I made a comment yesterday over at SayUncle's that I realized I had not yet articulated here on my own site, regarding the "executive office of the president" approving a "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment in its claim of authority to regulate weapons on spacecraft:
Had they quietly announced the rules claiming authority under "compelling state interest," they would have probably slipped in completely under the radar--although aside from this blog and its few supporters, they essentially have anyway.
[I]f the pres simply wanted to keep guns off spaceships, they didn't need to bring in the "“collective rights"” language. Re-read Ashcroft'’s letter--–he gave them the out to effect a ban with his "“compelling state interest"” rationale. That'’s all they'’d have needed to say and it would have legally stuck. They didn'’t need to address either a collective OR an individual right. But somebody did, and such inclusions are rarely accidental, which means there was intent, which implies motive...Understand, I'm not defending "compelling state interest," because, as practiced by the Bush DoJ, just about any existing law would be prosecuted or defended against under that banner. I'm merely observing that the administration did not need to go out of its way to embrace "collective rights"--the identical position as every enemy of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The way I read this is, should a legal challenge to the authority of these regs be issued, the argument the administration will make will be based on the collective theory. I don't know any other way to look at it. And if that sticks, it will hurt us a lot more than if their defense was "“compelling state interest."”
Had they quietly announced the rules claiming authority under "compelling state interest," they would have probably slipped in completely under the radar--although aside from this blog and its few supporters, they essentially have anyway.