This morning's Salt Lake Tribune breaks the story 2nd Amendment activists have been awaiting for years. This from today's wire service story:
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.So much for the shabby argument that the right to firearm ownership is somehow dependent upon service in a state militia. The Second Amendment was designed by The Founders to protect an individual's right to own and use firearms, according the today's SCOTUS opinion.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: ''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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.
Read the Court's written opinion here, straight from the US Supreme Court website.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, gun grabbers.
16 comments:
This proper, well-written ruling on guns does not change the fact that the Supreme Court ruling on constitutionality is not, itself, constitutional.
Yes, that thing about the Supreme Court being one of three separate but equal branches thing they tell you about in school, is a lie. The few people who ever read the Constitution can see that very easily.
A decent ruling once in awhile doesn't change that.
Ah, how interesting. Conservatives who howl when the Court overturns a law of a state permitting teacher led prayer in public schools and denounce the decision as "judicial activism" now stand and applaud as the court overturns a law of the DC government. Somehow, that --- though it involves unelected judges overturning a law put in place by elected officials --- is not "judicial activism."
Ah, hypocracy, thy name is Republican.
Note as well, please, that Scalia's opinion for the majority also says "that right is not unlimited."
So why does the 2nd amendment mention a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? Take a look at Article I, sect 7 of the U.S. Constitution. Among the powers granted to Congress are the powers to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia ..." Many were concerned that implicit in this power was the power of Congress to dis-arm the Militia. Could this be why the 2nd amendment was ratified? Not according to Mr Original Intent Scalia, who somehow finds that the original intent of the 2nd amendment has actually nothing to do with its opening clause. i can't wait to read his entire opinion. They never cease to amze me.
The court said you can regulate guns, you just can't take them away.
"This proper, well-written ruling on guns does not change the fact that the Supreme Court ruling on constitutionality is not, itself, constitutional.
Yes, that thing about the Supreme Court being one of three separate but equal branches thing they tell you about in school, is a lie."
Interesting crackpot proposition... "Citizen,"
We're keeping our fingers crossed that you'll show up back here soon with your crackpot rationale and argument.
First, I do agree with the Court's interpretation in this ruling.
The issue is the idea of the Court having the power to declare unconstitutionality at all, which is a power they don't actually have.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as Congress shall make.
Thus, the supreme Court is entirely subject to the Congress. SUBJECT, not EQUAL.
In fact, Congress has recently passed legislation reauthorizing prior legislation that the Court had invalidated as unconstitutional. The reauthorization expressly prohibited the Court from making any ruling that the reauthorized law was unconstitutional. I.e. they said, "Hands off this time, Supreme Court." And the Court left it alone.
So Congress and the Court knows all this, even if you and 99% of the public don't.
Now, show me in the Constitution where it says the Court CAN declare laws unconstitutional. You won't find it.
Ok, here's the original text of the seminal case which formed the basis for the exercise of SCOTUS judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
And here's the layman's cheat-sheet:
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia
From here we'll leave it to you explain your bizarre theory that Supreme Court Review of unconstitutional law is itself "unconstitutional."
And yes. We realize that there are a few neoCON nutcases like you who've recently advanced the knuckleheaded theory that legislative power should go unchecked, by any branch of government at all.
Put up or shut up, neoCONboy.
We await your lame argument with abated breath.
Actually, citizen has a good point. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Court the power of judicial review. The Court had to make an argument in Marbury v Madison that the power of judicial review is implied. Our Constitutional system may well work better with the Court holding this power, but the authors of the Constitution did not grant it that power directly. Also, no where does the Constitution declare that all three branches are to be equal. Any good read of the Constitution will reveal that the legislative branch is the branch granted the most power.
Shall we take it then that you believe the inferences of the Marbury Court were unwarranted?
If the Founders didn't intend the Federal courts to provide a check and balance against the counter-constitutional excesses of the legislative branch... tell us please... what branch under the constitution has the power to do so?
Methinks you should change your handle from "Patrick Henry" to, say, "Otto von Bismark."
The Patrick Henry I know is probably twirling in his grave right now, offended by the cavalier and inacurate commandeering of his good name.
Rudi,
You asked,
"If the Founders didn't intend the Federal courts to provide a check and balance against the counter-constitutional excesses of the legislative branch... tell us please... what branch under the constitution has the power to do so?"
Answer: None, other than The People. Like I said, answer the question yourself. Read Article III.
Then tell me, under Marbury v Madison, who checks the Supreme Court?
Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers, having fought a revolutionary war at great personal cost to throw off an unaccountable oligarchy in favor of self rule by the people, would have written a Constitution that would substitute a lifetime appointed oligarchy in the form of a federal court system to rule over them instead?
