Previous Post
Next Post


In a statement posted on his website this week, Donald Trump’s peeps provided the boss’s job description: “As President, Donald Trump will fulfill that sworn duty [to uphold the U.S. Constitution], vetoing legislation that exceeds Congressional authority, taking actions as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief that are consistent with his constitutional role, and nominating Judges and Supreme Court Justices who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning.”

By deploying the word “public” in the sentence above, the author (if not Mr. Trump himself) is signaling that the once and future real estate magnate will favor a Supreme Court nominee who subscribes to the “original meaning theory” rather than “original intent.” explains the difference.

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.

No need to get lost in the weeds. Simply put, an originalist judge doesn’t view the Constitution as a “living document,” subject to whatever interpretation fits the current political agenda. He or she is bound by the Constitution as writ.

So when a Supreme Court judge reads the Second Amendment, mandating that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” he or she should say, well, that’s it. No gun control laws. Right?

Right! But that’s not how it has worked out in real life. Even Justice Scalia signed on to the bit of the Heller decision that OK’ed “reasonable regulations” on Americans’ natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Anyway, there’s more good news in Mr Trump’s policy statement.

He will defend Americans’ fundamental rights to free speech, religious liberty, keeping and bearing arms, and all other rights guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions.

Interesting that the statement highlights these three rights. If nothing else it indicates that gun rights have a high priority in the Trump administration. And reaffirms the belief that Mr. Trump will nominate a solidly pro-gun Supreme Court judge. Perhaps not someone who’s against any gun control, but certainly someone who’s against most gun control.

Considering the Clintonian barrel we were staring down before Mr. Trump’s upset victory at the polls, I’ll take it. You?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It sure beats Obama’s philosophy (a Socialist’s view). His was a “world without guns”. As a Veteran, I know that this puts my nation in peril.

    God bless my fellow Veterans today.

  2. This is something I can live with for now. Have to see who he nominates from his list of 20 for SCOTUS.

    Some what related I saw a news story on likely candidates for major cabinet positions. Taking a step down from that to agency heads, how about Chris Cox for head of the ATF?

  3. I wager that neither the HPA or national reciprocity become law. DC is a swamp that cannot be drained unless, well, it ceases to be DC. And so far gun owners have not seen the light. Only the pot heads in a handful of states have seen the light. I will take this over Hitlery Klinton ANY day.

    • statiesevil: I have a more optimistic view on this – the Don Jr. heads up his 2A coalition, and he LOVES to carry, and LOVES shooting quietly. I’d bet that the HPA gets the nod first – it just makes sense. National reciprocity is going to be tougher – gotta drain the swamps of NJ, NY, and CA along with DC – that’s going to take some New Orleans-sized pumps to get that done! But one step at a time. I’m extremely happy with the easing of pressure on the 2A side – Executive, Judicial (assuming a proper appointment), and a Legislative that with just the right alignment (and growing a pair!) can cement this environment and constitutional protection for at least a generation. The states will have to pony up, kick Bloomberg to the curb (a la Maine with Question 3) – that is where the real rub will be.

      • Are you guys not worried in the least that some of his cabinet might have Guliani and NJ Gov. on them? I do recall NJ and NY are not pro gun.

        • I don’t know about NJ but one can’t generalize gun rights in NY.
          The problem in NY is that gun laws are not State laws they are county laws.
          Where I live there is zero chance of obtaining a CC license. The best I can do is carry to and from a range.
          Not far from where I live the local sheriff has no problem issuing CC licenses.
          Then the issue becomes carrying between counties.
          The only solution would be a state law, which will never happen.
          Guliani was powerless to do anything gun related.
          Luckily I also have a house in Florida and a CC license from there and a non resident Utah license as well.

        • The problem in NJ is a Democrat – dominated legislature that continues to push draconian anti-gun legislation session after session. Gov. Christie has been able to veto the majority of these hair-brained proposals. He may not be a “gun nut” but he’s been more pro-gun than the four who proceeded him in office. Giuliani’s problem is the Sullivan Act which the Dems will never repeal.

