« Oklahoma expands self-defense | Main | NRA Annual Meeting »
Law review article by Clark Neily
Posted by David Hardy · 26 April 2011 11:47 AM
"THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN THE STATES: AMBIGUITY, FALSE MODESTY, AND (MAYBE) ANOTHER WIN FOR ORIGINALISM" in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It is so refreshing to read an article which begins with: "District of Columbia v. Heller1 was an easy case to get right."
2 Comments | Leave a comment
I made that same argument for 30 years and got nowhere. I guess I will have to live with incorporation via 14A.
I find the argument that the 2nd Amendment is only applicable to States due to the14th to be bull excrement.
When one reads the actual text of the "Bill of Rights" one notices that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were very precise in their wording. For example, the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law..." which obviously applies only to the legislative body of the federal government, whereas the 2nd refers to the people. This was obviously not accidental when one looks at the events that led up to the creation of our constitution.
By ratifying the Constitution, and/or agreeing to be bound together in a union formed by said constitution, then subordinate states are required to abide by the terms of the contract that binds them. Otherwise there is no rule of law.