Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28904)	7/9/2008 1:25:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

But I'd venture to say that --- since the Senate apparently resisted accepting language from the House that unambiguously laid out a personal right, fought against it for MONTHS and finally prevailed in the tussle --- if the Senate's preferred language does establish a personal right to some degree, it seems most definitely to establish such a right to a lesser degree then the House's more direct language would have. You make an argument. I challenge you on it, then you say you didn't make it, then you go back to making it again... Absent the text of the houses version, any such argument is going to be very weak, you have no evidence to point to, just a claim that there is such evidence. Even with the text its still a weak argument. Because 1 - The Senate/final version supports an individual right with very little ambiguity. 2 - There are all sorts of possible reasons why the Senate would prefer there version to the House's version (one of the reasons being as simple as "its there's", people don't really have to have a good reason to prefer the formulation they came up with), and no reason to think concern about making it a right/power of the state rather than an individual right was a reason for the Senate's resistance to the House version.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28904)	7/9/2008 2:16:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

[David Kopel, July 9, 2008 at 1:02pm] Trackbacks Collective Rights bleg: Thanks to District of Columbia v. Heller, we now have unanimous agreement that the "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment is incorrect. All nine Justices agreed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right; the Justices simply disagreed about the scope of the individual right. Nothing in the dissent claims that there is now, or even has been, a scintilla of evidence from the Founding Era, or from Supreme Court precedent, in support of the "collective right."... volokh.com