Oh, my. "Meet the face of (Colorado's) pro-gun recall campaigns"

[ExCop-LawStudent]

20. That's not a logical position

Obscenity, which includes child pornography, has always been unprotected. On the other hand, the other books you wish to ban are protected by the First Amendment. Once you start banning legitimate books, you start on a slippery slope. There have been thousands of regimes that have banned books--but none that were free.

Registering militia is much different from registering their rifle, which was not done in 1791.

I actually do believe that the NFA is unconstitutional, based on this statement by the Supreme Court: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

Even the Heller decision was ambiguous in this regard, but subtly so. Justice Scalia noted that "dangerous and unusual weapons" could be banned. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008). He supported this with a string cite which included an interesting case, English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871). English supports Scalia's statement with an interesting explanation. It states:

No kind of travesty, however subtle or ingenious, could so misconstrue this provision of the Constitution of the United States, as to make it cover and protect that pernicious vice, from which so many murders, assassinations, and deadly assaults have sprung, and which it was doubtless the intention of the Legislature to punish and prohibit. The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.

Id.

English then goes on to define the dangerous and unusual weapons as "dirks, daggers, slingshots, sword canes, brass knuckles and bowie knives. . . ." Id. at 477. Of course, none of those have any use in the military - just like Miller's sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon with a military use. It's funny that Scalia would put that in the opinion, listing all the "normal" weapons of the military as being appropriate for the militia.

You know, if the Second Amendment is antiquated, there is a way to fix it. It is known as amending the Constitution. That's the only way.

I don't carry a brief for the Tea Party loons, nor the zealots on any particular side of the political spectrum, from the sovereign citizen whackjobs to the loony left. I don't like any of 'em. As to the protection against tyranny? Sure, I believe that - at some possible point in the distant future. We're not there, and the wingnuts that say were are have a screw loose. I just don't want any of my rights to be violated.