Site Meter

So Let’s Say Justice Scalia Writes D.C. v. Heller …

You may also like...

59 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    “though not arms that are “uncommon” for private citizens, such as machine guns.”

    It is, of course, not incidental that the only reason these arms ARE uncommon is that the federal government passed legislation making it extremely difficult to own them. Neat trick: Violate a right, and convince the Supreme court to turn down all challenges to the violation for a while, and the very fact that you violated the right makes it’s exercise “uncommon”, providing you an excuse to rule the right unprotected.

    Lousy reasoning, but after Raich I expect Scalia to take any excuse he can to avoid overturning any existing federal gun laws. He’d rather let mistakes stand, if they’re at all old, than overturn a large body of law founded on them.

  2. mike123 says:

    This is how free men lose their liberty … one court case at a time. I just don’t understand why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is so complicated. It seems pretty clear to me.

    The history of gun control in America is very clear. It’s goal and design was to oppress minorities …. pre-civil war, the slaves … post civil war Blacks and immigrants …. 1960′s onward inner city Blacks. Anything short of an individual right and strict secrutiny will the Supremes embracing this sorry history.

    Pass the tums …

  3. geekwitha.45 says:

    >>”though not arms that are “uncommon” for private citizens, such as machine guns.”

    I must point out that the second tine of the two forked test, “common use”, is a bit of a stretch. It adds to the classic Miller test, “pertaining to the preservation of the militia”, and is a modern invention of Gura, counsel for Heller, who sought to find a way to secure a positive ruling on ordinary handguns and long guns without necessarily opening the machine guns can of worms.

    All in all, confirmation of the individual nature of the 2nd amendment, definitive coverage of so called “assault weapons”, and either incorporation or strong hints towards it would all be substantial improvements over the last 70 years of the Court looking the other way on the subject.

  4. tom swift says:

    “though not arms that are ‘uncommon’ for private citizens, such as machine guns.”

    I suppose it depends to some degree on what “uncommon” means. BATF claims that something on the order of 800,000 machine guns are registered to private owners here in these United States.

    The figure is from BATF’s Commerce in Firearms in the US. BATF is being a bit dilatory – the latest report seems to be the one for 2000.

    I’m looking forward to seeing how the Court dances around that “shall not be infringed” business.

  5. Regarding the subject of “Privileges and Immunities” in relation to the Second Amendment:

    I urge all of those interested in the Heller case to look up the index entry for “Privileges and Immunities” in my new book, The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms, and then read how and when the Founders normally used that terminology.

  6. Mark Jones says:

    Brett, “neat trick” indeed. It’s the same sleight of hand used for decades now to deprive travelers of the slightest protection in traffic stops. First, the government carves out ever larger exceptions to the right of drivers and/or passengers to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures. Then they rubberstamp each additional such narrowing of our liberty because, of course, people in cars “have no expectation of privacy”

    Nasty little Catch-22 they’ve got there.

  7. Tlove says:

    No expectation standard, instead an “individual” standard (more accurately, a “customarily not crew served” standard).

    Thus, canons, out. Heavy machine guns, out, pistol, rifles, shotguns, light machine guns, tasers, etc. in because then an now, a customarily individual arm.

  8. Ridge says:

    “Pass the tums …”

    I think the proper phrase is “Pass the ammo…”

  9. Dave says:

    If memory is correct, the founding fathers placed no limitation on either the type or quantity of arms available to the individual. We know for example that fur traders hauled cannon west to defend Rocky Mountain forts, while well into the 1800′s, any ship sailing without cannon or at least few swivel guns for defense would have been a fat pigeon for the plucking.

    I have no desire to own cannon or fully automatic firearms, but it will take some almighty convoluted reasoning to discover a constitutional prohibition against the right to do so.

  10. bc says:

    An old favorite cartoon shows a bum with a sign that reads,”Will work for ammo”.

