Well, THIS is Interesting...

From Packing.org:

Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 @ 01:53 PM by madmax7774

I am obviously not a lawyer, and admittedly, I am not very well versed on laws and politics, but I don't uderstand how states/municpalities like NY or NY city or D.C. can get away with passing laws that clearly violate the 2A of the constitution??? Why doesn't the supreme Court step up and strike these laws down as uncostitiutional? Is it as simple as no one has filed a lawsuit yet to adress them? You'd think that watchdog groups like the ACLU would jump all over this stuff, after all their sole purpose in life seems to be suing for the purposes of striking down unconstitutional laws. Or is it that the ACLU and groups like it are only interested in killing laws that catch their fancy. I just don't get it. Maybe we need to pro 2A group that focuses solely on the 2A. Oh wait, isn't that what the NRA is supposed to be doing?

--

Thoughts:
Added by ComputerUser on Friday, November 19, 2004 @ 03:11 PM

1. ACLU refuses to take an "official" position on 2A. I think this is a tremendous failing on the part of such a powerful constitutional watchdog group.

Um, WRONG. But that's not the interesting part. This is:

2. On Tuesday 16 November I attended an event with Justice Scalia where the question of 2A interpretation came up. He declined to respond to the question posed to him directly on the grounds that there is a good chance that related cases will be before him very soon in light of the split between the circuits (5th and 9th, I believe) in regards 2A applying in fact to individuals or instead to a "national guard"/collective non-Federal entities only. Needless to say, as an Originalisst he is very much on our side with respect to laws interfering with people being able to arm themselves in the sense of the Militia as understood 1791. It will be interesting to see if these cases do show up in front of SCOTUS.

What "related cases" is he referring to? Seegars v. Ashcroft? What else? Bear in mind that Scalia is a realist when it comes to SCOTUS. See This is NOT What I Wanted to Read for more on that.