DC Circuit declares Second Amendment an "individual right"

Here’s some really wonderful language in the opinion.

Even if “keep” and “bear” are not read as a unitary term, we are told, the meaning of “keep” cannot be broader than “bear” because the Second Amendment only protects the use of arms in the course of militia service. Id. at 26-27. But this proposition assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously.

The argument that “keep” as used in “the right of the people to keep . . . Arms” shares a military meaning with “keep up” as used in “every state shall keep up a well regulated militia” mocks usage, syntax, and common sense. Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of “keep” strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory.

I loved this passage:

The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if
the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.

Then there’s this from the Brady Campaign:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington advocacy group, said in a statement the decision ``is judicial activism at its worst.’’

``Two federal judges have negated the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia,’’ Helmke said.

That’s just a flatly ridiculous comment to make in light of the pages and pages and pages the Court dedicated to a discussion of the Constitutional language and history. Hey, Paul, ever heard of that "supreme law of the land" thing?

300

It seems both Allah and Ace weren't going to see it, until they read this fantastically ironic, self-ignorant whine from some chick at Slate. Now, they will "like it whether they like it or not."

Don't you hate it when historical fact gets in the way of the Narrative? I guess my question is, if it bothers you so much that the people making a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae made the bad guys "brown people", how exactly would YOU have made this movie? Cast Ken Watanabe as Xerxes? Orlando Bloom? I know you've heard this before, but, do you actually read the articles you write before you submit them to Slate? You sound like the dumbest person in the world with your "how dare they cast darker-skinned people as Persians! The audacity!"

Scooter Libby

As you can imagine, I have some sympathy with him and his family, although he will likely not see a jail cell for a while, as he will be out on bail while his appeals run. Although a lot of folks are criticizing the fact that there was no underlying crime for Libby to lie about, that doesn't make it right to lie to the FBI and other governmental investigators. Frankly, better to say nothing at all. That's the counsel I'd give most anybody who was being asked questions by a cop or other governmental officer. Either plead the Fifth or say "I don't know/remember." I suppose in certain circumstances that could be a lie, but don't fall for the old "If I just explain it, the cop will understand" idea. Yeah, he'll understand that you're a sucker and he can twist what you say to get you in trouble. Just dummy up.

FedSoc

Simon blogs the FedSoc thing I went to last year and the year before.

 

What the hell

Manshake.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Myths of Driving

I need to save this information for the argument I know I'm going to have someday.

Yet Another Astute Comment

We've been having this debate and I could never find the right words. This guy had them:

"the radical, fascistic Islamist movement" is "a perversion of the religion in the name of a supremacist, violent ideology"

I get confused between originalism, textualism, and strict constructionism. But I assume at any rate that you are not one of those who believe "no unreasonable searches or seizures" actually means "there is a right to have an abortion." If so, how would you interpret "kill the infidels whereever you find them," other than, well, as an exhortation to kill the infidels whereever you find them? What is it, a metaphor for "try to get to the gym regularly"?

Am I being too literal-minded? Ok, then how do you choose to define the "true" Islam? Perhaps you want to look to the original intent of the guy that wrote the book. But wait, Mohammed killed people who refused to submit to Islam. So, it's not the text, it's not the actions and words of the founder, maybe it's the behavior of adherents throughout history? Because, you know, Islam spread because of its inherent beauty. As the Muslim army came over the mountains, the villagers always ran to greet them, strewing rose petals in their path, grateful to be exposed to the light that is Islam. Aaaahhh. Right.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how violent jihadists like Bin Laden are "perverting" this religion. To the contrary, they're acting in perfect accord with the dictates of the text, the behavior and intent of the founder, and all historic precedent. But wait, I don't expect you to answer this, because...you can't say that! People have to say it's a peaceful religion if they're talking about it publicly, like a little disclaimer, even though everyone knows this is false. Otherwise, one runs the risk getting stabbed like Theo Van Gogh. I think we all understand this is the case.

NB (to whom it may concern): the foregoing is purely for the sake of argumentation, because people like to argue. In fact, I have the highest respect for your peaceful religion, so please don't kill me.

That Last One

Was from Ace of Spades commenter Moonbat_One. Sorry, I hit send too quick.

Another Astute Comment

I seem to have lost the link for this commenter's, um, comment but here it is anyway:

The heart of the Donks' problem is that they believe they're not getting their message out, and if only the American people knew what Democrats stood for they'd fall all over themselves to get to the polls to vote Dems into office.

They think their politics and ideas are solid gold, it's just their communication sucks. It never occurs to them that their communication is just fine and people know full well what the Democrats' vision for America is. The problem is that a lot of people find Liberalism and its political ideas repellent. But at the same time, Liberals are unwilling to comprimise those ideas. If anything, they believe they have to be MORE liberal, father to the Left. Moderation and erasing the clear differences between the Dems and the GOP is a political loser in their eyes, that's what the Kos Kidz believe. Markos's election win record speaks for itself about whether he's correct in this assessment or not.

Best Comment I've Read in a Long Time

He's commenting on the supposed correlation between intelligence and irreligiousity (not a word). He said "

If intelligence were consistently and strongly correlated with all character traits that we universally regard as positive (e.g., compassion, humility, courage, kindness, patience, contentment, charity, loyalty, etc. etc.), then I think I'd be more inclined to lend this argument more importance than I do now.

But the fact is that, in my estimation, intelligent people do not have the monopoly on such qualities, even in the aggregate. So even if a resistance to religiosity were a positive character trait, it doesn't immediately suggest that possessing it is a sign of intelligence.

Furthermore, the great metaphysical questions of this world have yet to be answered in any definitive way by anyone of any level of intelligence. Surely if intelligence were sufficient, we'd have some better answers by now. Given that we do not, perhaps intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

But if we do finally come across someone with the intelligence to tackle such issues, then I hope we can delay him (or her) long enough to figure out a way to explain women to men. That seems like the far more important task than to get to the bottom of this whole God thing."

Love it. The first paragraph especially.

Changing the Electoral College

This idea is pretty dumb. It's a totally in-the-moment-what-can-we-do-now-to-win idea.

Cathy Seipp on gay marriage

I'll be honest. This is exactly how I feel too. Sorry, doesn't make me homophobic, and being against ILLEGAL immigration doesn't make me a bigot or racist, Tendril. We left childish and silly arguments behind when we left grade school, remember?

Link

Drug Testing Link

Love this article

Boy, Christopher Hitchens sure has his moments. This is one of them.

Is the Problem with Poverty the poverty or the inequality?

The post that CIS needs to read, but won't, and even if he did, would completely discount everything in it, because, as he has demonstrated amply in the past, he considers himself the smartest man on the planet, and is never wrong or correctable about ANYTHING.

Confronting bullies

Love this article.

Good Points all

Especially about immigration.

Yes,I'm finally buckling down

Try out this link. I think it's the one on the efficacy of drug testing.

ANother thing for the paper

A link on Fourth Amendment rationales for determining "reasonableness" of the invasion.