The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping rightNow what misrepresentation, you ask? The most blatant one:
The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law.
The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.Starting with that misrepresentation part, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that a weapon's applicability in military service was not shown to be represented by a sawed off shotgun. Military service was not in any way tied to the possession of weapons, only that they must possess military applicability. This argument is completely false in regard to who has the right to keep and bear arms. So, charitably speaking, the NYT lied. They also know they lied, Miller has been around since 1939. They have the Freedom of the Press to lie about the BOR and the Supreme Court, they're still liars.
Now with regard to the reasoning and the banning of the free press, the first part of the argument is naturally applicable to kiddie porn, there is indisputable inevitable universal harm to children involved, it is a reasonable restriction on a right and naturally the NYT is exempt provided their advertisements don't get anymore grotesque. Moving right along, kiddie porn is published online and on paper, so the NYT is arguing that bytes and newsprint be banned - so long guys. Oh, I know the editorial is about handguns not newsprint, at least it is supposed to be. It isn't. It is about 'the powers that be' deciding that the perception of security trumps the Constitution. I seem to remember them screaming that CIA considerations weren't sufficient to prevent the reporting of secret prisons...um their sacred cow.
Nobody is conceding one iota to the NYT about "reasonable" restrictions. Does somebody remember the wiggle word in the Fourth Amendment? "Unreasonable" search and seizure... means something different to tyrants than it does to the Framers. RICO would involve hot tar, feathers, and a rail, but that law is still on the books. BushCo would have been hung, despite Adams' Alien and Sedition Law, for which he is still reviled. You see, it is hugely in the corporate interest to protect newsprint and, to a degree, bytes; but not at all to protect firearm owners or the citizenry's rights. If they'd like to sue me for calling them liars, they're free to; a hamster could represent himself in that case, and not on the First Amendment, simply by introducing Miller as evidence. Here you go, corporate lawyers:
NYT LIES ABOUT MILLER
Try me out, please, I could use the income from the counter-suit.
The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community.Boy did they walk out on a limb here, what they do not have is one iota of evidence that this is the case, nor did they at the time. In point of fact, DC and NYC both defied the national trends in decreasing firearm crime after their bans. They, in fact, became more dangerous despite public perception, the FBI's numbers are clear. The premise is based on the ultimate stupidity, that people who would obey their laws regarding possession of firearms would otherwise violate the law by shooting each other. The legal penalty for violating the bans is considerably lighter than the penalty for shooting someone illegally. You'd think that might enter their minds.
I therefore propose that because the NYT has proven that it will misuse the First Amendment right to Free Press through lies and misrepresentations to suppress the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people that they be banned for inevitable universal irreparable harm to the citizenry. Makes as much sense to me.