Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Friday, January 30, 2009

Quote of the Day

There is a very strong possibility that the Court of Appeals will rule against us, not on the merits of the case (which is very strong), but because finding that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment against the states is a decision above their pay grade. - Clayton Cramer in his post Chicago Gun Case
And I think he's more than probably right. I'm reminded of 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski's dissent in the denial to re-hear en banc the Silveira v. Lockyer case, specifically this part:
As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
Even when it was.

There exists Supreme Court precedent that says that the right of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' is not protected against state infringement, but only against infringement by Congress - i.e.: the Federal government (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1875). Cruikshank was decided after ratification of the 14th Amendment, and while it violates the specific, written intent of that amendment, it has never been overturned by the Supreme Court, and it has been used as precedent in an 1886 case, Presser v. Illinois.

And inferior courts may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

So don't be surprised if the 7th Circuit finds against us; be stunned if they don't. Because that will force the Supreme Court to revisit Cruikshank, and I doubt seriously the 7th Circuit has the testicular fortitude to do that.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.