    • DC is the inevitable result of strong government. The only way around that is an impotent government that’s not worth influencing.

      If the federal government could impose national reciprocity on anti-gun states, it would have the power to impose unlimited restrictions on pro-gun states. If it’s that important to you, you can move out of places like New Jersey. Where could you go if the federal government turned the entire country into New Jersey?

      What’s HPA?

        • Exactly!
          The legislature, courts, and public all believe that the federal government has the authority to ban guns at will (e.g. the 1994 AWB). A federal preemption law would do nothing to change this.

      • HPA is the Hearing Protection Act. It’s a bill, movement, to remove suppressors from the NFA list. Basically, it would allow you to buy a “silencer” at will, just like any other regular firearm accessory, without paying a special tax and without having a special license dependant on government approval.

        It only makes sense, but liberals who hate firearms freedom and lemmings who think silencers will turn everyone into an assassin from a 1980s primetime crime drama are against it.

        • “Basically, it would allow you to buy a “silencer” at will, just like any other regular firearm accessory, without paying a special tax and without having a special license dependant on government approval.”

          I’m not quite sure on that.

          As I understand it, suppressors will be treated the same as firearms themselves, meaning that when bought new requires a NICS background check.

          Am I in error on that?

        • Goeff PR,

          I believe the current proposal would require a background check before purchasing a suppressor from a federal firearms licensee. While certainly wrong, it is something that I can live with.

  4. The ‘pubs have had numerous chances to roll back restrictions that the ‘dems have put in place. Again and again and again they haven’t, yet kept coming back to the gun owner’s trough to ask for a drink. And you wonder why we nominated Trump instead of the Republican old guard?

    I really hope that “We won’t get fooled again”. (Copyright: PT)


  5. I read this as DJT calling out to the POTG.

    We have to turn the screws to our Reps in DC to make things happen.

    I’m going to start writing (old school) letters and making phone calls this week. It’s time get some shit done, folks. No pussyfooting about it.

  6. Sounds great, but I’ll believe it when I see it (and see that SC Justice’s actual 2A votes later on).

    I’ve heard a GOP presidential candidate dare me to read his lips to confirm that “No new taxes” means exactly that. Then as president, he promptly raised taxes and let the Democrats spend every cent and more.

    I heard candidate W. vow to cut 40,000 civilian employee federal jobs in four year. Instead, he promptly created an entire new department, federalized airport security, added 20,000 new full time federal employee in his first year and a total 100,000 over eight years.

    I’ve seen a Chief Justice, nominated by a GOP president, testify that he does not believe the Court should have a dominant role in society and stressing society’s problems. The Court is there to say what the law is and emphatically to strike down congressional and executive branch actions exceeding their respective constututional authority. Then he promptly turned into an anti-constitutional contortionist and cast the deciding vote upholding the illegal Obamacare law.

    Need I even mention the campaign mendacity that was “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”, or is that overkill?

    So excuse me if I demand proof over promises from any politician, especially one with a history of breaching contracts, breaking vows, bilking customers and, allegedly, assaulting women.

    Hell, the guy has already back pedaled on some 2A stances, not to mention scrubbing his whole Muslim ban and deportation scheme. Apparently a slight majority of the country just voted to make president a man whom I doubt more than a miniscule minority would trust to buy a used car from. Healthy skepticism is certainly called for.

    • Hillary: “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.”

      Candidate Trump: “Because you’d be in jail.”

      President-Elect Trump: ” Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.”

      Doesn’t sound like he’s going to “lock her up”, does it? I mean, maybe he will, but Jonathan makes excellent points. Campaign promises are one thing, legislation is another — let’s hold his feet to the fire and make him deliver the America he promised.

