It can find that the Second Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, but only protects the right of states to arm their militias (or "state armies," as some gun-control advocates put it). This would make the DC case go away, but at some cost: If states have a constitutional right, as against the federal government, to arm their militias as they see fit, then states that don't like federal gun-control laws could just enroll every law-abiding citizen in the state militia and authorize those citizens to possess machine guns, tanks and other military gear.
This is the first time that I have seen this point. Putting the merits of this approach aside (even DC doesn't appear to really have its heart in this approach), I really wonder if gun control advocates know what they might be getting into if they get their wish regarding the DC gun ban.
Related Posts
The New Obama Push for more Gun ControlWith no attention being paid to the existing problems with the background checks, the administration is about to make t- Democrats' campaign against "Stand Your Ground" Law will hit a lot of DemocratsWhen asked about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law on Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden told Face the Nation that gun co
Ted Nugent Speaks to Piers Morgan about Gun Control- Presentation tomorrow at the Heritage FoundationI will be giving a presentation tomorrow at 12:30 at the Heritage Foundation on McDonald v. Chicago and its aftermath.
- Maxim's new piece at Fox News: Proposed U.N. Treaty to Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns for U.S. Gun MakersMaxim's piece starts out this way:A controversial U.N. proposed treaty aimed at regulating guns worldwide has been shro
- Dems say that they are happy about the Supreme Court Striking down the Chicago Gun Ban, but . . . .If Dems feel so strongly about Chicago gun ban case, why are they voting for Kagan?When the Supreme Court extended the
Glenn Reynolds on the Second Amendment and the options the Supreme Court Faces
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