  11. Sam says:

    I hope the general consensus is correct and the court reaffirmed the individual right. But I’m still nervous after the habeas corpus outrage and would put nothing past those five. If they do pull a surprise and decide on a collective right then I suggest it may be time for an arborial trimming–Jefferson style.

  12. CrazyTrain says:

    Ummm . . . . Blakely??? Clearly, and without question, Scalia’s most “important” (if we view importance as having the most practical effect) opinion, and one where he held a 5-4 majority. I don’t see how you miss that one. Dwarfs the rest.

  13. CrazyTrain says:

    Also Blakely was 10x more “far reaching” than Printz or Crawford. It took an extremely broad view of Apprendi and the 6th Amendment that had been squarely rejected by every Circuit.

  14. Xrlq says:

    It’s true: there is a risk of a Scalia-written plurality accompanied by a separate (and controlling) Kennedy concurrence in the judgment.

    Of course that’s possible, but equally possible, if not more so, is a “majority” opinion by Scalia, in which an actual majority joins only certain portions, and the good parts are a de facto concurrence.

  15. Mike O'Shea says:

    tom swift –

    I believe the number of transferable (pre-1986) MGs is quite a bit lower: between 100,000 and 200,000. If memory serves, BATFE’s figure includes post-1986 guns, which can be possessed only by NFA dealers and governments.

    Crazy Train –

    Very good point. Although then came U.S. v. Booker. The real “prize” in the Apprendi line of cases was the USSG, not the state laws at issue in Blakely, and the five-Justice coalition from Blakely did not hold in Booker (but Gall et al. suggest they’re trying to clean up some of the damage caused by Ginsburg’s defection in Booker).

    Xrlq –

    Sure; as in Harmelin.

  16. There can be no mistaking the original intent of the amendment:

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms…”

    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

    “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed…”

    - Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

    “Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.”

    - Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

    “The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation — of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.”

    - James Wilson, ‘Of the Natural Rights of Individuals’, 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).

    “From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights.”

    - John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). [An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, (1814).]

    “The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”

    - President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

    The USurpremes need to stop playing games with We The People’s Natural Rights….

  17. RE: macine guns

    Well, if a well regulated militia truly is necessary to the security of a free state, then I’m not sure why an automatic battle rifle like an M-16 or an M-4 appropriate for the times wouldn’t be protected.

    They’re perfectly legal to own to today in most places. If one is qualified to purchase any handgun and pays the Federal government a $200 stamp tax, one can legally purchase and own a domestically made machine gun. There are even people who legally own, today, “heavy” machine guns. They are collectors and enthusiasts who are willing to pay the high costs of the guns themselves and the ammunition they fire. Do a search on YouTube and you can see videos of them firing their pieces at public events. To my knowledge there has been no crime committed with a heavy machine gun in the US, ever. And in spite of what we see on television, crimes committed with light machine guns almost never happen either.

    I’m really hoping for incorporation, but if the Heller ruling sets us on the road to incorporation then I’ll be temporarily satisfied.

    yours/

    peter.

  18. Brad says:

    Re: semi-automatic firearms

    Considering that after 20 years of hot debate and constant admonishment that the news-media still confuses semi-automatics with machineguns, I prefer the less technical but clearer nomenclature of ‘self-loading’. As in the Winchester Model 1905 Self-Loading Rifle, a great example of just how long and how common self-loading rifles have been in the hands of the American public.

  19. Brett Bellmore says:

    “Considering that after 20 years of hot debate and constant admonishment that the news-media still confuses semi-automatics with machineguns,”

    After dealing with a big city newspaper editor who persisted in taking every press release from HCI as the unvarnished truth even AFTER I’d proven to him repeatedly that a lot of the ‘facts’ he was reprinting were objectively false, I don’t think this is “confusion”. I think it’s at least somewhat conscious complicity in the anti-gun movement’s efforts to deceive people on this point.

  20. TmjUtah says:

    I have always wanted an explanation from the Left on a point of conflict that always pops up in their machinations against the Second Amendment:

    Statement One, to a U.S. citizen:

    “The very last reason you need guns is to defend yourself against government; they have nukes and you would lose anyway!”

    Statement Two, to the country:

    “We can’t win in Iraq or Afghanistan because of all the fanatics running around with AK-47′s.”

    BTW, I own a small cannon and fully intend to pick up aNOTHER rifle to celebrate a Heller victory.

    And if the verdict turns out to be more along the lines of CFR or Kelo, I’ll buy two.

    And more ammo.

  21. AaronW says:

    I don’t think there is enough evidence to say how scalia feels about the incorporation of this right. And i think Thomas will come in as a very powerful advocate for the view that the right was meant to be incorporated.

    This is the way i see it. I tend to say that when you talk about the rights incorporated by the 14th A, the best guide is to look at the “black codes” that came up just after the civil war. Whatever right they violated, is probably an incorporated right.

    So the black codes forbade the ownership of guns by black people. by comparison, the union employed and armed black troops. Indeed, the entire black military experience in the civil war demonstrates how the framers of the 14th A wanted liberation of the slaves not to be merely something white people did for black people, but something they did for themselves.

    Now, here is a little psychology. Clarence Thomas, contrary to the cheap stereotype as an “uncle tom,” has long brought a specifically african american view to the law. For instance in one of the cases involving public display of a cross, he demonstrated how the organization doing so, the KKK, probably meant it more as a symbol of white power rather than a religious symbol. In the recent virginia cross-burning case, we saw him bring a similar analysis to the free speech issues there and against free speech. and there, it is noteworthy that Scalia, who previously protected cross burning, was persuaded by his colleague to change his mind. one can never predict how an individual will behave or thing, but i think it is reasonable to assume that if a state violates the right to bear arms as thoroughly as DC did, he will bring an african american perspective to it, cite things like the black code, and most of all, convince scalia to go along.

    Just a theory, but for what its worth…

  22. PubliusFL says:

    Can anyone imagine the Supreme Court deciding its “right to privacy” cases by considering which abortion procedures and contraceptives are in “common use” under the very restrictions whose constitutionality is being challenged? Using the “common use” argument to uphold machine gun bans would be like a parody of legal sophistry.

  23. Re: U.S. v Miller

    For some surprising context behind a case on which we base much of our current discussion of the 2A, I recommend The Peculiar Story of The United States vs. Miller (a 35 page pdf file available at the “Download Document” link).

  24. Tom says:

    The justices are all pretty much products of the Hippy Generation…whose main thrust was FREEDOM man…and freedom from the man…isnt it ironic that it is politicians and judges FROM that Generation that stands on the cusp of Destroying the only Free Nation on the planet and replacing our Liberty with the ideology of our centuries old enemies..Marxism and Socialism…we have become a pathetic lot of lemmings..we deserve what we get and more appropriately what we lose. For over 200 years we showed the USA to be the best country on the planet, but it is clear now that the loss of our founders moral compass that allowed us to thrive as good and just nation, shunning that which IS evil and replaced it with this BOGUS concept of moral relevancy is what will be our end. Do NOT be deceived, if we go this route there will be no peace, there will certainly be a bloody civil revolution, but alas to have such an all important last stand for LIBERTY at such a time as this in history, our foreign enemies will surely eat us alive as we cast ourselves into civil war in an attempt to try to get our FREE nation back…I have no hope for our children we have destroyed the best country on the planet. Way to go genuises, your all morons.

  25. Troll Feeder says:

    In re Mike O’Shea 12:18 and tom swift before him, there are only about 200,000 fully automatic weapons for which civilian posession in the US is legal. I believe that the fine for civilian posession of an unregistered full-auto weapon is 10 years and $250,000.

    In a country of 300,000,000 people, the existence of only 200,000 of anything by definition makes that thing “uncommon.” So, as I believe you and several others have already argued, the government has created a scarcity, and now Justice Scalia speaks of this harshly enforced government creation as though it were the natural expression of the desires of civilian Americans.