      • I agree it doesn’t sound like he is going to lock her up but if you think the probability of her getting locked up is zero then you are simply not looking hard enough. The country is divided, Trump is not going to make his acceptance speech about putting his political opponent in prison, he is going to talk about bringing the country together, it’s just good tactics.

        It’s not the President’s job to lock her up, it’s the FBI and the DOJ, the further he distances himself from the public on the issue of locking her up, the more impartial and fair the ultimate decision will look. If Trump lives up to his promise of crushing corruption I see no reason why Hillary would be spared. Of course, Trump doesn’t have to do anything he promised but considering half the country hates him and the other half will only like him if starts taking action, any inaction or broken promises can only lead to 100% of the country hating him.

      • Agreed. Also, “locking her up” talk was theater. Pardons will be issued before inauguration if there is any chance of indictments.

  7. The fact that he is listing this on his transition website (btw, it’s, not is a good sign that he’s literally sticking to his guns on this issue. I think we really have his sons to thank for that and the NRA foresight in endorsing him early on (thus cementing his loyalty to the cause).

  8. I am in the “I’ll wait and see what Trump actually does.” camp. I am also in the “original meaning” camp on the Constitution. Insofar as adapting the Constitution to “present times”, that’s what we have the Amendment procedures for. Altering “original meaning” by ordinary Legislation is how some of us have lost our Second Amendment rights, and I oppose that tack completely. Amending the Constitution is difficult and it should be, otherwise you get State Legislators (as in California) slowly, but surely, taking your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights from you without any recourse except what they have declared to be engaging in criminal activity. I think I have a right not to be forced to become a criminal by legislative fiat imposed by some collection of Marxist wiener heads.

    • Or, you could lop the whole damn state off and preserve America forever. There’s real money behind it this time.

      Can you imagine if California wasn’t in the US anymore? Trump would have won the popular vote by over 2 million votes. He would have won the electoral college in a major landslide – 306 to 173. No more Dianne Feinstein. No more illegal immigration problems. The House majority would be 225 to 153. America would be America again.

      California TTAGers, make it happen! Sign the petition.

      • I see your point of view, but there’s no way for California to lawfully leave the Union, especially under the Trump Administration, so massive violence would erupt and I would be forced to kill “Cali-secesh”, including some of my blood kin,…so, “No thanks!”

        If there was a lawful way, then I would be a refugee in Texas. Adjoining States are too blue-ish.

        • Just imagine. . . Federal naval vessels steaming up the Sacramento River to bombard the rebel capital; Federal troops marching up the San Fernando and Silicon Valleys, laying waste to rebel wineries, tofu factories, and arugula farms, leaving the rebels to starve! Waves of Federal bombers flying high over Los Angeles, thoroughly destroying Hollywood while ignoring the CARB rules about emissions!
          Meanwhile, the crack troops of the FAG (Film Actors Guild) steadfastly defend the secessionist cause, armed with prop guns, rubber swords, and green screens; Hordes of Yuppie computer whizzes and sockless, effete Metrosexuals with beautiful tans stand waving their badly-written posters and chanting meaningful slogans while Federal bayonets approach! Armies of illegal immigrants and urban yutes, holding their ‘forbidden-by-California-law-but-they-have-’em-somehow-anyway’ 9s sideways and ‘throwing’ bullets wildly, decimated by Federal troops armed with REAL assault rifles. . .
          Just imagine. . .
          That’d make quite a film, don’t you think?

          • Yep. Throw in an intense scene about me having to kill my Cali-secesh relatives and get an Italian Film Crew and Swedish Director to film/edit it and you’d have a spectacle to rival any previously ever made. Probably win a dozen Academy Awards…oh, wait!…nevermind….

            Supposedly, there is a “petition” actually available to sign for Commiefornia to secede from the Union, but I expect if you sign it you can be accused of treason, so hopefully only moron libtards are signing so we know who to hang later.

            Apparently, you CAN make this stuff up once in awhile.

        • Lawfully? That’s a question that has never been decided in any court of law. The decision that a state cannot secede was “adjudicated” by force of arms. It is an interesting Constitutional question as to whether the people of a state possess the power to dissolve their ties to the Union through popular vote rather than firing on a Federal military installation.

          • I looked around online and spent some time checking the Constitution and did not find any procedure for a State to “secede” from the Union. So, I purposely chose the word “lawfully” because it is not the synonym one would expect and would be noticed as an unusual choice of words in the context. Guess it worked on you, at least.

            I think your phrase ” “adjudicated” by force of arms ” is very well taken, as it aptly describes what happened in the only Civil War we Americans have had. Not being a legal scholar, nor having a Law Library at my disposal, I can’t take this any further. My Internet searches brought up no case law on the matter.

            All that being said, I would only speculate that an attempt to secede from the Union by any State would bring about a scenario such as John in AK describes just above your post. In 1860 the Total Population of the US was 31,183,582 (including “Free Colored Person”, “Free Persons” and “Slaves”. The Population of California is around 39,000,00 today. I think ” “adjudication” by force of arms ” in this hypothetical case would have to be modified to ” uber blood bath”.

            This subject matter would, I agree, make for an interesting Court Ruling, if you could get a Court to take the case. But for now I would expect a serious attempt by California at secession would be vigorously opposed by the Federal Government.

            Taken as a whole, this ill-conceived CalExit Movement is a tragically sad commentary on how utterly moronic the people who live and rule in California are…some of them, anyway. Since the concept is to put it to a referendum ballot in 2019, we may get a Court Ruling sooner than we imagine.

        • I think that if a supermajority large enough to amend the Constitution agreed, then the union could legally be split or reorganized in whatever way the people agree to. Otherwise, secession is sedition and grounds for war.

          Personally, I think California should put all its energy into a drive for secession. There’s really no downside. Either the progs waste tons of their own money in an unsuccessful attempt, or they bankrupt the whole state (which they’re going to do anyway) and utterly destroy their own cause in the process.

          • Yes, apparently there is a way deriving from an 1869 SCOTUS Ruling in Texas v. White.
            Explained on this Web Page:


            It requires an Amendment to the Constitution where the other States grant California exit from the Union. This requires the people of California to approve a referendum declaring their desire to leave the Union, approval by 2/3rds of Congress or 2/3rds of the delegates to a Constitutional Convention and ratification by 38 of the 50 States.

        • Look at the southern part of Texas’s election map, they have a blue cancer along the Mexican border that I would imagine imagine from illegals voting. As long as the border remains open I would expect the cancer to grow.

          • Yeah right along the Mexican Border. What a surprise! Looks like the major population centers are heavily “blue”. I hear Austin is infiltrated by refugee libtards from California.

  9. We should all petition the new administration to finally, completely get rid of the ridiculous NFA/1968 crap!

  10. I’ll take it because I have to… We’ll see if it makes me happy when it happens. Until then I will maintain a healthy skepticism.

  11. I don’t trust Donny on the supreme court long-term, but given that there is presently a vacancy, I’m optimistic that he’ll fill it with a constitutionalist (ie. someone from his list) so as not to immediately renege on one of his most important promises to 50% of the country.

    After that? I expect him to get intoxicated with the executive power thing, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc and appoint welcome mats.

  12. How do we square modern meanings and technology with original meaning?
    For example where does the internet fall since that surely could not be understood in the original meaning of the first since it simply didn’t exist at the time? How about machine guns? Etc.

    • “How do we square modern meanings and technology with original meaning?
      For example where does the internet fall since that surely could not be understood in the original meaning of the first since it simply didn’t exist at the time? How about machine guns? Etc.”

      You touch on the answer.

