Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[David Horn]

(02-23-2018, 02:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-23-2018, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-22-2018, 03:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Of course, he likely had been taught the Jim Crow interpretation in law school.  From the end of Reconstruction until the Standard Model scholarship, Jim Crow to our shame was by far the more dominant theory.  Today you have to use Eric's school of logic, and only read a paper if you know you agree with the conclusion.

The Heller decision was strained at best.  It required the five votes of a narrowly-conservative court -- a situation that may not be long lasting.  More to the point, Heller overturned earlier rulings of Federal courts in several jurisdictions, and, when done by the thinnest of margins, is susceptible to reexamination almost by definition.  Roe v. Wade, the most popular bugaboo on the right, was decided 7-2, and probably stands for that reason alone.

It is not strained if you look at the intent of the authors of the law, if you read and took seriously the founding father's opinions.  It is easy to see them saying yes to an armed society, but no to the 'right' to feminine health care, not an issue during their time.

I read Federalist Paper #46, which seems to be the only one that discusses this in any depth. Madison's argument was centered entirely on the ability of the States to resist the Federal government, which got resolved in blood in the 1860s, so it's hard to use that as guidance today. In fact, it's hard to see any modern application of original thinking in this regard -- as the dissenting opinion in Heller note.

Bob Wrote:Conservative values and law are much closer to the founding fathers.  Many look at the Constitution as a contract, and take amiss the blue habit of changing the contract whenever it suits their values.  Sure, if they had a supermajority.  They don't.

It would be harder to complain if the courts saw themselves as enforcers of a contract rather than legislatures out to follow a given time and place's values.  Many liberal justices do see otherwise.

I assume that the Founders were wise in their time, but offer only limited guidance today. We are no longer an Agricultural Age society perched on the edge of a wilderness. In short, the 2nd Amendment is functionally moot. We have no need of or support for militias in this age. Ignoring the justification phrase to only read what you wish is not a viable alternative to keep it alive either. In fact, Justice Stephens made that point in his dissent.