Law School Conservative

A DC gun owner shows how to comply with DC gun laws…and how they make self defense impossible.

See video here from CBS.

Also, see Wayne LaPierre discuss the Supreme Court argument.

Today the Supreme Court held extended arguments in D.C. v. Heller, the DC gun ban case, and it seems a majority of the justices are ready to hold that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Chief Justice, as well as Justices Alito, Scalia and Kennedy all seemed to believe that the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms.  Justice Thomas, while characteristically silent during argument, is likely also of this view.  Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, while skeptical, seemed open to the idea.

Open for debate is what the court will do in terms of defining a standard of review for these cases.  Justices Scalia, Alito and the Chief seem to be all about strict scrutiny, Justice Kennedy seemed to be convinced.  It is, however, possible that a compromise can be struck and that intermediate scrutiny would apply.

Coverage from SCOTUS blog here.  This coverage links to other news reports.

“A well educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free democratic state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.”

No one in their right mind would take that sentence to mean that only voters are allowed to have books. If you look at that sentence, you’ll see a close resemblance to the following:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let me ask this: If the first sentence does not create in the state a right to limit the possession of books to voters, then how does the Second Amendment, constructed in a virtually identical fashion, limit the possession of arms to the militia?

The answer is that it does not.

I used this sentence in a debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment, and I got this unbelievably ignorant answer: “Well, books don’t kill people!”

Excuse me?

I can think of several books that have, in one way or another, incited murder, rebellion and revolution. Among them:

1. The Koran
2. The Bible (think the Crusades)
3. Mein Kampf
4. Common Sense
5. The Communist Manifesto

If the Second Amendment spoke about the possession of books, and books have caused people to kill in the name of whatever or whoever inspires them…are we still justified in limiting them? Are we justified in limiting the possession of books to those who intend on voting?

The obvious answer is no.

Then how are we justified in limiting the possession of defensive weapons to people who are involved in the militia? What the hell is the militia anyway? Then again, what the hell is electorate? How can we define one and not the other. How can we construe the same words one way and not the other.

If its asinine to think that the Constitution would create a “collective right” to possess books, its asinine to think that the Constitution creates a “collective right” to bear arms with the same language.

After I explained this to the person I was debating, she said to me “you clearly don’t have a heart, you’re wrong.”

Rather no heart than no brain.

Called it.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) granted certiorari for District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290)(Formerly known as Parker v. District of Columbia).

SCOTUSblog reports that the Court phrased the question it will consider in the case as follows:

Here is a Federalist Society sponsored email debate on the case.

By: Carlos S. Ramirez

Ken Blackwell on the now unconstitutional DC gun ban at TownHall.com, and Jonah Goldberg, on Individual Rights to keep and bear arms at the Salt Lake Tribune.

Mark Lenz also takes on the Individual Rights perspective.

Michelle Malkin on the Roanoke (Va.) Times publishing a list of Concealed Carry Permit holders.

The mainstream media attacks a Florida bill that would allow people with a valid permit to carry their weapons at work (Disney and Universal are opposing this one).

Under the guise of Public Safety, the PA legislature is considering a bill that would do more harm than good to gun owners.

By: Carlos S. Ramirez

National Review’s Jennifer Rubin, on the striking down of the DC gun ban.

The NRA-ILA on a Hawaii bill to repeal their archaic high capacity magazine ban.

The Colorado legislature approved a bill to revoke recognition of out of state concealed weapons permits, infringing the right to carry for hundreds of thousands of out of state residents.

The San Fran bay area has suddenly discovered that women pack heat too.

Sens. Corker and Alexander co sponsor a bill to get rid of whatever is left of the pathetic DC gun ban.

Minnesota gun-banners are shocked that the state gun carry law has not produced more crime.