It is said by the wise to be careful for what you wish, for it may be granted.
After 234 years of confusion and contention the Right Of the People To Keep and Bear Arms is officially acknowledged and accepted by the Imperial Feral Government of these United States as Stare decisis.
Or so We, the Befuddled, are led to believe.
Remember, when the topic is abortion, there exists the “penumbra of a right” to kill at will. CLICK LINK HERE
When the topic is impeachment of the President Of The United States for obstruction of justice, Scottish Law prevails. CLICK LINK HERE
But when the topic is the 2nd Amendment-all the above and more, maybe not so much applies!
For those who wonder what the future may hold it might be useful to review this excellent commentary :
June 29, 2010
The “Silent Six” states worth watching for post-McDonald Second Amendment litigation
Though a diverse array of gun regulations will likely be subject to a diverse array of post-McDonald Second Amendment attacks in lower courts, I will be watching most closely how Second Amendment litigation unfolds in the six states that lack any state constitutional provisions concerning arms or gun rights: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York. (Professor Eugene Volokh long ago created on-line this terrific list of state constitutional provisions concerning arms.) Here are at least three reasons why these states — which I will call the “Silent Six” (or should it be Silencer Six) — seem worth watching extra closely after McDonald:
1. Lack of any controlling state constitutional law precedents. In states with constitutional provisions concerning arms, there will be some judicial precedents that state judges can consider and reference when sorting through new Second Amendment claims. But in the “Silent Six,” state judges will be working on a mostly blank jurisprudential slate. These state judges can and surely will look for guidance from gun rulings from other jurisdictions. Still, the state judges in the “Silent Six” states will have a unique freedom (and unique necessity) to develop Second Amendment jurisprudence without any existing law to restrict or guide them.