Smith & Wesson to Offer 'Commemorative' D.C. vs. Heller Gun

[red states rule]

This is what you would call "in your face". I hope S&W sells out

Could the Franklin Mint be far behind?



July 23, 2008
Smith & Wesson to Offer 'Commemorative' D.C. vs. Heller Gun


As part of the project, an engraved Smith & Wesson Model 442 revolver will be presented to each of the six plaintiffs - Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller - for their key roles in working to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Smith & Wesson will make the commemorative revolver available for consumer purchase in Fall 2008 and will direct a portion of the proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to acknowledge the organization's pivotal role in the Heller case and its ongoing efforts to preserve the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
Over at HuffPost, Josh Sugarman makes the argument that Smith & Wesson is thumbing its nose at police departments with this announcement, since the gun ban was strongly supported by the MPD, and the company is well known for manufacturing a "revolver that can penetrate the body armor worn by law enforcement."

The 'commemorative' revolver is clearly targeting serious gun enthusiasts, the sort of people who would want to add such a piece to their gun collections, but we suppose some of you District residents who are planning to obtain a handgun might be interested as well.

http://dcist.com/2008/07/23/smith_an..._commemora.php

[avatar4321]

well, if thats your thing, fine, but i prefer hand to hand combat weapons.

[hjmick]

I'd buy one.

[red states rule]

I'd buy one.

They need to send a free one to the DC Mayer

I would

[Jagger]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism

In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C. v. Heller, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense of their normal and ordinary use by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation...

Scalia is an incompetent activist. The Constitution wasn't made with the lawmakers understanding that it would be interpreted according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, knew that there were well established common law rules of interpretation and that they applied to the U. S. Constitution.

The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." It is contended that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies excepting those in which a State may be plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

--John Jay in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

[red states rule]

If you own a gun, there are rules you have to obey

[hjmick]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism

In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C. v. Heller, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense of their normal and ordinary use by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation...

Scalia is an incompetent activist. The Constitution wasn't made with the lawmakers understanding that it would be interpreted according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, knew that there were well established common law rules of interpretation and that they applied to the U. S. Constitution.

The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." It is contended that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies excepting those in which a State may be plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

--John Jay in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Blah blah blah blah...

Why don't you just say it, you don't want any private citizen to own a gun. You wish to disarm all law abiding citizens in the United States leaving guns in the hands of the government controlled military, the government controlled law enforcement agencies, and the criminals. You would have us all on our knees and at the mercy of the judgement of others.

[red states rule]

Blah blah blah blah...

Why don't you just say it, you don't want any private citizen to own a gun. You wish to disarm all law abiding citizens in the United States leaving guns in the hands of the government controlled military, the government controlled law enforcement agencies, and the criminals. You would have us all on our knees and at the mercy of the judgement of others.

He looks to these people for advice on gun laws

[Jagger]

Blah blah blah blah...

Why don't you just say it, you don't want any private citizen to own a gun. You wish to disarm all law abiding citizens in the United States leaving guns in the hands of the government controlled military, the government controlled law enforcement agencies, and the criminals. You would have us all on our knees and at the mercy of the judgement of others.

Why don't you just say you like pinko commie judicial activists like Scalia legislating from the bench?

[Jagger]

Activist Judges Use Old Foreign Law To Interpret U. S. Constitution

"‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).

--D. C. v. Heller

Did anyone notice that Rex v. Marks was an English case? The five judicial activist are using very old foreign law to interpret the U. S. Constitution.

[Little-Acorn]

Relax, RSR and Hjmick. "Jagger" will obviously do anything he can to try to discredit the Heller opinion, including splitting the tiniest, most irrelevant hairs he can dig up and hoping somebody takes him seriously.

Ignore him and he'll eventually go away.

Please.

[Jagger]

The five judicial activists comprising the majority in D. C. v. Heller chose to apply the rule established by the Court of the Kings Bench in the case of Rex v. Marks (1802), for no reason other than it would produce the results they personally desired.

What makes Joel Prentiss Bishop an authority on which rules of construction should be applied to the U. S. Constitution?

Why isn't the Sprague Court still the authority on which rules of interpretation should apply to the Constitution?

Why aren't Tiffany, Volokh, Dwarris or Sedgwick still the authority on the proper use of preambles in Constitutional interpretation?

So far, the five little activists have, with regard to the rules of construction, switched authorities six times. The five activists are obviously cherry picking. They are choosing to apply only those rules of construction that will produce the outcome they personally desire.

The well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made, are the rules that should be applied to the Constitution. Those rules are found in Blackstone's Commentaries, which was probably the only source of information about English common law the lawmakers had access to as the Constitution was being made.

[Jagger]

Here's Alexander Hamilton saying that the intention of the lawmakers should be ascertained by applying the well established common law rules of construction to the U. S. Constitution.

Whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law. that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction.

--Alexander Hamilton on whether the Constitution grants Congress power to establish a national bank

[red states rule]

Relax, RSR and Hjmick. "Jagger" will obviously do anything he can to try to discredit the Heller opinion, including splitting the tiniest, most irrelevant hairs he can dig up and hoping somebody takes him seriously.

Ignore him and he'll eventually go away.

Please.

Given the reaction of the left to this decison, it was the right call

[Jagger]

Given the reaction of the left to this decision, it was the right call

What reaction of the left?