All the NRA “defending hunters’ rights” angles aside, this is what the 2nd amendment is about.
Silveira v. Lockyer, No. 01-15098 Filed May 6, 2003
Judge Kozinski’s Dissenting Opinion
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases —or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
Continue reading Silveira v. Lockyer: Judge Kozinski’s Dissenting Opinion
The Daily Caller, the conservative website founded by Tucker Carlson, has launched an unusual publicity stunt to say the least: Now through Nov. 6—Election Day—the Washington, D.C.-based site will give away a handgun a week.
Fred Ricciutti, we salute you. How unfortunate that we live in a time when we must be concerned with home invasions; but we do… so we are ready.
“In the war I experienced a lot of bad things, but I had never experienced that in my own house…”
“I know the family. They’re good people,” he said, adding that they came over in tears to apologize for what Hiles allegedly did.
“I forgave them,” he said, adding that he couldn’t hold them responsible for Hiles’ actions.
Back the truck up…
‘Shoot-first’ laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted.
Disregard the fact that the Trayvon Martin incident is not a “stand your ground” type shooting (it was more of an “on your back, getting your head bashed in” shooting), isn’t that EXACTLY the point of the law? To allow a citizen to defend himself against an outlaw, without the need to fear criminal prosecution unless the shooting is not justified? Of course deaths due to self-defense have increased, people can refuse to be victimized. The media and politicians have been so incredibly irresponsible in the coverage and commentary of this shooting, I do not possess the language to properly convey my level of contempt and disgust. In the spirit of Rahm “never let a crisis go to waste” Emanuel, the ticks and leeches in DC are trying to capitalize on the Martin shooting, ever in search of ways to undermine the citizen’s ability to protect himself from their constituents.