------------------
This letter writer gets enough correct that it leads us in to think he has something to offer. Then he veers off into leftism.
He wants us to think he values the Constitution, but he actually values an interpretation of the Constitution. But he doesn't even get that interpretation right.
------------------
The late Justice Antonin Scalia was the strongest advocate for the Second Amendment ever to sit on the Supreme Court. In the landmark 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion to affirm the Second Amendment applies to individuals. (This is incorrect. The Second Amendment applies to government, not individuals. He affirmed that the D.C. government is enjoined by the Second Amendment to cease infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. )
The late Justice Antonin Scalia was the strongest advocate for the Second Amendment ever to sit on the Supreme Court. In the landmark 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion to affirm the Second Amendment applies to individuals. (This is incorrect. The Second Amendment applies to government, not individuals. He affirmed that the D.C. government is enjoined by the Second Amendment to cease infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. )
He noted, “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (The language for that ruling is found here.)
According to this conservative Supreme Court opinion, current university gun safety policies in Montana do not violate or threaten the Second Amendment. (Apparently the letter writer only read the quote and not the ruling. The majority opinion was stating that their ruling on Heller did not apply to these other things. In other words, the ruling is narrow, specifically, that the possession of typical weapons like handguns could not be prohibited.)
As Gov. Gianforte signed the bill, he cited the Second Amendment as a blanket justification to force guns into classrooms. (Ah, finally, the letter writer betrays himself. He was trying to present himself as a thoughtful commentator on the Constitution, and nearly pulled it off. But the use of the word "force" gives him away. The bill doesn't force anyone to do anything. Allowing gun possession has nothing to do with forcing guns into classrooms.)
As Gov. Gianforte signed the bill, he cited the Second Amendment as a blanket justification to force guns into classrooms. (Ah, finally, the letter writer betrays himself. He was trying to present himself as a thoughtful commentator on the Constitution, and nearly pulled it off. But the use of the word "force" gives him away. The bill doesn't force anyone to do anything. Allowing gun possession has nothing to do with forcing guns into classrooms.)
This is a false argument. It insinuates the right to bear arms is absolute, which it clearly is not. (What the letter writer infers is different from what Gianforte may or may not have been insinuating.)
Justice Scalia defined its limits. (Again the letter writer misrepresents the ruling.)
House Bill 102 acknowledges this with its exceptions for university sports events.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Seth Berglee, and Attorney General Austin Knudsen promote the falsehood that the Constitution guarantees concealed carry in class. A conservative Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. (The letter writer term-switches. The Constitution is different than a Supreme court ruling.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Seth Berglee, and Attorney General Austin Knudsen promote the falsehood that the Constitution guarantees concealed carry in class. A conservative Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. (The letter writer term-switches. The Constitution is different than a Supreme court ruling.
Further, this is not about what the Constitution guarantees, it is about what government is not allow to infringe upon.)
Our Attorney General should accurately represent the Constitution and its Second Amendment as defined by Justice Scalia. It is the law of the land. (Term-switching. A Supreme court ruling is not the law of the land. Courts cannot make law.)
The Montana Supreme Court will decide who has authority to set campus gun policy. (Where in Montana's Constitution does it give the Montana Supreme court the power to decide what powers the other branches have?)
The Montana Supreme Court will decide who has authority to set campus gun policy. (Where in Montana's Constitution does it give the Montana Supreme court the power to decide what powers the other branches have?)
If the Montana Board of Regents’ authority is confirmed, the regents will set policy in the interest of safety and the growth of our universities. If legislators are granted authority, (Can you imagine? The author thinks the Montana Supreme court has the power to grant authority to the legislature. No, Mr. Purcell. The Montana Constitution creates the legislature's authority, not the court.)
they will serve the interests of the gun lobby. That is their right. This will do nothing to preserve or protect the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment