|
|
If the Brady Campaign, as they say, is not interested in taking away all of our guns, why do they have their panties in a bunch over the Parker v DC ruling? As far as i can tell, it does not invalidate any law other than DC's gun ban. It doesn't make it unconstitutional to some pass gun control laws. What it does is say "you can't entirely bad guns." In other words, Americans have the right to own firearms, but they can still be regulated and licensed. I wish it said more than that, but it doesn't.
I notice they are complaining like mad, but they aren't saying, "send it to the Supreme Court now!" But what they are saying about the misinterpretation of Miller might as well equal a demand for a date with the Supreme Court. Of course, what they say about Miller is wrong, but we've come to expect that from the Brady Campaign.
What I'd like to see is this issue going to the Supreme Court and being upheld as overruling any confusion regarding the Miller ruling. We have to remember that Miller was just a matter of the Supreme Court ruling on the case at hand, and giving their reasons. That ruling was not meant to explain the law, unlike Parker which is very clear. Miller was brought to the Supreme Court because some criminals wanted to get off the hook. Parker's case was simply a demand for the restoration of Second Amendment rights to the citizens of DC. |
|
|
