In case you haven't heard
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Filed in:
Political
Action, Second Amendment
The Supreme Court of the
United States has agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v.
Heller (the case is better known as
Parker v. District of Columbia, wherein five other D.C. residents
seek to join Mr. Heller's suit. Heller, then, is the base decision
that we are most concerned with.)
There is much hand-wringing about this case. A certain segment of the firearms fraternity (I'll call them the Not Ready Alliance, or "NRA" for short) doesn't want the case to be heard, because "we might lose, and then what will happen?!?" The other side, which I'll call "Gung-ho Order of Allegiance" ("GOA", in case you don't get the joke) is proclaiming "this is GREAT! Now we'll get rid of all those unconstitutional laws all over the country! Let's go get 'em!"
My position? Simple: sooner or later, the SCOTUS is going to hear a Second Amendment case. That much is sure. It might as well be this one.
From my standpoint, it's best if they hear Heller and not something else. Why? Because we are unlikely to find another case anytime soon that has a better chance of coming out on "our side." It is as close as to a "slam dunk" as we will probably ever see, and I'd rather they look at Heller than some other, less solid, case.
What's more, this court is probably the best relative to individual rights that we'll have in a long time. Don't get me wrong: this court is no friend of the Constitution, and has shown so time and again, but it's about as good as has existed in my lifetime.
(Given the field of likely Presidential nominees - of either party - they aren't going to get any better, either. Only one candidate holds out hope of real change in this matter, and unfortunately he's not getting a lot of support from the "gun culture." More's the pity.)
Again, it's not about the downside if we lose or the upside if we win; it's about timing. This battle has always been inevitable, and the smart warrior chooses to engage when he is strongest and his opponents are weakest. For us, that is now.
Let the chips fall where they may.
-=[ Grant ]=-
There is much hand-wringing about this case. A certain segment of the firearms fraternity (I'll call them the Not Ready Alliance, or "NRA" for short) doesn't want the case to be heard, because "we might lose, and then what will happen?!?" The other side, which I'll call "Gung-ho Order of Allegiance" ("GOA", in case you don't get the joke) is proclaiming "this is GREAT! Now we'll get rid of all those unconstitutional laws all over the country! Let's go get 'em!"
My position? Simple: sooner or later, the SCOTUS is going to hear a Second Amendment case. That much is sure. It might as well be this one.
From my standpoint, it's best if they hear Heller and not something else. Why? Because we are unlikely to find another case anytime soon that has a better chance of coming out on "our side." It is as close as to a "slam dunk" as we will probably ever see, and I'd rather they look at Heller than some other, less solid, case.
What's more, this court is probably the best relative to individual rights that we'll have in a long time. Don't get me wrong: this court is no friend of the Constitution, and has shown so time and again, but it's about as good as has existed in my lifetime.
(Given the field of likely Presidential nominees - of either party - they aren't going to get any better, either. Only one candidate holds out hope of real change in this matter, and unfortunately he's not getting a lot of support from the "gun culture." More's the pity.)
Again, it's not about the downside if we lose or the upside if we win; it's about timing. This battle has always been inevitable, and the smart warrior chooses to engage when he is strongest and his opponents are weakest. For us, that is now.
Let the chips fall where they may.
-=[ Grant ]=-
|