Brownlow speaks out on D.C. vs. Heller

case study method research sfu thesis defence schedule dapoxetine jakarta the great expectation essay esl speech editor website au vipps certified online pharmacy viagra source the importance of following instructions essay follow site difference between essay and report format thesis statement for speech thesis film https://phs-il.org/homework-help-with-logarithms-subtracting/ kannada essay search essay on commonwealth games 2010 in hindi language buy school papers online see url creating a strong thesis https://nyusternldp.blogs.stern.nyu.edu/how-can-i-delete-all-emails-from-my-iphone-at-once/ go to link dГ©pendance viagra how to change the ip address on my hp laptop http://www.naymz.com/essay-table-for-sale/ how do i delete a mail account from my iphone help me write my thesis http://www.cresthavenacademy.org/chapter/write-my-thesis-paper-for-me/26/ follow go to site sample primary source analysis paper see url do my dissertation go site Oregon Constitution Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Dave Brownlow, says of the recent Supreme Court decision overturning a D.C. gun ban, “The Supreme Court finally gets one right — sort of.”

The 2nd Amendment does not bestow some special new right to us. It merely affirms our inalienable right to self-defense, and guarantees access to the means with which to exercise it. By going back to the original meaning and intent of our founders, the five justices in the majority left little doubt as to the meaning of the words ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ It is disappointing that the other four justices failed to grasp the meaning of such a simple statement.

The majority even went further and seemed to question (without providing an answer) the constitutionality of bans on military weapons like the M16 – which were precisely the type of arms the 2nd Amendment intended to make accessible to the citizen militia. Even with that, the question seems a long way from being settled.

There are still thousands of unconstitutional gun laws on the books that need to be overturned, and many questions remain unanswered as a result of DC v. Heller. However, while this may have been a less than perfect decision, it could have been a lot worse for gun owners. We may have dodged a bullet – this time.

Interestingly, there is a debate going on at LewRockwell.com about whether or not the SCOTUS really did get this one right. According to Stephan Kinsella, the decision rests upon the constitutionally specious “incorporation doctrine” in which the 14th amendment — considered by many conservative constitutionalists to be illegitimate — applies the Bill of Rights, which originally intended to be limits on the federal government, to the states. This, according to paleoconservatives and Rockwellian libertarians, is an affront against the principles of constitutional federalism. Thus, while Kinsella is fully supportive of gun rights, he is not in favor of the federal government enforcing them against the states.

J.H. Huebert respectfully disagrees, and points out that D.C. is not a state, but part of the federal government.

One thought on “Brownlow speaks out on D.C. vs. Heller

  1. Arthur Torrey

    “IANAL” and I haven’t finished reading the decision for myself, but from all that I’ve read and heard so far, this is the sort of decision that only the gun control advocates over at the NRA could love…

    It has guaranteed Wayne Lappierre and his buddies their cushy jobs for life….

    Capsule summary – it’s an “individual right” that thee government can “reasonably infringe”

    ART
    LPMA
    NRA Life Member, regrettably

Leave a Reply

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