August 3, 2009
What does Sarah Palin think about Heller's limits on Second Amendment right?
According to this CNN item, Sarah Palin addressed a National Rifle Association dinner in Anchorage on Saturday and gave “a stirring speech on 2nd Amendment rights.” Though I doubt former Gov. Palin gave lots of attention to the Second Amendment sentencing issues about which I often blog, I cannot help but enjoy speculating that she decided to quit being governor so that she could join me as one of the few (but growing?) active and vocal critics of the unspecified and unjustified (and unjustifiable?) extreme limits on Second Amendment rights that appear in Heller.
Some related Second Amendment posts:
- Heller's impact on felon-in-possession crimes finally starting to generate attention
- First(?) significant(?) Second Amendment ruling favoring a federal criminal defendant
- Might Judge Sotomayor think the Second Amendment "deserves to be on equal footing with the First Amendment" for ex-cons?
- Seventh Circuit resists extending Second Amendment to the states
- NRA quickly petitions SCOTUS for Second Amendment incorporation
- SCOTUS undercuts constitutional gun rights in Hayes without even mentioning Heller or Second Amendment
- Given Hayes, can jurisdictions criminalize gun possession by any misdemeanant?
- The lack of originalist justification for excluding felons from the Second Amendment
- Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
- Notable new Alaska appellate decision on denying gun rights to non-violent felons
- "Why Can’t Martha Stewart Have a Gun?"
- Is anyone (other than me) discussing the apparent insignificance of Heller?
- "The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right"
- What might 2009 have in store for . . . Second Amendment jurisprudence?
August 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What does Sarah Palin think about Heller's limits on Second Amendment right?:
A minute ago (on the Constitutional timeline) there *were* no individual second amendment rights. Now, the decision that recognized those rights is a source of "extreme limits on Second Amendment rights."
Paging Dr. Breyer: It's Alive! It's Alive! (The Constitution, that is.)
Posted by: Anon | Aug 3, 2009 11:45:04 AM
You betcha, DB!
Posted by: Res ipsa | Aug 3, 2009 12:33:04 PM
I had long thought it a shame (and somewhat puzzling) that individual Second Amendment rights had been killed off by judges, and thus I welcomed Heller's ability to reanimate these (beastly?) rights. But I also think the "beast" that is the Second Amendment and also all of society is poorly served by being unduly chained down --- like the monster in Young Frankenstein --- by misguided notions of what kinds of "rights" society is prepared to accomodate. Now, to continue this lovely metaphor, if only Sarah Palin were prepared and willing to become the Bride of this Frankenstein....!
Posted by: Doug B. | Aug 3, 2009 1:08:07 PM
Prof. Berman, do you really think that ANY politician is going to come out against felon-in-possession laws? Do you know of any who have?
Posted by: CN | Aug 3, 2009 3:38:25 PM
The validity of current laws mentioned in the heller footnote seems uncontroversial, or at least to be a reasonable policy decision to balance safety and liberty. But what about the laws criminalizing gun possession by drug users or addicts? Might these be unconstitutional under heller?
And more amusingly - will Palin get up and fight for the rights of drug users and addicts to have guns?
Posted by: Gray Proctor | Aug 3, 2009 4:05:48 PM
Only if she can see them from her house.
Posted by: Daniel | Aug 3, 2009 6:58:35 PM