Having finished reading Stephen P. Halbrook's, ST. GEORGE TUCKER’S SECOND AMENDMENT: DECONSTRUCTING “THE TRUE PALLADIUM OF LIBERTY” I must say that he does an excellent job of demolishing Professor Saul Cornell's' latest attempt to reorder the Second Amendment as a mere civic duty (and subsequent State "Right").
This of course, goes to the heart of the latest pleadings in Parker v. District of Columbia, et al. The one remaining case that would rip the D.C. gun bans to shreds, should the appellants win. Most of the information on this lawsuit can be found here.
The crux of this new(er) problem stems from Prof. Cornell's paper wherein he claims that the 2A is a civic right and not an individual right. This is used by the DC attorneys to persuade the court that the 2A is not an individual right and therefore the DC gun ban is legal in that context.
The actual issues in this case go to more than just the definition of the 2A. It also goes to the heart of what the Judicial system regards as "standing," that is, who may or may not claim a legal right to sue because they are harmed by the passage of a law they have yet to break.
Should the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals grant standing and allow the case to proceed, then precedent would be set for many other suits to proceed. As it stands now, you must have broken the law to challenge it's constitutionality. Parker would bring back the courts to the proposition that you should not have to be jailed by breaking an invalid law, in order to achieve "standing" to sue that the law in question is void: i.e. Unconstitutional.
The most important issue, of course, is that the Circuit would be forced to rule on whether or not the 2A is in fact an individual right that the D.C. (and by inference, the Feds) government may not revoke. This sets up further discord among the Circuits, as should the appellants win, then there would be the 5th and the 1st Circuits wherein the 2A was a individual right.
Halbrook, in his paper, takes Cornell to task and by indirect inference, the latest DC brief.
This of course, goes to the heart of the latest pleadings in Parker v. District of Columbia, et al. The one remaining case that would rip the D.C. gun bans to shreds, should the appellants win. Most of the information on this lawsuit can be found here.
The crux of this new(er) problem stems from Prof. Cornell's paper wherein he claims that the 2A is a civic right and not an individual right. This is used by the DC attorneys to persuade the court that the 2A is not an individual right and therefore the DC gun ban is legal in that context.
The actual issues in this case go to more than just the definition of the 2A. It also goes to the heart of what the Judicial system regards as "standing," that is, who may or may not claim a legal right to sue because they are harmed by the passage of a law they have yet to break.
Should the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals grant standing and allow the case to proceed, then precedent would be set for many other suits to proceed. As it stands now, you must have broken the law to challenge it's constitutionality. Parker would bring back the courts to the proposition that you should not have to be jailed by breaking an invalid law, in order to achieve "standing" to sue that the law in question is void: i.e. Unconstitutional.
The most important issue, of course, is that the Circuit would be forced to rule on whether or not the 2A is in fact an individual right that the D.C. (and by inference, the Feds) government may not revoke. This sets up further discord among the Circuits, as should the appellants win, then there would be the 5th and the 1st Circuits wherein the 2A was a individual right.
Halbrook, in his paper, takes Cornell to task and by indirect inference, the latest DC brief.