      While the 4A says “papers”, the 1A says “speech” & “assembly”, and the 4A also says “effects.” The 1A doesn’t say what “speech” or “assembly” mean. “Speech” however people speak, especially politically (these days.) “Assembly” however people assemble, especially politically (these days.) So, while there was no interwebz – you know, the system of tubes – back in the day, the terms “speech” and “assembly” are both *specific*, and *abstract*. (Yes, something can be both at once.) Subreddits, not anything they would have concretely known of, and absolutely something included in the generalization as written. “Effects” in the 4A extends the same way to your flash drive and smart phone.

      In the same way, the 2A says “arms” not “Jager’s”, “Pennsyl/Ken-tucky Rivles”, or “Brown Bess & her sisters.” “Arms” is a specific, categorical term.

      I am deeply bugged by the conflation of policy and process indulged in by the “The law is what I say it is.” folks. Whether citizens should have guns or not is a policy preference. How we decide that is a process preference. Our progressive friends tend toward “by any means” and have seem to have a problem with this distinction.

      So, I think “resolving” the meaning of the 2A to what “Musket” Morgan would prefer, well, he should propose an amendment and have at it. In avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy myself, I think there very much should be a codified “right to privacy.” But there isn’t, so referring to that as a matter of law is nonsense when popping off about various federal civilian surveillance laws and interpretations. There ought to be an amendment, modifying the wording of the 4A, to make the right to policy explicit. We might want to make the right to property and commerce explicit at the same time, similar to some earlier sources from Virginia. But, we haven’t done that.

      • You forget that Roe v. Wade was predicated on a created right to privacy which appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

        • I Didn’t forget about Roe v. Wade, or its basis, and that also illustrates my point.

          Rather than “discover” rights or authorities in the occult penumbra of the bylaws for governing ourselves as written, so we can do what we want (for some value of “we”), let’s declare them. There’s a process for that.

          The Roe v. Wade approach is kind of like The Underpants Gnomes:
          1 – “Here’s a policy we really, really want, but there’s no authority for it.”
          2 –
          3 – Enact it and declare it the law of the land.

          Better would be:
          1 – “Here’s a policy we really, really want, but there’s no authority for it.”
          2 – Adjust the charter, so the “missing” authority is there.
          3 – Declare that law, and any other enabled by that new authority that we’d like.

          I think Roe v Wade’s claimed “right to privacy” gives us a leg up in encoding one into the text. Indeed, the folks who for policy & personal preference would most oppose this notion are much invested in one result that depends on it.

      • I agree, in the main. Technological developments ought to be given no more Constitutional significance then that which is clearly essential. To speak on a radio frequency is clearly 1A “speech”. Now, then, the radio spectrum quickly became a saturated finite resource. Analogous to a formal assembly. Every member of the assembly has a right to speak but must do so in the order prescribed by the rules adopted by the assembly. Everyone ought to have an equal right to apply to use the radio spectrum. Parts of the spectrum are reserved to particular licensees (e.g., the AM, FM and TV broadcast bands). Other parts are free-for-alls. What anyone says on any frequency ought not be any more constrained than speech in any other forum such as standing on a tree stump.
        As applied to the 2A, I don’t see how much has changed in 2 centuries that makes the meaning of “arms” ambiguous in any practical sense. There is no compelling need to debate whether a nuclear bomb is within/without 2A protection. We ought to be debating whether a derringer openly carried by an adult citizen in the streets of NYC or DC. When we resolve that question Constitutionally we can turn to other technological innovations.

  13. We might also see the restoration of the 10th Amendment and an end to “the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government infinite power” bullshit.

    • Yes, exactly. E.g., does it constitute an “infringement” to require licensed manufacturers to apply their maker’s mark, model and serial number to an “arm”? We must be able to answer this question.
      Does it constitute an “infringement” for an officer of the militia to require a member of his company to account for the fact that he as one fit arm and compatible ammunition in his possession?
      Does it constitute an “infringement” for the state to require a citizen to account for each and every one of his kept arms by make, model and serial?
      This last question is fascinating. On first impression, merely giving an account of all one’s kept arms seems not to be an infringement. We might need to seek out the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution to find a protection against confiscation to justify the liberty to keep arms privately, without accounting to government.

