Key distinction between your buddy and Kahil is "a judge said." What judge has ruled in this case? It seems in fact that the Trump administration was trying to avoid going in front of a judge.
Bottom line - if ANY President can deport a legal permanent resident because of a protest, then the First Amendment has been scrapped.
An assault weapon ban (however one defines "assault weapons") depends on how a judge would interpret Scalia's "The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. "
If the judge decides that assault weapons are not "in common use at the time" then they can be banned. This is especially pertinent since Scalia specifically upholds the 1934 National Firearms Act upholding restrictions on private ownership of machine guns.
In short, under Heller the government can't take all your guns, but it can take some types of them.
Having read both the second link provided in the original article and Scalia's opinion in Heller (PDF at link) I think Scalia got this one right. (I am usually no fan of Scalia, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.) Basically:
1) In England prior to the 1600s, the militia was understood as "all males physically able to serve."
2) This "militia" was expected to buy their own gear.
3) During the 1600s, both the monarchy and the Parliament attempted to control England, not by abolishing the militia, but by disarming militia members who were not on their side. So, the King disarmed Protestants, and Parliament / Cromwell disarmed Catholics.
4) George III tried much the same drill with Americans in the run-up to the Revolution.
In short, the authors of the 2nd Amendment did in fact mean everybody was part of the militia and could be expected to bring their own gun and gear.
Scalia then provides some fairly persuasive cites to suggest that there was a contemporaneous understanding that the militiaman AKA everybody could legally use this gun for self-defense. These cites seem to make a common-sense argument that if it's your gun, you get to use it under reasonable restrictions.
Now, personally I think the era of the militia being terribly effective in defense against much of anything is over, unless you have a Swiss-style militia with no-BS drills and training. Having said that, Scalia explicitly says that Congress can regulate what type of weapons the militia can have. In short, Heller does not prohibit a ban on assault weapons, however defined.
Patrick Cahalan - they didn't fix it in 1816 for the same reason they didn't fix it in 1812. The party that led the US to war was opposed to higher taxes and government spending. Fixing it would have required both.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
On “Columbia, Mahmoud Khalil, and Protest Expectations”
If he's really such a bad guy, why not tell it to a judge?
"
Key distinction between your buddy and Kahil is "a judge said." What judge has ruled in this case? It seems in fact that the Trump administration was trying to avoid going in front of a judge.
Bottom line - if ANY President can deport a legal permanent resident because of a protest, then the First Amendment has been scrapped.
On “A Well Regulated Militia”
An assault weapon ban (however one defines "assault weapons") depends on how a judge would interpret Scalia's "The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. "
If the judge decides that assault weapons are not "in common use at the time" then they can be banned. This is especially pertinent since Scalia specifically upholds the 1934 National Firearms Act upholding restrictions on private ownership of machine guns.
In short, under Heller the government can't take all your guns, but it can take some types of them.
"
Having read both the second link provided in the original article and Scalia's opinion in Heller (PDF at link) I think Scalia got this one right. (I am usually no fan of Scalia, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.) Basically:
1) In England prior to the 1600s, the militia was understood as "all males physically able to serve."
2) This "militia" was expected to buy their own gear.
3) During the 1600s, both the monarchy and the Parliament attempted to control England, not by abolishing the militia, but by disarming militia members who were not on their side. So, the King disarmed Protestants, and Parliament / Cromwell disarmed Catholics.
4) George III tried much the same drill with Americans in the run-up to the Revolution.
In short, the authors of the 2nd Amendment did in fact mean everybody was part of the militia and could be expected to bring their own gun and gear.
Scalia then provides some fairly persuasive cites to suggest that there was a contemporaneous understanding that the militiaman AKA everybody could legally use this gun for self-defense. These cites seem to make a common-sense argument that if it's your gun, you get to use it under reasonable restrictions.
Now, personally I think the era of the militia being terribly effective in defense against much of anything is over, unless you have a Swiss-style militia with no-BS drills and training. Having said that, Scalia explicitly says that Congress can regulate what type of weapons the militia can have. In short, Heller does not prohibit a ban on assault weapons, however defined.
"
Patrick Cahalan - they didn't fix it in 1816 for the same reason they didn't fix it in 1812. The party that led the US to war was opposed to higher taxes and government spending. Fixing it would have required both.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.