Joined
·
1,754 Posts
What gets little attention in the 2A national debate is the dissenting opinion of the four justices that voted against Heller. I think any candidate that is running on a 2A platform, who does not provide at least basic details as to where 2A will go if the wrong judges are on the bench, is helping the anti-2A cause. Here are two simple talking points that were written by the supreme course justices that opposed the Heller case:
Look at #1 above. This opinion would end the premise that 2A is an individual right. This alone will end 2A as we know it and will enable any legislation of any kind for any reason at all levels.
Candidates that are not making clear the current, specific opinions of the four dissenting justices is failing at educating the populace on the seriousness and the reality that already exists with the current makeup to change gun ownership in the US to look like Canada and Australia. All that is needed is one more justice who agrees with the other four that....
I am convinced that many do not understand the opinion of those on the bench that oppose 2A as an individual right, and the speed with which that right could be ended. If this happens, the only hope I see would be a constitutional amendment that basically rewrites 2A into an unambiguous proclamation as an individual right. Getting 2/3 of congress to agree on the amendment would be a challenge, but I think it could happen. If it got past congress, I am convinced that the needed 3/4 of the states would vote in favor. This would be our only hope if the next justice is one that believes as the other four Heller dissenters do:
What matters is that their opinions are the only ones that matter and people should be educated as to what those opinions are, specifically.
It is NOT enough to have a candidate talk in generalities about what will happen to 2A if the wrong judges are put on the bench. It is essential that the candidate make clear that the four that are sitting there now have already made clear thier ruling on the subject and they need only one more to end 2A as we know it. Either examples above are alone powerful enough to change the fundamental rights as we know them today. Heller could be over by accepting any of the cases that have been sitting out there waiting and the known opinion of the four dissenters are not ambiguous.1. ....that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended
2. ....that the "militia" preamble demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only
Look at #1 above. This opinion would end the premise that 2A is an individual right. This alone will end 2A as we know it and will enable any legislation of any kind for any reason at all levels.
Candidates that are not making clear the current, specific opinions of the four dissenting justices is failing at educating the populace on the seriousness and the reality that already exists with the current makeup to change gun ownership in the US to look like Canada and Australia. All that is needed is one more justice who agrees with the other four that....
2A as we know it will be dead and buried. No conservative legislature will be able to save 2A when the ruling states that it is not an individual right anymore. Candidates, and their advisers, need to get them talking in specifics about what the currently published positions are with the Heller dissenters and how quickly it could turn 2A upside down for decades at least.....the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended
I am convinced that many do not understand the opinion of those on the bench that oppose 2A as an individual right, and the speed with which that right could be ended. If this happens, the only hope I see would be a constitutional amendment that basically rewrites 2A into an unambiguous proclamation as an individual right. Getting 2/3 of congress to agree on the amendment would be a challenge, but I think it could happen. If it got past congress, I am convinced that the needed 3/4 of the states would vote in favor. This would be our only hope if the next justice is one that believes as the other four Heller dissenters do:
Arguing against their position is meaningless; explaining why their opinion is not based in the founding fathers intent is fruitless; having a dialog about how their liberal ideology is anti constitution is a waste of time. Our opinion as to their opinion matters zilch.....that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended
What matters is that their opinions are the only ones that matter and people should be educated as to what those opinions are, specifically.