June 28, 2008 – LonelyMachines

DC vs Heller: Ripples in the Local Pond

Georgia Lt. Governor Cagle has appointed Senator Mitch Seabaugh of Sharpsburg to chair the Senate committee proposed in Resolution 819. The committee will survey and elucidate the state’s complex and often contradictory firearms laws. SR 19 reads, in part:

WHEREAS, current Georgia laws applicable to the carrying of firearms are extensive, complex, ambiguous, scattered in various provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and frequently produce unintended results and confusion among Georgians who carry firearms, law enforcement officers, and the courts (…) in light of the above, it is now time to closely scrutinize and improve Georgia’s firearms laws

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee shall undertake a study of Georgia’s firearms laws generally and the application of these laws to Georgia’s peaceable and law-abiding citizens to ensure that constitutional rights, the right of self-defense, and public safety are properly protected and that persons involved in the firearms licensing process are treated fairly and equitably.

Continued...

Civil Rights

DC vs Heller: Dissenting Voices

There were two dissenting opinions in the Heller case, authored by Stevens and Breyer. Stevens takes the tack that the 2nd Amendment does not, and was never intended to, protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. He argues fervently that history suggests a militia-oriented power, rather than a right.

Of course, this flies in the face of innumerable sources, several of which are illuminated by Scalia.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

Continued...