This from Ammoland
If you choose to dig into the meat you, you might be surprised. I know I was. When I first read the headline, I mentally prepared myself to do battle because I know, I KNOW the ruling is pure horse puckey. To my surprise and delight (sort of) I found far more substantiation for my gut reaction than I hoped. Even so, here I am, all ramped up so I’ll just dump my own self-educated, non-lawyer thoughts.
The key word in our second amendment is “infringed”. Put simply – it means “messed with”. For me, this is enough to destroy every “gun law” on the books. What’s left? Laws concerning criminal actions. That’s what. As inanimate, non-sentient objects, guns cannot commit crimes. Only people can commit crimes. But wait just a doggone minute! You say, “them laws are against people more than guns. Guns don’t go to prison, people do.”
Well, yes… and no. Fact is, most guns involved in a crime (real or imagined) are confiscated immediately. Most of those never see the light of day again and end up being destroyed, IF they don’t make it into someone’s personal collection. That said, you are absolutely correct, people do go to jail, sometimes for a very long time simply for owning the wrong firearm (or firearm part) or possessing one at the wrong time. Notice, no real crime with a real victim or some real loss of life, limb, or property is involved here – not counting the gun itself, of course, is involved here – just circumstances.
Strangely enough, consider the number of times a citizen has gone to the police fearful of someone’s actions – a stalker maybe, or even a jilted or ex lover. What are they told?
“Well… we can’t do anything unless they commit some sort of crime.”
Do observe “stalking” and “threatening” are actual crimes. Trouble is they are hard to prove. My point? That same citizen could well be arrested for acquiring the means for self-defense. Just the means, mind you, not the actual act of self defense. And if they really do find it necessary to defend themselves? Often they bear the brunt of criminal charges, sometimes losing the right to ever again carry a firearm. How screwed up is that?
Let’s get back to those schools… shall we?
Hmmmm, the “Gun Free School Zone Act” was another knee-jerk reaction to shootings in schools. What has it actually accomplished? Considering this garbage legislation was enacted before the rash of school shootings we’ve seen since, a rash that obscures the initial reasoning for the law in the first place, absolutely nothing good. My reasoning is both sound and logical – those it was intended to stop were already engaging in criminal activities so what did the idiot politicians expect?
“Oh! I might get in trouble if I carry a gun to school now and shoot somebody.”
Yeah. Right. What it really did was open the door for more and more liberties to be legislated away from honest citizens – you know – those of us who would never even think of opening fire where anyone, much less, schoolchildren might get hurt.
Back to the story linked above, we have some power-crazed person granted a position of limited authority deciding to unilaterally ignore the very foundation of legal thought – such as it is – and declare this stinking pile of rotting manure “constitutional”. It’s bad enough when judges decide to re-write the law of the land because they don’t like the original version or those who love to “interpret” the law to give it more meaning or something, but to stand up and decree against every legal principle you are supposed to know, citing previous but equally bad decisions, maybe it’s time to resign, go home, and dig into that comfort food.
For the record, I have my own opinions, typically NOT considered “learned”, by those with far more legal education (like a first-year law student in the first week of class), but I claim my right as a self-governing citizen to speak my own mind and opinions on the laws of our land. If any of it comes down to certain aspects I am forced to accept but still do not like – I can opt to either work to change things by amendment or live with it.