SCOTUS declines assault weapons ban case - how bad is this?

[yokel]

Justice Scalia does cite some interesting literature from the mid-19th century in the Heller opinion such as John Norton Pomeroy's 1868 book An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States, which stated that the Second Amendment would make no sense unless it enables citizens "to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms...." [emphasis added].

If you happen to be a member of the NRA, then you ought to be familiar with this:

NRA bylaws Article II - Purpose and Objectives:

Quote:
1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use firearms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;
2. To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense;
3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms."[emphasis added]

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Seems like a good place to interject this. I'm confident Scalia would agree with this opinion piece that is somewhat out of the ordinary for The Washington Post of late:

The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...09/the-right-to-bear-arms-isnt-up-for-debate/

 

[Red Wind]

That is quite a read from the WAPO. Refreshing to say the least to see them speak of the 2nd Amendment in those words. Perhaps some changes on their Editorial Board have brought this about.

Whatever the cause, I hope it continues. They still have a great amount of influence among a large segment of Americans.