No Guarantee of a Gun: How and Why the Second Amendment Means Exactly What It Says
The information in this book proves by means of credible and irrefutable documentary evidence that the Supreme Court's decision on June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess and carry weapons, was incorrect. And the information in this book forms the foundation of what would have been the correct decision in that case.
Second Amendment commentary and case law are incorrect. But unfortunately, they are relied upon by today's scholars and jurists. However, this book, written in plain English instead of the legalese that many persons find unappealing about books pertaining to legal subjects, takes the bold step of disproving these incorrect authorities on the most controversial and puzzling provision of the United States Constitution, and it meets that challenge.
While other books on the Second Amendment rely largely on incorrect commentary and case law, this book uses credible and irrefutable documentary evidence to uncover the substance of the Second Amendment. By proving that Second Amendment commentary and case law are incorrect, this book will become both the preeminent treatise on the Second Amendment and a landmark book in the field of Constitutional law. And while gun control has been a highly controversial issue for a long time, the debate on gun control has been improperly bifurcated into what is good public policy and what is Constitutional. This book eliminates the Constitutional component of that debate so that the debate can be focused solely on what is good public policy.
Other books written on the Second Amendment propose incorrect theories or attempt to reconcile its two supposed clauses. However, this book is the best book ever written on the Second Amendment because it does what no other book has ever done. It uncovers, by means of documentary evidence instead of mere argument, the true meanings of the terms A well regulated Militia, people, keep, and bear arms.
Results 1-5 of 96
1002] The Maine federal district court in United States v. ... importers, and distributors of handguns, stated This is a case invoking state tort law; the Second Amendment limits only the powers of the federal government.
Amendment claim similar to the one now before us, “appellant can not prevail because his challenges are foreclosed ... Second Amendment does not prohibit the federal government from imposing some restrictions on private gun ownership.
The plain language of the first clause appears to impose no legal requirement or restriction on the federal government. Only the second clause indicates a right that the government cannot infringe. [133: p. 1002] David T. Hardy (1986) ...
The amendment is to be read as an assurance that the national government shall not so reduce the militias. [cs] Decisions of the courts have not retreated from the view that the amendment inhibits only the national government, ...
There is one point of the constitutional argument that the defendant and the government share: they both believe that the Second Amendment must be construed to confer ... 393] The New Hampshire federal district court in United States v.
What people are saying - Write a review
PART III TYING UP LOOSE ENDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
PART IV THE SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND CLAIM