They didn't.
Regarding Marbury - you can find some stupid court ruling to say whatever you want any day of the week. Make your case from the Constitution itself. Or admit that you don't agree with the Constitution.
Under your view, Rudi, it's okay that referenda passed by the people of a state can be overturned by a single federal judge as has happened in both Arizona and California. One man overruling the populace of a state!
Funny, people nowadays feel that the worst thing to have is majority rule - that rule by a small, lifetime-appointed judiciary is better. And they call themselves freedom loving patriots. Amazing!
LOL! You say the Marbury decision is bogus? Just another cracker jack case citation used to befuddle the folks?
I'll tell ya what. File a lawsuit, and take it to SCOTUS to get it overturned.
In the meantime the decision stands. I'll add that I'm damned glad that we have a few men and women in robes, who read and understand the constitution, and stand between the constitutional liberties of this land... and Your Mobocracy, which you would throw it all over in a minute, if you could.
God Bess America.
God Bless the 5-4 Supreme Court!
Rudi,
John Marshall, a Federalist, was the author of Marbury, a ruling that ultimately gave much more power to not just the SC but the Federal government - something Patrick Henry would have been very much opposed to. To that end he would not be twirling in his grave over my use of his name in this particular case. Henry did after all remark that his opposition to the Constitution began after reading its first three words: "We the People." Henry thought it should have been "We the States."
CURM - you said
"the court overturns a law of the DC government"
The U.S. Supreme Court UPHELD the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of these United States!!! and declared it is every citizens INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own firearm(s).
If U.S. American soil is invaded, I will certainly beat a hot trail to my folks' house: Mommy is a many-time skeet-shooting champ (state, region, nation) - which means she is really GOOD at hitting multiple moving targets. Mommy also has NEVER had to shoot an animal twice when hunting for food - which means she is THE crack shot.
And Daddy taught her everything he knows.
He also taught me as well.
Sign me,
The EVER lovely Jennifer,
proud REPUBLICAN!!!!
P.S. Do you want to know where they live?
"the court overturns a law of the DC government"
Funny that you feel that way because the supreme court decided it was the DC government that overturned the law of the constitution with their unconsitutional gun ban.
By the way no one was arguing against the fact that it is "still illegal for someone to rob a bank with a gun." No crap Justice Stevens, thank you for pointing that out to us in your Disenting remarks.
It is just common sense to keep in place laws that regulate gun ownership to keep them out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems. No one was arguing that position.
The second amendment is an individual right granted to law abiding citizens as the court so kindly pointed out. So nearly all current laws and restrictions that are in place today will not be affected because the fall into the category of reasonable restrictions. Just like freedom of speech, privacy, and religion have been put under reasonable restrictions.
This court decision will change little, but it has set the standard for future gun laws and prevents laws that completely forbid the ownership of a gun.
TLJ:
You wrote: The U.S. Supreme Court UPHELD the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of these United States!!! and declared it is every citizens INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own firearm(s).
The case involved an ordinance adopted by the elected govt of Washington DC which banned the mere possession of firearms except under very restricted conditions. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of that ordinance and the Court accepted the case on appeal. The Court declared the DC ordinance to be unconstitutional because it violated the 2nd Amendment.
The Court does not "uphold" provisions of the Constitution, nor does it have the authority to "overturn" any part of the Constitution.[The former power would imply the latter.] What it does is interpret the Constitution and decide whether a particular ordinance or state law or federal law is or is not consistent with the majority's interpretation of the Constitution.
The simple fact is that often, the Constitution does not necessarily have a plain meaning. Everyone knows what it says. The role of the Court is to consider, and rule on what it means.
Not even the founders who wrote it could agree on what some parts of it meant. They started disagreeing with each other about that before the ink was dry on the document they wrote. In fact, the two party political system in the US was born out of a strong disagreement about what it meant between James Madison [often called "father of the Constitution" because he drafted so much of it] and Thomas Jefferson on the one hand, and George Washington [President of the Convention that wrote it] and Alexander Hamilton [convention member and Washington aide] on the other.
Curm - picky, picky, picky.
Okay - so the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment means we, as citizens, have the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to "keep and bear arms." - and apparantly that should include the citizens of Washington DC in the community of said individuals.
You Know What I Meant, and so did Everyone Else.
I gave up on civics when civics class was no longer required. I understand what it means to be a citizen - and that some of the antics of certain powers that be (and their supporters [Curm, D-Utah]) are sometimes ambiguous, and rarely have "a plain meaning."
Yours Truly,
TLJ
Post a Comment