Online users
???: Message   

Aw, BALONEY! (Or is it... "abalone"? <smirk>)
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

11/21/2019, 10:34:11

Author Profile Mail author Edit
Disrupting the consensus on Second Amendment doctrine would be a mistake
Submitted by: mark@keepandbeararms.com">Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com

 
But when it comes to Second Amendment doctrine and methodology, the stakes are higher than they’ve been in a decade. If the petitioners have their way, the Supreme Court could reject the mainstream approach for deciding Second Amendment questions in favor of a more radical test focused solely on “text, history, and tradition” and without consideration of contemporary realities of guns and gun violence. That would be a mistake.
 

Comment by: PHORTO (11/21/2019)
What horsehockey.

Scalia specifically wrote in Heller that no fundamental right can be subject to a free-standing interest-balancing test. That is why he rejected the three-tiered "scrutiny" system in adjudicating the right to arms in favor of "text and history" analysis.

The author is correct that this method wasn't spelled out in a single sentence, but he's lying by insisting that the Heller Court didn't in fact establish the appropriate means in deciding such questions.



LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message