View Single Post
Old 09-08-2019, 05:37 PM
Hamlet is offline
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,656
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
No rights are absolute in an ordered society and no powers are absolute in a Constitutional Republic. The fact that the right to arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, takes certain policy choices off the table.
" To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

Originally Posted by Abatis
Stevens should have confined his legal expeditions within the boundaries established by long-standing Supreme Court explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate and distinct things).
He did. As he explained in his dissent.

"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."