GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (Abridged)
By John Cicchitti Volume 30, Issue 2
One evening in 1982, a terrorist pulled into a New York City parking lot.1 Colm Murphy, an extremist associated with the Irish National Liberation Army (“INLA”),2 planned to acquire twenty M-16 automatic rifles.3 He was present in the United States illegally.4 While he had hoped to buy “SAM-7 missiles or ‘something that [had] the capability of taking down [a] helicopter’” for use in Northern Ireland, Murphy settled for the offered rifles and went to meet with the seller, ostensibly a member of the Italian-American Mafia.5 His contact—actually an undercover FBI agent—exchanged the weapons for Murphy’s money.6 Once the terrorist signed the final check and took possession of the weapons, federal agents arrested him.7
Federal prosecutors charged Murphy with “being an illegal alien who received and possessed guns.”8 A jury convicted, and he was sentenced to two years on that charge.9 On appeal, Murphy challenged his conviction, claiming the statute violated his Second Amendment rights, but the Second Circuit waved away this argument.10 The court reasoned, “in the absence of evidence showing that [a] firearm has ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,’ [the] Second Amendment does not guarantee [a] right to keep and bear such a weapon.”11 The Second Circuit upheld the statute banning illegal aliens from possessing firearms and affirmed Murphy’s conviction.12
A quarter century later, in District of Columbia v. Heller,13 the Supreme Court embraced a different Second Amendment theory.14 Instead of focusing on the relationship between militia membership and firearms, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected “an individual right to keep and bear arms.”15 Yet, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”16 Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, courts have wrestled with the boundaries of the Heller-recognized individual right to keep and bear arms.17
Not at all surprised. Illegals are worshipped now. The left has been the fulcrum behind this for several decades. Immigration law enforcement has been sabotaged, obstructed and hindered for decades. Understaffed, restricted, politically manipulated by of course the Democrat sophisticates. I have high confidence arrogant, spoiled, woke Americans will see what they have done to themselves and countless victims they conveniently have ignored. We are in grave danger.
I guess hazard that we are better shots time to practice single taps…
I think this argument is a very slippery slope, and to be honest, I found a few of the SCOTUS remarks (I assume written by the majority) a bit unsettling. For example, “In the absence of evidence showing that a firearm has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and bear such a weapon.” The open door to this discussion is for the court to decide what is and what is not a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. Two possibilities at least: a liberal court may argue that a specially designed handgun does not have a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia — or, because an M203 Grenade launcher does have a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia, Ahab bin Stupido is allowed to have one even if not authorized by federal regulation or policy.
And then some years later (which helps to make my earlier point), “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Of course, a reasonable mind would accept the statement that “nothing” is finite. Not even the First Amendment, contextually.
I no longer trust the federal government to do the right thing because “the right thing” is whatever a bureaucrat says is right. By federal government, I mean the courts, president, congress, and departments/agencies. It makes me sad to think about it.
Mustang I would agree to your point of not trusting the Feds – Outside influences, which I define as partisan controlled media and possible foreign influence, seem in my opinion, to play a greater role in defining constitutional opinions than the interests of the American people – I do not believe the Constitution was intended to be a living document to be challenged at every turn by those who’s interests supersedes the public interest, but then maybe my opinion is a throwback notion that we, the people should have the final say in Constitutional issues.