  14. Replacing Scalia with a ‘original-ist’ justice for the most part is maintaining the Court’s status quo.

    Kennedy can not be trusted on gun rights. Meaning, we need a Progressive justice to retire or expire and be replaced with an actual conservative in order to be confident SCOTUS won’t screw us on gun rights.

    The good news is considering the ages of the justices on the Court, we have a decent chance of that happening…

    • “Kennedy can not be trusted on gun rights.”

      Oh, brother, are you 100% correct on that one. While Kennedy voted to support 2A, he is also responsible for watering down Heller and McDonald.

      Not that I wish her any ill, but Ginsberg has been around since the rocks cooled to form the Earth’s crust. She’s 83 and has to go. Breyer is 78 and is also a drain on the Constitution.

      Because both of them know that they will be replaced by right wing justices, neither will resign. They will die in office, which suits me just fine as long as they croak before the country does.

      • ^ This!!!

        As I understand it, Scalia added the “reasonable regulations” garbage to the Heller decision to get Kennedy’s vote. Without that concession, Kennedy was going to vote against Heller.

        • Your understanding is 100% correct. The “long-standing regulation” language was thrown in to get Kennedy’s vote.

          If you want to know where the “guns in the home” focus came from, look at the oft-cited Don Kates article, where he supported guns in the home but not guns outside of the home.

          Also, SCOTUS did not want to be excessive. The cases involved only guns for home protection, so that’s what they stayed with.

      • Ginsburg’s comments during the campaign seriously damaged her appearance of impartiality and any decisions she writes will be viewed with skepticism. I doubt she will last out Trump’s entire term. The talk is Breyer is not well and Kennedy may very well call it quits. I believe he’s 80.

      • I do wish her ill! She wants to deny me my rights? Screw her, with the horse she rode in on, to death, so we can get a SCOTUS judge to finally restore rights in California and New York and start the process of ending off their exports of anti-gun jihad.

        So yeah, let that old bird die or choose to resign. Does Justice Henry B. Brown deserve respect and deference? Would it be uncouth to say I’m happy Justice Brown is dead?

        I don’t care. I care about justice, and anyone standing in the way of justice when their job is supposed to be DELIVERING said justice- let them die, and I won’t shed a tear.

  15. Finally, a President that will get these troops out of my house! I’m tired of feeding them, and they scare the cats.

  16. He could do so much on day one by just rolling back the several decades worth of Executive Orders that stand in the way of imports (“AP” “pistol calibers”, Korean Garands, etc.) and straighten out the executive branch departments (BLM,Parks,ATF,FBI,DOJ, etc),

  17. N O N E

    Of the Black Robed Aholes are our Founding Fathers,

    N O R

    Are ANY of those who appointed them.

    There are prescribed ways in which we can amend our Constitution, NONE OF WHICH INVOLVES INTERPRETATION BY THE SCOTUS.

    If they cannot or won’t protect the Constitution from the Barbs of Statutes or Common Law THEN THEY NEED TO PACK THEIR SH_T AND GO HOME.

  18. I heard that what got Cruz to flip was a promise to put Mike Lee on the bench. Probably not any more likely to be true than these kind of rumors typically are, but if it is President Thedonald might not be so bad after all.

    • We just narrowly kept the Senate, I sincerely hope that Scalia’s replacement isn’t a Senator, since my guess is that a D would win the special election.

    • @Gov., Sen. Lee said he’s not interested in a seat on the SCOTUS bench.

      All the other candidates on Trump’s list were sitting judges, and I think that it’s more likely than not that the next Justice will be a current Federal or state court judge.