    I am shocked that this argument comes from him.

    It strikes me as no different from the head whiphandler saying that slaves must want to be slaves, because why would they be slaves if they didn’t want to?

  26. JDTon says:

    re: Machine Guns

    “Common Use”?? The whole point of the 2nd is so that weapons COULD NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! The common use clause in Miller is a complete and utter nonsense when compared with the Constitution. As Justice Roberts put it to the effect of, ‘we are working with a clean slate’ he said that the Miller case should not be looked at becuase of it’s tremendous flaws. The 2nd was not designed to restrict arms to the people, it was designed to restrict the government from restricting arms (or the type of arms) that people could keep and bear! This means that machine guns ARE PROTECTED by the U.S. Constitution, as are ALL arms, period. Anything else is just a travesty of the Constitution. Before 1934 you could order a machine gun by mail! Or whatever else. Thus, for the greater part of our country’s history, the 2nd was interpreted as it should have been — until Miller! Hopefully, Miller will be overturned here and Scalia (and the Supreme Court) will restore the U.S. Constitution and with it some of our greatness.

  27. JDTon says:

    re: Machine Guns

    “Common Use”?? The whole point of the 2nd is so that weapons COULD NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!! The common use clause in Miller is a complete and utter nonsense when compared with the Constitution. As Justice Roberts put it to the effect of, ‘we are working with a clean slate’ he said that the Miller case should not be looked at becuase of it’s tremendous flaws. The 2nd was not designed to restrict arms to the people, it was designed to restrict the government from restricting arms (or the type of arms) that people could keep and bear! This means that machine guns ARE PROTECTED by the U.S. Constitution, as are ALL arms, period. Anything else is just a travesty of the Constitution. Before 1934 you could order a machine gun by mail! Or whatever else. Thus, for the greater part of our country’s history, the 2nd was interpreted as it should have been — until Miller! Hopefully, Miller will be overturned here and Scalia (and the Supreme Court) will restore the U.S. Constitution and with it some of our greatness.

  28. Troll Feeder says:

    Props to Brett Bellmore, too. Sorry for the omission.

  29. Thomas W. says:

    I agree that incorporation is needed and I hope it happens. A standard needs to be established nationwide, and it needs to be a very permissive standard. What other constitutional right varies so greatly from state to state? What other constitutional right requires a citizen to first receive written permission from the government before they can exercise it? I can carry my pistol openly in Virginia legally, but if I cross the river into DC, I’m a FELON. That needs to change.

  30. Thomas W. says:

    I agree that incorporation is needed and I hope it happens. A standard needs to be established nationwide, and it needs to be a very permissive standard. What other constitutional right varies so greatly from state to state? What other constitutional right requires a citizen to first receive written permission from the government before they can exercise it? I can carry my pistol openly in Virginia legally, but if I cross the river into DC, I’m a FELON. That needs to change.

  31. Rapid Robert says:

    Excuse me. Cosidering the magnitude of the issue (i.e., let’s devine what Madison, Jefferson, etc., really meant), anyone who believes that “Heller” will be a “plurality opinion” is either a wishful-thinking leftist or an idiot — excuse me, I repeat myself.

  32. Rapid Robert says:

    Excuse me. Cosidering the magnitude of the issue (i.e., let’s devine what Madison, Jefferson, etc., really meant), anyone who believes that “Heller” will be a “plurality opinion” is either a wishful-thinking leftist or an idiot — excuse me, I repeat myself.

  33. Bob B. says:

    Incorporation is not even before the Court. The law affects solely residents of the District of Columbia. The Court can only address actual cases and controversies. They won’t render an “advisory” opinion on incorporation when it has absolutely zero bearing in the case. That will let Scalia off the hook and he can write a solid individual rights opinion without worrying about incorporation for the time being, leaving it to future cases.

