8/24/2005
Thoughts on Robert Bork
Retired Judge and onetime Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has an article in the 29 August edition of National Review (dead tree edition-you'll only get the first few paragraphs in the online version.) There are a lot of folks who are of the opinion that, if only Bork had been confirmed (instead of, IIRC, Kennedy. Or was it Suter?), SCOTUS wouldn't have been making the huge mess it has for the last couple of decades.
For this reason, one sentence in Judge Bork's piece jumped out at me: "Cultural decisions made in defiance of the Constitution do not deserve the same respect as decisions upholding the unavoidable growth of congressional power." This sentence leads me to believe that Judge Bork is not quite the originalist he is in many conservative's fantasies.
Judge Bork's words put 'cultural' decisions-decisions on issues like abortion, porn, speech advocating support for terrorists, all sorts of things homosexual-related, etc-as less deserving of respect that those upholding the expansion of government power-decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn and Raich. This, to me, is much the same as the attitude often shown by Justice Scalia-he wants (rightly) the Court to stay out of the culture wars, but doesn't have any problem upholding the expansion of government power (especially the police power), and especially when overturning (IMO wrongly decided) precedent would cause the collapse of the justification for huge chunks of the federal leviathan.
In short, after having read that line, I think I can say with reasonable certainty that, were he on the Court today, Judge Bork would have voted with the majority on Raich. I have doubts, but I believe that he would have voted with the dissenters on Kelo-which would have turned the case 5-4 in favor of the property owners. But I'd really love to ask him if he feels that Wickard and the raft of other cases from the late 30s and early 40s upon which the grotesque edifices of the New Deal and Great Society have been built were wrongly decided, and if he would vote to overturn them were he presented with a case that afforded him the opportunity. Because as far as I'm concerned, no Court decision in defiance of the Constitution is worthy of respect.
Permalink
|
Things that make you scratch your head
and do the RCA-Victor Dog Look.
Was perusing the WA state hunting and fishing regulations pamplet. In the section on modern firearms hunting, it says that the minimum caliber for deer is .24"/6mm. OK, that's pretty much standard.
Then it goes on to say that you can use an .22 caliber centerfire cartridge for cougar hunting.
I'm sorry, but anyone who'd go hunting cougars with a .223 is either to stupid to figure out which end the bullet comes out of, or has balls so big he can't walk.
Permalink
|
Homestate PSA from the GOA
I hadn't heard about this case. Heck, I didn't even know there was a gunshow in Sequim.
=========================
Gun Owners Foundation E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Monday, August 22, 2005
Shortly, the state Supreme Court will decide whether police in the
state of Washington can make up their own gun control laws -- laws
not approved by any federal, state, or local legislative body.
The case at hand (Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City
of Sequim) specifically involves a police chief who sauntered through
a local gun show on the day of the show. Whereupon he announced his
arbitrary and unpublished decision that, notwithstanding state law,
only federal license holders would be allowed to sell firearms on the
premises.
His actions virtually shut down the entire show.
Certainly, at stake in this case may well be the viability of gun
shows in the state of Washington for years to come. But that's not
all.
If the police can make up their own firearms laws at local gun shows,
then they can do the same at gun shops, at firing ranges, or even in
your own home!
That's why I'm asking you to make a generous contribution to Gun
Owners Foundation to help us intervene in this case. Our principal
argument before the Washington Supreme Court is that only
representatives elected by the people and acting in accordance with
the Constitution -- not police bullies -- are empowered to craft your
state's gun laws.
If you agree, I hope you will make a generous tax-deductible
contribution to Gun Owners Foundation. All proceeds from this effort
will go to exclusively to the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park
Association in Port Angeles.
Please send your checks in any amount to:
Gun Owners Foundation
8001 Forbes Pl Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
On the memo line or within an enclosed note, please specify "Port
Angeles" so that your helpful gift will be immediately directed
towards this important state Supreme Court case. You may also call
703-321-8585 to use your credit card. Again, all such contributions
are 100% tax-deductible.
In liberty,
Larry Pratt
Executive Director
=====================================
The RCW does not require a license to conduct private firearms transactions, and neither does federal law. (Buying and selling for business, as we all know, is another matter.) I don't know what percentage of the sellers at any given show are actual FFL dealers, and how many are folks just selling of part of their collection (probably to pay for other additions to said collection.) Hopefully, the state Supremes will do the right thing on this one, since the RCW is pretty clear.
Permalink
|
|
|
