Gura on McDonald
The Second Amendment is itself a reasonable, common-sense gun law – it provides powerful security for a fundamental individual right. Governments contemplating gun regulations out of legitimate concern for public safety may occasionally be reminded of their limits by courts, but good faith actors should find today’s decision no more troubling than any other precedent effectuating basic constitutional limitations. On the other hand, politicians approaching gun regulation as a means of continuing their disagreement with the Constitution’s enumerated policy choice on the subject will discover that doing so carries a price taxpayers do not wish to spend – and ultimately achieves nothing.
July 1st, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES BE ADDED: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Bill of Rights are “declaratory” of the rights of the States and People and “restrictive” of the “delegated powers” of the U.S. Govwernment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 am
“will discover that doing so carries a price taxpayers do not wish to spend” — except in the Kingdom of Chicago where the ruler has final say. Supposedly, Chicago will vote on their “new” gun law today, further ignoring the taxpayer’s wallet and inviting more legal expense. Jerks!
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
Does anyone really expect the antis to fold their tents and go home?
Their cause is a religious one (well, a substitute religion with Government as the Supreme Being). They believe that denying others civil rights will bring utopia here on Earth.
No amount of blood on the sidewalks of Chicago, New York City, or Boston can disprove their belief.