4 ms·

Anyone who understands English grammar knows the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringe

Anyone who understands English grammar knows the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed. Local bans clearly violate this. Originally yes, the constitutional amendments only applied to the federal government, but that changed with the 14th amendment.

tptacek 6y ago
It's a 5/4 decision. Definitionally, you can't say "anyone who understands English grammar" supports Heller. That's obviously false.
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  There may be particulars of Heller that can be disagreed about. But the central question of whether it protects an individual right should be uncontroversial. That part should have been a 9-0 decision.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    It was not, and the notion that the result is so obvious that a reader should privilege opinions in a random comment on a message board over those of Supreme Court Justices is risible. You can articulate why you think Heller was properly decided and you can of course disagree with any or all of the justices on the court. The specific thing I am calling you on is the idea that the result is so straightforward that anyone who can read the text of 2A would reach your conclusion. That's an unsupportable argument.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  "Anybody who understands English grammar, and has a modicum of integrity." There we go.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Originally yes, the constitutional amendments only applied to the federal government, but that changed with the 14th amendment. No, it didn't. The Court has, since the Fourteenth Amendment, found that rights equivalent to some protections in the Bill of Rights are imposed on the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, but each of these rights was incorporated by separate decisions; blanket incorporation is neither in the text nor in the case law. And the Second Amendment wasn't held to be incorporated against the states until 2 years after Heller, in a case directly leveraging Heller, so arguing incorporation to justify the obviousness of Heller is...bizarre.

tptacek 6y ago

It's a 5/4 decision. Definitionally, you can't say "anyone who understands English grammar" supports Heller. That's obviously false.

agensaequivocum 6y ago
There may be particulars of Heller that can be disagreed about. But the central question of whether it protects an individual right should be uncontroversial. That part should have been a 9-0 decision.
- tptacek 6y ago
  It was not, and the notion that the result is so obvious that a reader should privilege opinions in a random comment on a message board over those of Supreme Court Justices is risible. You can articulate why you think Heller was properly decided and you can of course disagree with any or all of the justices on the court. The specific thing I am calling you on is the idea that the result is so straightforward that anyone who can read the text of 2A would reach your conclusion. That's an unsupportable argument.
SamReidHughes 6y ago
"Anybody who understands English grammar, and has a modicum of integrity." There we go.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Originally yes, the constitutional amendments only applied to the federal government, but that changed with the 14th amendment. No, it didn't. The Court has, since the Fourteenth Amendment, found that rights equivalent to some protections in the Bill of Rights are imposed on the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, but each of these rights was incorporated by separate decisions; blanket incorporation is neither in the text nor in the case law. And the Second Amendment wasn't held to be incorporated against the states until 2 years after Heller, in a case directly leveraging Heller, so arguing incorporation to justify the obviousness of Heller is...bizarre.