Brett Bellmore
Member
Yup, it's simple: The NRA leadership is trying to keep this case out of the Supreme court, and won't tell the members that as they tricks us into doing their dirty work.
2) A collective rights ruling just means that we can finally give up on hoping the Court will rescue us from the increasingly insane proposals in Congress. If we want to protect our rights, we will have to rely on our political strength at the polls - just as we have been doing since 1977.
So a collectivist ruling in Parker would certainly be unwelcome, but it wouldn't be the end of the road.That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
Right now the 2nd amendment is a dead letter - we would lose very little and stand to gain significantly from a decision in the Parker case.
Robert A. Levy: Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban’s fate?
Robert A. Levy, The Examiner
Apr 3, 2007 12:00 AM (13 hrs ago)
WASHINGTON - Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?
More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.
For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city’s gun ban — holding that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there’s no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.
Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn’t possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors “both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ...”
Incredible.
When asked to clarify the NRA’s position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, “You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker.”
Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA’s aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.
>>snip<<
Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is “must” legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?
It is?
I own guns, don't you?
I'm on the side of the fence that doesn't trust the Supreme Court to make a plain language, straightforward, logical decision based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Just keep in mind how much state's rights are eroding with the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and it could well be the end of the road. Those state RKBA provisions would be meaningless if there are no "A" to "K and B" if a collectivist ruling leads to legislation that outlaws movement of "A" in commerce unless it is related to a militia purpose.Leatherneck said:So a collectivist ruling in Parker would certainly be unwelcome, but it wouldn't be the end of the road.
Or would it?