  34. wwcross says:

    I love how the some of these gun-nuts selectively pick those parts of the constitution they want enforced. Don’t touch guns but we’ll let you keep people in American custody indefinitely without judicial review. Ignore the portion of the Second Amendment regarding militias but claim elsewhere that every word mattters as it if written in stone by God. Fortunately, the Sumpreme Court generally muddles through and reaches some sort of compromise position that gives effect to the underlying principle while taking taking judicial notice of reality. That’s what judicial review is about.

  35. wwcross says:

    I love how the some of these gun-nuts selectively pick those parts of the constitution they want enforced. Don’t touch guns but we’ll let you keep people in American custody indefinitely without judicial review. Ignore the portion of the Second Amendment regarding militias but claim elsewhere that every word mattters as it if written in stone by God. Fortunately, the Sumpreme Court generally muddles through and reaches some sort of compromise position that gives effect to the underlying principle while taking taking judicial notice of reality. That’s what judicial review is about.

  36. wwcross says:

    I love how the some of these gun-nuts selectively pick those parts of the constitution they want enforced. Don’t touch guns but we’ll let you keep people in American custody indefinitely without judicial review. Ignore the portion of the Second Amendment regarding militias but claim elsewhere that every word mattters as it if written in stone by God. Fortunately, the Supreme Court generally muddles through and reaches some sort of compromise position that gives effect to the underlying principle while taking taking judicial notice of reality. That’s what judicial review is about.

  37. TmjUtah says:

    The common definition of “militia”, under both common law and accepted usage, was ” the able bodied men of the community between 18 and 45 years old”, wasn’t it?

    We aren’t ignoring the definition of militia at all. What we do embrace is the concept that the militia exists primarily as a subset of and expressly to stand in defense of their community – not that the militia exists at the pleasure and under the direction of the state.

    Armed men are free men. It all comes down to that. The first laws aimed at disarming Americans were blatant attempts to keep blacks out of society. I propose that the current culture of gun control advocates are, and have been for decades, motivated absolutely more by a quest for power over their fellow citizens than any higher public safety goal.

    The founders recognized that sometimes freedom would depend on out gunned but determined volunteers standing on the green, and with damned good reason.

    Good day to you, sir.

  38. Walter Lee says:

    “Common usage” as per Miller meant “common usage by the militia when called to service.” Those who argue that the National Guard are militia argue that the RKBAs includes what are in common use by the NG while on active duty. If the weapon in question in Miller had been a BAR or a Thompson (which were undeniably military weaponry), the government’s “logic” could not have prevailed. As it was, a sawed off Stevens shotgun was not “ordinary” in the militia and the case could be made that it was not protected.

  39. rocinante says:

    wwcross: Project much?

    You make a very good point about the selectivity of certain interest groups when it comes to the Constitution, but the “gun nuts” are hardly unique in this regard, and I would make the case that the scope of their “crime” actually pales next to some other, er, groups. (See “pot calls kettle ‘black’ “.)

    “Put another way: I love how the some of these anti-gun-nuts selectively pick those parts of the constitution they want enforced. The First Amendment means you can do/say/print just about whatever you want and dance naked and smear sh*t on religious symbols, but the Second is only about the National Guard? I don’t trust the government to touch me or my stuff or listen to me talk on the phone without a court order but Government employees are the only folks who can be trusted with guns?

    Ignore the portion of the Second Amendment regarding “the People” and “shall not be infringed” but claim elsewhere that every woman has a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to an abortion, as if the ‘emanations of penumbras’ were written in stone by God.

    Fortunately, the Sumpreme Court sometimes actually, you know, reads the Constitution and looks into the writings of the Founders and other legal theorists and reaches the conclusion that individuals do have natural rights, even if they prove inconvenient.”

  40. Don Meaker says:

    the “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” clause presumes the private ownership of crew served weapons (for example, a ship armed with cannon).

    And that predated the 2nd Amendment.

  41. Don Meaker says:

    Flaws in Miller include the notion that sawed off shotguns were not in use by the militia.

    In fact, sawed off shotguns were in common use among regular and national guard units engaged in trench warfare during WWI.

