Thundar
Regular Member
From the heuristically challenged DC Federal District Court opinion in DC V. Heller II:
"...the Second Amendment has so far been read to protect only “a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most
notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044. While one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not. The Constitution, in short, guarantees the right “to keep and bear arms,” not the right “to keep and bear an armory.” As an individual seeks to acquire more guns, he moves farther and farther away from the right to bear arms and closer toward the constitutionally unprotected goal of assembling a personal arsenal. Any special burden the renewal requirement places on owners of multiple firearms, then, is outside the Second Amendment’s ken..."
The district court judge was backed into a corner because the DC Circuit Court in the first appeal found that the registration and registration was more than a deminimus burden. Therefore the Judge had to make a crafty and unique argument to counter the plaintiff's argument that the cost was prohibitive for people with multiple firearms. He said people only need one or two guns to protect themselves. Anything more is not covered by the 2nd A!!!!
The judge in the ruling recognizes first and second amendment parallels. The parallel to this intellectually void ruling is that people have the right to own a book, but only a few books. there is no 1st Amendment right to own a personal library.
This ruling must be attacked with great zeal by GOA, the NRA, NAGR and any other organization which values all of our liberties. Letting a man or woman in black robes decide on how much liberty or property one "needs" is indeed one giant step towards tyranny.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar
"...the Second Amendment has so far been read to protect only “a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most
notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044. While one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not. The Constitution, in short, guarantees the right “to keep and bear arms,” not the right “to keep and bear an armory.” As an individual seeks to acquire more guns, he moves farther and farther away from the right to bear arms and closer toward the constitutionally unprotected goal of assembling a personal arsenal. Any special burden the renewal requirement places on owners of multiple firearms, then, is outside the Second Amendment’s ken..."
The district court judge was backed into a corner because the DC Circuit Court in the first appeal found that the registration and registration was more than a deminimus burden. Therefore the Judge had to make a crafty and unique argument to counter the plaintiff's argument that the cost was prohibitive for people with multiple firearms. He said people only need one or two guns to protect themselves. Anything more is not covered by the 2nd A!!!!
The judge in the ruling recognizes first and second amendment parallels. The parallel to this intellectually void ruling is that people have the right to own a book, but only a few books. there is no 1st Amendment right to own a personal library.
This ruling must be attacked with great zeal by GOA, the NRA, NAGR and any other organization which values all of our liberties. Letting a man or woman in black robes decide on how much liberty or property one "needs" is indeed one giant step towards tyranny.
Live Free or Die,
Thundar