Yet another letter in the Pilot telling us the 2nd Amendment is no longer in effect in spite of clear rulings by SCOTUS.
Supreme Court overturned by VA Beach LTE
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
What the LTE actually said was it is no longer applicable. He made the same argument I have concerning militias and the states controlling the ammo and powder. While I do not support the repeal of the 2A, I do support the idea that Jefferson espoused concerning changing times.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree, and always appreciate it each time Scalia rolls over in his grave…
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Heller, Scalia’s opinion was intentionally narrow, limiting it to the claim of the plaintiff. that he should be able to carry a handgun within his own home. This is typical for the Roberts court, to rule narrowly but to give commentary to guide the legislatures and then wait and see what they do before issuing a more general ruling. The Roberts court also gives more latitude to State legislatures than to Federal law.
Though Scalia is gone, the court remains pro 2nd Amendment and respectful of precedent.
If the Congress enacts major restrictions on firearms, it may well be struck by a lightening bolt from Scalia through the current court.
LikeLike
SCOTUS makes mistakes, too.
Unfortunately because we are so flooded with guns at this point in our history, there is little we can do for a short term solution.
Sure, we can arrest, try and convict those who lie on background forms also no with those who successfully made straw purchases. Assuming, of course, that local jurisdictions have the manpower, money and resources to do so.
And we can try and convict every unbalanced person caught abusing or stalking or peeing in public to make sure they have felony convictions. Again, resources and money.
Conservatives refuse to fund our judicial system. We are short staffed everywhere.
The cynical side of me says this is just fine with the gun lobby. Keep the crime rates up and sell the idea that more guns on the street, unregistered, unlicensed and untraceable will solve it all. Not to mention money for the industry and donations for LaPierre’s suits, vacations and his wife’s personal stylist.
Then when the signal goes out, the “patriots” will storm a couple of national park offices, a post office or two and maybe hold a Democratic Senator hostage.
I’m skipping my anger management class now.
I just vented. Mea culpa.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Again, resources and money.”
Simple solution. Prioritize.
The money we waste on prosecuting and jailing people for victimless crimes would easily cover vigorous prosecution of those who commit crimes against persons that expose the truly dangerous.
Aside from which, making prostitution readily and legally available might help with the Incel problem.
LikeLike
“…making prostitution readily and legally available might help with the Incel problem.“
Novel approach. Assuming the losers sitting in Mom’s basement because he can’t afford his own place can buy sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, with a government takeover of health care, their shrinks can just write them a prescription.
LikeLike
Both points are true and would represent a more mature and sane approach to the realities of life.
I have always believed that a more vigorous (very) prosecution of physical crimes against other people coupled with more comprehensive and effective background checks would/could make a difference.
Banning weapons of war and 100 round magazines should be on the list as well.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “Yet another letter in the Pilot telling us the 2nd Amendment is no longer in effect…”
Yes, you get the impression from such letters that significant numbers of the public at large are simply ignorant, or else that The Pilot is on a tear to establish a Big Lie as truth. One is at least justified to be skeptical on both counts.
The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The LTE doesn’t address the phrase which justifies the existence of the militia: it is “necessary to the security of a free State.”
The free State in question may be the federal union, or it may be a sovereign constituent (e.g., Virginia). Either interpretation amounts to the same thing, because the operative word is “free.”
Neither the union nor it’s constituents could be considered “free” in any meaningful sense were the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” — long established in common law at the time and arguably as old as ancient Sparta — infringed.
Freedom, not military defense, is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Militias are no longer used in the sense they were when the Constitution and 2A were written. They were clearly written with the defense of the country in mind. Today we have a standing army, which the Founders were loath to do. We have National Guards, under the auspices of the state governors, to assist in defense of the individual states, when needed.
You state that Freedom, not military defense, is the purpose of the 2A. I say your interpretation of that one sentence is absolutely inaccurate. The””people” WERE the militias then. The states controlled the powder and shot for issuance in case of the need for national defense.
As I have stated numerous times, I am not in favor of the repeal of the 2A. Never have been. But I am in favor of bringing it into the 21st Century.
LikeLike
Our “freedoms” are routinely infringed upon for the sake of the common good.
I don’t think that a repeal of the 2nd is necessary, but a modern interpretation with sane limitations is certainly in order.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Our ‘freedoms’ are routinely infringed upon for the sake of the common good.”
They shouldn’t be. That’s the very reason we have The Bill of Rights.
LikeLike
Being free IS the common good.
Take care with that modern interpretation stuff. If you consider that the justification (prefatory clause) for the active clause referred to weapons equal or superior to those used by the military at the time, applying that logic today would make the ban on fully automatic weapons unConstitutional.
LikeLike
That wouldn’t be the approach I’d take on the Constitutional issue.
The issue of freedom, however, is a matter of degree as determined by society and law. Too much of anything is a bad thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people