  42. Joey P. Child says:

    The problem–which will not be solved, but rather will be perpetuated by, Heller–is that the arguments on both sides seem to completely miss the point: The Second Amendment does not grant any right to anyone. The “right” to keep and bear arms preexists and supercedes the Constitution–it is a natural right, derived from the right to defend one’s self, that each human being owns by the simple fact of being human. The only substantive effect of the Second Amendment is to describe the limitation on government in restricting that right. And that limitation is quite explicit: The right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

    Unfortunately, even most of us who love and will defend our God-given rights have fallen victim to the erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment as “granting” some right. It does not! It is my–and your–basic, natural, God-given, human right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and the Second Amendment merely acknowledges the existence of that right and bars the government from infringing on it.

  43. Jim A. says:

    No matter which way the Court rules, there will be no impact on the self-destructive gun culture of the United States. Millions of (mostly) white men, obsessed with the declining value of their masculinity in an age that exalts brains over brawn, will continue to treat the gun as a sacrament in their religion of death.

  44. Troll Feeder says:

    In re wwcross 1:30 PM

    Until Kennedy et al.’s recent vomitus, the Constitution only applied to Americans and those on American soil.

    It was wrong of President Bush to hold Padilla without first stripping him of his citizenship (which he should have done, given Padilla’s treasonous actions). It is absolutely right of President Bush to hold enemy combatants until the end of hostilities.

  45. TmjUtah says:

    “Millions of (mostly) white men, obsessed with the declining value of their masculinity in an age that exalts brains over brawn, will continue to treat the gun as a sacrament in their religion of death.

    If this culture was anything about brains, we wouldn’t be starving ourselves of resources on the basis of a hoax AND considering candidates for president who represent Marxism on one side and at best nanny state interference/open borders on the other.

    Brains?

    I’ll keep my guns, and hopefully my freedom.

  46. Santee says:

    “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” – Sigmund Freud

  47. Jim A's an idiot says:

    “obsessed with the declining value of their masculinity in an age that exalts brains over brawn”

    What is the basis of this comment? What kind of a panicky, whiney, little ninny, I hate America kind of pansy makes a ridiculous comment like that. Back that up with something you froofy little girl.

  48. Joey P. Child says:

    Jim A writes: “Millions of (mostly) white men, obsessed with the declining value of their masculinity in an age that exalts brains over brawn, will continue to treat the gun as a sacrament in their religion of death.”

    Jim–if only it were true that we lived in an age that “exalts brains over brawn.” The sad fact is that we humans have failed to move past our base nature as animals, and we still prey upon each other–indeed, in some ways more so now than ever before. Only a deluded person would believe that this age exalts brains over brawn. We are fortunate here in the United States to not face the brutal truth on a daily basis, but that doesn’t change the truth: We are animals, some of us sheep (you), some of us wolves (the criminals for who laws and civil norms are meaningless), and some of us sheepdogs (those of us who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the wolves and say, “no more!” and who recognize that giving up our “fangs” only renders us defenseless against the wolves).

    You go right on believing that your brains will save you in this “age” and, when the wolves come looking for you and yours, I pray that a sheepdog will be there to save your sorry caboose…

  49. Simon Tregarth says:

    Walter Lee, you may be off a bit. I remember reading that in Miller the question was of common usage and military usage/utility. No one demonstrated to the SCOTUS that ‘trenchbrooms’ were used during WWI and other conflicts involving US forces.

  50. Lawrence C Farrell Jr says:

    “”You mean you can’t have … you know, a turkey gun and a duck gun and a .30-06 and a .270 and … different hunting guns for different [purposes]?””

    There’s that 1938 NAZI Waffenwerbshein language again, sheeesh!

    The Seond is NOT about hunting Bambi, and here is a so called Second Stalwart again raising the the Lib’s favorite piece of propaganda, the “hunting” issue.

    I’m disgusted.

    Larry

    Gun Owners of NJ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image