Supreme Court Ducks the 1791 vs. 1868 Second Amendment Fight—Again

Supreme Court iStock 543442604 450x300

The technical holdup is essentially one of emphasizing due process and ignoring privileges and immunities, which to a layperson seems a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. [More]

There’s a more basic argument that no one is considering, where a leading authority at the time considered the Second Amendment to be a restraint on both the federal government and the states.

Enemy, Foreign and Domestic

Careful there, guys. Stephen’s gonna block you.

Shri’s also against guns, demands abolishing ICE, does the “No Kings” crap, and is an all around commie subversive. Who thinks his next generation’s gonna come around? Ranjit? Kostas…?

Some thoughts on “birthright citizenship” using the Bruen standard:

  • Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black described Rep. John Bingham as “The Fourteenth Amendment’s James Madison.”
  • During ratification debates on the Fourteenth Amendment “Bingham argued that birthright citizenship should only extend to children born within the U.S. whose parents did not owe “allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”
  • You can’t be said to OWE allegiance to this country until you take the oath and are granted citizenship. And by default, newborns are incapable of forming allegiances or incurring debts.