      • Well Lee would say that now wouldn’t he? Odds are you’re right, but then Thedonald isn’t exactly predictable. It’s also possible that he agreed to that to get Cruz on board but has no intention of living up to his end of the bargain. As a nevertrumper I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but he could potentially burn up any good will I have for him in a hurry if he screws us on the SCOTUS nomination.

  19. I never understand people who think originalists are the wrong ones but people who twist words to fit their political agenda are right on the constitution. I argued with some friends before over it who were saying Scalia was bad for going by the original meaning because it’s a living document. I always wonder though what the point of a constitution is if it doesn’t mean what it’s supposed to mean. If you can twist the words beyond their original meaning so it fits your political agenda then what is the point in having a constitution?

    • That’s exactly right. There’s no sense in having a foundation for your house, if the foundation is made of cheese. Thankfully, we’ve once again entered a period of American politics where the left and the media will care about the constitution.

    • Cole, that’s not so bad, I have a brother who has argued for decades that we should just ignore the constitution altogether, it was written a long time ago. Pointing out that it is the road map for the government did nothing, he said we could just pass a law or two. I should point out that he entered high school something like 30 years after I did, but that level of deliberate ignorance was and is amazing to me. And he is now an MD, although an antiestablishment hippie MD.

  20. Apparently everyone is forgetting that Trump is the first United States President who has a concealed carry license! That alone tells us that Trump sees a significant value in being armed since he can definitely afford armed guards.

    The only real question is whether or not he believes that the working class should be able to avail themselves of their right to keep and bear arms. Early indications, so far, are favorable for the working class.

  21. Ted Cruz for Supreme Court. Harvard Law graduate, clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, associate US deputy attorney general, and longest serving solicitor general in Texas history. Finally, a nominee who will not disappoint us on the bench.

  22. What’s kind of sad is that after all of this passive-aggressive angst toward Trump, TTAG finally gets it.

  23. “No gun control laws. Right?” No, that’s not “Right”. I don’t find this phrase in the text of the 2A. When PotG write such things we are simply validating the Antis’ practice of writing into the text of the 2A words such as “reasonable” or “common sense”. This is foolish on our part and we ought to stop this self-defeating practice.
    The key terms in the 2A are: “the Right”; “the People”; “keep and bear”; “arms”; and “infringed”.
    So, Congress / a state legislature passes a law. The executive signs it. Now, is it Constitutional? Does that law concern “the Right”? Does it apply to someone who is in the class “the People”? Does it affect either keeping or bearing an object? Is the object an “arm”? If all of the foregoing, does this law constitute an “infringement”?
    If we get hits on all of the above then we can discuss the notion called the standard for scrutiny. It’s a lot of work; but, it’s the work that must be done.
    To illustrate, Congress has adopted a law making a person who was once a Citizen – who has renounced his citizenship – a “prohibited person. It is a perfectly silly law that serves no valid purpose. Yet, it seems perfect clear to me that such a person is no longer a member of the class “the People”. As such, he has no 2A rights that are protected from infringement.
    I respectfully submit that if you can’t argue that my example is false then you must concede that you are mistaken. Congress can – Constitutionally – legislate in at least one case.
    If there is one such case there are apt to be many. E.g., is a “potato gun” a “gun”? Does a law prohibiting potato guns pass constitutional muster? That depends upon whether a potato gun is an “arm” within the meaning of the 2A. Is “brandishing” within the meaning of “bear[ing]”? And so it goes.
    We PotG must not be lazy in our thinking or rhetoric. We are up against a phalanx of philosophers, lawyers and jurists (among others). Why should we make our arguments trivial to dismiss? We have plenty of good, solid, arguments as shown by the 2A historians in formulating the “standard interpretation” of that Right.

  24. We don’t want another Scalia, we want someone who takes seriously “shall not be infringed”, which is the strongest language in the Bill of Rights. It bars any laws about peripheral matter, let alone about guns themselves, and it has no limits: it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law”, it flat out says “Shall not be infringed”, which means it covers every entity in the country, no restriction, no limit.

Comments are closed.