D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness - Postgame Highlights #1

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:50:35 GMT  <== RKBA ==> 

Alan Korwin was in the court room for the Supreme's hearing on the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia. He thinks their likely decision bodes well for our right to legally keep and bear arms, though "reasonable restrictions" will survive, through some magic of interpreting "shall no be infringed" to mean "reasonable restrictions". [scopeny]

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (4):

Reasonable restrictions?

Submitted by Kent McManigal on Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:10:48 GMT

I have yet to see any restriction I view as "reasonable", how about you?

Edit comment

No such thing as a "reasonable" restriction

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:57 GMT

Nope. I haven't. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that, exactly as L. Neil Smith succinctly put in The Atlanta Declaration, quoted below and in the right side-bar of every page:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."

-- L. Neil Smith

Edit comment

Reasonable restrictions on gun rights

Submitted by Alan Korwin on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:32:38 GMT

People, having gone thru the gov't education system, seem to have no clue about what rights really are -- they all have limits. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't allow you to keep a gun after you're convicted of a felony and imprisoned, right? It's a perfectly legal and proper reasonable restriction on the right. There are many such. "Congress shall make no law" respecting free speech allows rules against treason, libel, slander, threats, much more, and rightly so. Of course, this is the slipperiest slope, easily abused, cause for concern, in need of careful watching. But to say "shall not be infringed" has no limitation is to show your ignorance. apparently, many people have plenty to show, I keep seeing it at every turn. Alan.

Edit comment

Actually, I believe that if

Submitted by on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:48:53 GMT

Actually, I believe that if you can't be trusted to possess tools of self defense, then you have no business being out of prison. The best cure for those who use arms to hurt people or rob them of their property is to be shot dead by their intended victims at the scene of their intended crimes. And that goes double for revenuers (today's agents of the IRS and BATFE).

There should be no limits on the keeping or bearing of arms. There are, of course, limits on the use of those arms. They may only be used for defense against aggression. And that goes double for governments.

Edit comment