Well, I’ll be . .
Looks like a group of guys are trying to get the Supreme Court to look at the Second Amendment. The NRA was no where to be found.
Update: I really don’t think the court will take this or any other gun case for a long time. It has had plenty of opportunity to take the issue up and hasn’t since 1939. The SCOTUS has been generally spineless and without teeth for some time. Many lower courts have held the collective right argument and never made it to the SCOTUS. The courts seems happy to have different laws in different parts of the country. Anything to avoid gun controversy.
July 3rd, 2003 at 12:27 pm
I didn’t register to the Washington post to read that story but I assume that it is similar to the one from the Newsobserver, which states, “The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers – not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons.”
Is the NRA trying to become compassionate 2nd Amendment advocates?
July 3rd, 2003 at 12:35 pm
That’s the same story word for word. Must be the AP.
July 3rd, 2003 at 1:49 pm
I’ll have to find it, but Scalia himself has said that he can’t find anything in the Constitution which would prevent a state from banning guns. It’s not a clear constitutional issue and, as federalists, we can get hoisted on our own petard here — we like state’s rights, but what if the state doesn’t do something we like?