Constitutional Law

Time for some laughs

While doing some online research I came across some webpages that were most amusing, in the wake of the Heller decision.

The Ethical Spectacle:

"The best indication of what any law, including a Constitutional provision, means, is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. .... The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces, particularly the NRA, is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one knows that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government."

"How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:

"The Hickman case is the most recent in an unbroken chain of federal decisions, spanning 60 years, ruling that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. .... Winless pitchers and hitless hitters seldom make the big leagues. Why should serious journalists continue to print as presumptive truth the NRA's view of the Second Amendment, when its record in the courts is no wins and all losses?"

Violence Policy Center (time to update your webpage, guys):

"In short, the federal courts have consistently given the Second Amendment a collective, militia interpretation. Moreover, no gun control measure has ever been struck down as unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. "

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on March 20, 2009 (boomark / email).