Category Archives: 2nd Amendment
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.
This week the 4th Circuit Court, ruling en banc, ruled that a Maryland State law banning “assault weapons” is Constitutional. The Court ruled that those weapons were “military” in nature and therefore they are not covered by the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.
Conservatives are outraged. Progressives are ecstatic. Who is correct? Is it as simple as “I am conservative therefore the Court is wrong” or “I am progressive so the Court is right?” Did the 4th really ignore the precedents of Heller and other cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment?
In order to understand the issue, one has to consider two competing syllogism and their underlying axioms:
(A) All guns are military weapons.
Ownership of military guns should be restricted to the military.
Therefore the individual ownership of all guns should be restricted.
(B) All guns are military weapons.
The Militia is a military unit.
Individual ownership of all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Remember that in order to reach a valid conclusion, the basic assumptions of the axiom must be true. If the underlying presumption is false, the logic, regardless of how brilliant, will reach an invalid conclusion.
Did the Court base its ruling in a good axiom or upon a flawed presumption?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a… trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law….6th Amendment
In Yuba City, a Sikh man is told that he cannot serve as a juror as long as he refuses to remove his kirpan, a symbol of deep meaning and religious devotion to baptized Sikhs. This raises the question: Is there a “right” to serve on a Jury?” Does the need for public safety outweigh religious freedom? And what does it teach us about the jury system?
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. – 2nd Amendment
“Applying the analysis set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the panel then held that it did not need to apply a particular standard of heightened scrutiny to the San Diego policy because the “good cause” restriction amounted to a destruction of the Second Amendment right altogether. The panel concluded that San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” – Judge O’’Scannlain, 9th Circuit Court
When a San Diego man wanted a Concealed Weapons Permit in San Diego, the local Sheriff told him “Nope.” The case made its way to the 9th Circuit Court where Heller and McDonald came into play in striking down California’s “good cause” requirement.