search
top

ASHA Shills

Sensibly Progressive points out that American Hunters and Shooters Association once assured us that Sotomayor was going to be our justice, and presumably we self-defense whackos just needed to quiet down and accept her. Well, as the decision yesterday has shown, she doesn’t believe Americans have a fundamental right to keep a handgun in their home according to our constitution. From the dissent she joined:

In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view. See ante, at 41–44 (dissenting opinion). Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others’ lives at risk. See ante, at 35–37. And the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation. See ante, at 44–51.

The Court, however, does not expressly rest its opinion upon “substantive due process” concerns. Rather, it directs its attention to this Court’s “incorporation” precedents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to private self-defense is “fundamental” so that it applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See ante, at 11–19.

I shall therefore separately consider the question of “incorporation.” I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate” the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.” And I consequently dissent.

We’ve known for a while the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to AHSA. Now the Emperor’s pasty white skin is blinding people.

12 Responses to “ASHA Shills”

  1. FatWhiteMan says:

    Who is AHSA? Oh yeah, they no longer exist. Hmmm.

  2. Mikee says:

    I am amazed that the presence of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution, does not constitute proof “characterizing it as “fundamental”” to these justices. What do they want, a signed note from President Obama?

    I want some of whatever that Supreme Court Justice is taking. It apparently alters reality beyond any scope of rational thought.

  3. Mark says:

    Please remember that “Law Enforcement” would have been more than happy to enable a Court that went the OTHER way on this case. Indeed, MOST of the Chicago force will enthusiastically support WHATEVER their fine Mayor comes up with to end-run. Be sure to thank them appropriately for the fine job they do.

  4. Sebastian says:

    That’s funny… I’ve never met a street cop who didn’t support gun rights.

    • Bitter says:

      I’m with you, Sebastian. (And yes, we have met different street cops.) Where on earth does Mark live that all the regular guys in uniform (as opposed to the politically appointed/hired leadership) are so anti-gun? Even in Massachusetts, all the cops I knew were pro-gun rights for individuals.

  5. NukemJim says:

    ” Indeed, MOST of the Chicago force will enthusiastically support WHATEVER their fine Mayor comes up with to end-run. ”

    While I am sure there are LEOs like that particularly in the upper ranks I do not believe they are in the majority, as always I could be wrong the following are my reasons.

    I work with and am friends with a number of CPD, who are very vehement in their disdain for Daley and are Pro2A. They state that the majority of CPD are pro 2A.

    You can also check out http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/ and read this posting for 6/28/2010 He is an active duty CPD.

    Look at the actual number of arrests for UUW vs # of guns siezed over several years.

    Best wishes

    NukemJim

  6. Mark says:

    For Sebastian: You must never have been to Chicago. EVERY “Law Enforcement” officer there will be glad to arrest ANY private citizen with a gun. Or does that count as “support gun rights” in your imagination?

  7. Sebastian says:

    Every single one eh? That’s a bold statement. I know of at least one Chicago cop who feels differently.

  8. Mark says:

    For Sebastian: Yeah, but will he ACT differently? My bet says no. Not only no, but “HELL NO!” He will bow and scrape before his Masters and then do whatever he’s told. IN SPITE OF his oath of office to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…” Because his Masters will tell him the Constitution doesn’t give ANYONE the right to own a gun.

  9. Mark says:

    And for Sebastian again: Just like the fine “Law Enforcement” at Daley’s event the other week where he pointed the gun at the reporter. Just how many of those fine “Law Enforcement” officers bothered to arrest Hizzoner for that? Thank them for the OUTSTANDING job they are doing…

  10. Brad says:

    Did anyone notice that the zombie website for AHSA doesn’t have any comments posted? I tried to post a comment and got the message, “Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.” Bwhahahah! When pigs fly!

  11. I’m just glad Sotomayor is stupid. Her comments are always so merit-less that they are almost laughable. I’d be more afraid of a smarter judge who might conceive some argument to be made. She just states without providing any fact.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Settled Matter - [...] ETA: Remember AHSA’s endorsement? [...]
top