Here is Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affiars Czar speaking at a school of law in October of 2007:

Remember: like Obama, Sunstein is a “Constitutional Scholar.”  Somehow, in his scholarly studies, he seems to have missed a few key points in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Most notably:

• Spenver v. Kemna in which it was said directly by the dissent that one of the punishments for committing a crime is “loss of the right to vote or to bear arms.”  This implies that the individual had a right to bear arms previous to committing a crime.
• Muscarello v. United States in which one of Justice Ginsberg’s points was to define what “carrying a firearm” meant.  In making that point, the Justice said “as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (“keep and bear Arms”) and Black’s Law Dictionary at 214 indicate: “wear, bear, or carry … for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action…”  This clearly implies an individual right.

There are many, many more such instances.  Eight of them in the 1980s alone and more for every generation before and since.  The only arguments the gun-grabbers can make are based on weak interpretations of the most recent findings of the Court as well as the original 1939 rights-grabbing finding of the United States v. Miller.

Tags: 2nd amendment, second amendment, supreme court

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 3:01 pm and is filed under The Words of Williams. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.