Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sensible Gun Control

Maybe it's just me but IMO, sensible is what the constitution says, "shall not be infringed."

No it's not just you.

Maybe it's just me but IMO, sensible is what the constitution says, "shall not be infringed."

Maybe it's just me but IMO, sensible is what the constitution says, "shall not be infringed."

they tend to be lawless, so I don't discount the possibility that they will simply ignore law, precedent and logic to continue their ways.

Gee, why would you conclude that?

I'm more of a lurker than a poster, but since the topic is one that is near and dear, I figured it was time to speak up.

By way of background, I'm a business lawyer and over the past few years (really, since Obama ratcheted up his attacks on liberty when he took office) I've devoted an increasingly large amount of time to pro-bono, pro liberty advocacy. It takes the form of publishing scholarly articles, working with conservative politicians to enlighten them on constitutional law and filing amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases. I participated in the Hobby Lobby case last year and this year I filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the Obergefell (same sex marriage) case.

My brief focused on the idea that the Supreme Court was likely to create a new fundamental right to same sex marriage and would protect that new right from any level of state infringement. What I argued is the following-if the court gives this kind of protection to newly created rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution, how would it ever be able to uphold any state infringement of existing fundamental rights that are enumerated in the Constitution, like the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms? Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion did exactly as I expected in my amicus brief.

I followed up my amicus brief with a detailed analysis of the Obergefell opinion, including the dissents, to find that in addition to destroying federalism, Justice Kennedy’s opinion must mean, as a matter of 14th Amendment precedent, that all fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are now immune from state and local regulation. As much as some would like to dismiss this conclusion, there is no other way to read the Obergefell opinion. Furthermore, based on existing Second Amendment caselaw (the Heller decision, primarily), it is likely the case that new federal laws in excess of those already in effect would be unconstitutional under Obergefell. This is especially important in light of calls by President Obama for new, confiscatory gun laws in the wake of recent shootings.

My paper, “After Obergefell: Dignity for the Second Amendment”, can be downloaded at no cost through the Social Science Research Network website at the following link: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2652536

The bottom line is that I would have preferred that our system as a constitutional, federal republic had not been destroyed. But since the left, with an assist by the Supreme Court, did destroy our system, my goal is to fight back by using their laws against them. Maybe then, they'll realize that there is a heavy price to be paid for what they are doing. Then again, they tend to be lawless, so I don't discount the possibility that they will simply ignore law, precedent and logic to continue their ways.

Remsen, you need to post more often. Are you from Oklahoma?

Also, I would like for O'Reilly to bloviate an opinion on your question, specifically in respect to "reasonable" gun laws.

Fellow Lurker as well, but need to say thank you to Remsen for your efforts.

Remsen,

Well done!

If you would permit me a few weeks liberty to read and digest that whilst chasing elk, it'd be appreciated. A scholarly review from that perspective should be most illuminating.