Okay, here we go.
Let us assume, for just a moment, that the ACLU is correct and that the 2nd amendment recognizes a collective right of the states. This would ostensibly be so that the states can maintain the capability to defend themselves from the federal government, using whatever defensive force is necessary to do so.
That being the case, how can the federal government be allowed to tip the scales in its favor by regulating firearms, or arms of any sort? Does that not upset the balance between the states and the federal government in the federal government's favor?
It seems to me that there is a pretty good argument against any federal gun laws based on that premise: that they deny to the states the ability to defend themselves from the federal government.
If I weren't on active duty right now, I'd bring the suit myself.
Let us assume, for just a moment, that the ACLU is correct and that the 2nd amendment recognizes a collective right of the states. This would ostensibly be so that the states can maintain the capability to defend themselves from the federal government, using whatever defensive force is necessary to do so.
That being the case, how can the federal government be allowed to tip the scales in its favor by regulating firearms, or arms of any sort? Does that not upset the balance between the states and the federal government in the federal government's favor?
It seems to me that there is a pretty good argument against any federal gun laws based on that premise: that they deny to the states the ability to defend themselves from the federal government.
If I weren't on active duty right now, I'd bring the suit myself.