I practiced and taught law for years and graded hundreds of law school exams. Even thoughtful lawyers take issue sooner or later with the U.S. Supreme Court. However, not one lawyer of my acquaintance ever did so more deftly and fairly than Ellie Kinnaird did in the Chapel Hill News on May 28 ( bit.ly/U1LUQi).
Brava, Ellie! I actually recall disagreeing with you on a local issue in the ’80s. Never again! Your “My View” column enhanced the admiration and respect I gained for you after we took opposing positions on that earlier occasion. You are a superb lawyer, and you were “spot on” in your criticism of the Supreme Court’s all-too-frequent apparently uncaring judicial misfires on the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Shame on “the Supremes!” On this one issue, at least, they have not recently been even mediocre, much less Supreme.
Sadly I say with Ellie Kinnaird, If we can’t count on our Supreme Court to protect us from apparently heedless deaths and injuries caused by rampant firearm misuse, “Where do we go from here?”
Never miss a local story.
Kinnaird’s logic fails
Former state Sen. Ellie Kinnard gave us the benefit of her deep understanding of Supreme Court rulings and exact intent of the Bill of Rights in a front page opinion piece in the Chapel Hill News.
According to Kinnaird, the Second Amendment was written to enable the government to call on an already armed militia not, as the other amendments are usually interpreted, to enumerate citizens’ rights the government may not infringe upon. This interpretation would mean that the other amendments are also not intended to protect citizens from government intrusion, but to serve the purposes of the rulers.
Interpreting the First Amendment using Kinnaird’s subductive reasoning would mean that speech is free as long as it serves the government’s purpose, and the ban on establishing a religion exists only to preserve the power and influence of the government. After all, can’t have folks spouting opinions contrary to what the government proclaims or, God forbid, troublesome priests defying the ruling classes. You can have the fun of interpreting the Bill of Rights according Kinnaird.
Why the Chapel Hill News continues to pander to a political has-been who deserted her constituents in a snit after her party lost dominance is unknown.
Robert L. Porreca
Guns saved my life
My guns have saved my life twice. My children would not be here without those guns in my possession.
Every time some idiot starts clamoring about curtailing my liberty to defind myself or my family I think about the idiot on angel dust I kept at bay with my rifle or the other nut twice my size that threatened my life.
Every lawful citizen should be armed. I prefer open carry to delineate myself from prey ... or the idiots who project their own insecurities upon everyone else.
Best way to stop a criminal
Which part of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” does Ellie Kinnaird not understand?
True, there are many people who have no business carrying a gun. But, that doesn't take away the rights of others.
Kinnaird, and her party, need to get it through their heads that the best way to stop a criminal with a gun, is to have a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
What Burger said
I suggest the well armed and angry look up Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. There they will find how the Secnd Amendment was applied in its time and what it meant/means.
And please note, dear readers, the words of a former Chief Justice Warren Burger: “(The Second Amendment) has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Thanks NRA.