12-16-2013, 10:34 AM
Yeah, I think it's just trying to use the constitution to maintain a status quo that was never covered by the constitution in the first place.
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Cooke's interpretation of "infringed", if that's indeed his contention here, is way too broad to hold up in a court of law, IMO. The courts already ruled that limiting magazine capacity to 15 is not an "infringement" of constitutional rights under the second amendment. No brainer, IMO.
The total ignoring of "well regulated" by some second-amendment advocates is beyond cherry-picking, it's willful ignorance IMO. It's an important portion of the amendment that often conveniently gets left out altogether by those citing the second amendment as a legal barrier to all forms of arms regulation (i.e. gun control).
Anyway, will be interesting to see how Cooke's senatorial bid pans out...
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Cooke's interpretation of "infringed", if that's indeed his contention here, is way too broad to hold up in a court of law, IMO. The courts already ruled that limiting magazine capacity to 15 is not an "infringement" of constitutional rights under the second amendment. No brainer, IMO.
The total ignoring of "well regulated" by some second-amendment advocates is beyond cherry-picking, it's willful ignorance IMO. It's an important portion of the amendment that often conveniently gets left out altogether by those citing the second amendment as a legal barrier to all forms of arms regulation (i.e. gun control).
Anyway, will be interesting to see how Cooke's senatorial bid pans out...