to screw up the evidence while dusting it for fingerprints.

Heller said we have a "core right" to self-defense. Given that I have that right, it should not matter whether or not some local bureaucrat agrees that my perception of feeling threatened is sufficient to "allow" me to exercise that right.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Page generated in 0.05187 seconds with 7 queries