Our national tug-of-war over the right to keep and bear arms has been going badly for those of us who believe that the Second Amendment protects the right of each individual to protect himself as he thinks best.
Back in 2008, Heller laid the foundation for a robust approach to the Second Amendment and in 2010, McDonald told local governments that they couldn’t disregard Heller and limit ownership of firearms however they pleased. And early last year, the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbedecision held that judges must employ strict scrutiny when they consider restrictions that state legislatures place on gun ownership. (I wrote about that case here.)
Recently, however, the anti-gun side has been gaining ground while the Supreme Court remains timidly on the sidelines.
Consider, for example, Hamilton v. Pallozzi.
In 2006, James Hamilton was living in Virginia when he purchased a computer with a stolen credit card. He was tried and convicted of that felony (three, actually)in Virginia. He served no jail time, but completed probation and paid restitution.
Back in 2008, Heller laid the foundation for a robust approach to the Second Amendment and in 2010, McDonald told local governments that they couldn’t disregard Heller and limit ownership of firearms however they pleased. And early last year, the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbedecision held that judges must employ strict scrutiny when they consider restrictions that state legislatures place on gun ownership. (I wrote about that case here.)
Recently, however, the anti-gun side has been gaining ground while the Supreme Court remains timidly on the sidelines.
Consider, for example, Hamilton v. Pallozzi.
In 2006, James Hamilton was living in Virginia when he purchased a computer with a stolen credit card. He was tried and convicted of that felony (three, actually)in Virginia. He served no jail time, but completed probation and paid restitution.
Comments