WHEN PEOPLE — LAWYERS — who have gone through so much schooling can’t read what’s in front of their noses!
With reference to: this thread at Volokh Conspiracy.
I also get really exercised when people who ought to know better — as above — start arguing the minutiae of unlawful impositions. It’s like arguing whether the Titanic was sunk from a single puncture or a tear down its entire side; not relevant — the relevant fault is that the ship was steered too close to the iceberg. So many political arguments are not about fundamentals — is the state permitted to do this at all — but over whether this detail or that is represented more accurately in the media. To whit:
The Federal Constitution, in the Second Amendment thereto, reads in relevant part, “The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Yeah, there’s commas in there, but they don’t change the meaning.
Unlike the First Amendment, which lays a proscription specifically on Congress (and no other), the Second makes a categorical statement about a right inhering to every American citizen — regardless of what polity he may inhabit. NO actor — public or private — may prohibit a free citizen from the exercise of this right, which right, in wording the Amendment, the framers recognize, predates the formation of the United States and the ratification of the Constitution.
Therefor, the Cleveland laws under discussion in the above-linked article are in violation of the Federal Constitution. Seven no-trump, doubled and redoubled. Game, rubber, match.
How stupid does a lawyer have to be, despite all indoctrination to the contrary, not to recognize this fact which is crystal-clear to the least among We the (Little) People?