Skip to content

Excerpts from DC vs Heller

July 13, 2016

Scalia makes great arguments on the meanings of Second Amendment terms. But, he doesn’t notice that thing I didn’t notice for years. The First Amendment recognizes that “The People” have a natural right to peaceably assemble. They retain it before, during, and after any assembly. They retain it to attend one and not the other; and to change their minds to attend another, or go home.

The term The People can only mean individuals. This item from 1825: p34 “The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . . “The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

Both Scalia and Rawle pointed out why the Stuarts wanted to disarm Protestants, why the British then wrote the right of all individual citizens to be armed, why King George III tried to disarm colonists in certain areas, and why our Bill of Rights sought the same recognition of natural right every individual citizen in Britain had. If the government may disarm certain individuals, the militia becomes a force not of The People.

On page 48, Scalia uses the 14th Amendment the way I do. On the next page, the federal government may outlaw sawed off shotguns for all citizens, including police. Similarly, no citizen, police or not, may field a military surplus, fully weaponized F-14 Tomcat.

Although Scalia touched on the right to bear arms, this case was about requiring government to perform registration and permitting they require. They can’t demand a permit they refuse to issue.

And, it’s about the right to be armed in our homes for self defense.

It’s amazing the case went 5-4 to win an obvious decision.




From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: