Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: It means what it says - High court upholds the Second Amendment
Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | Jun. 27, 2008 | Editor

Posted on 06/27/2008 8:23:10 AM PDT by Nevadan

It was a narrow decision. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday properly struck down part of a local handgun ban in the District of Columbia, ruling that Americans have a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

Washington's 32-year-old gun law, perhaps the strictest in the nation, barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.

"After 30 years of ignoring that right, the District will finally have to respect it," said one of those residents, Dick Heller, who works as an armed security guard at a federal government building in Washington, but who nonetheless was barred from keeping a loaded handgun at home.

By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected the creative but historically ridiculous claim that the Second Amendment protects only a state's right to maintain a militia -- generally now interpreted to mean a unit of the National Guard, in uniform and under orders from the central government. Rather, when the amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it refers to a right of individual citizens, the court now properly finds -- just as the Constitution does every other time it refers to the rights of "the people."

Any other reading would have been absurd. Would the Founding Fathers -- who had just defeated the greatest military power on earth thanks to the fact that the American yeoman farmer carried a serviceable rifle -- have enacted a Second Amendment to guarantee the right of the central government to disarm the common populace, who it could then overawe with its own armed might?

Quite to the contrary, the federalists argued their new Constitution presented no such danger. The government could never impose a tyranny, Madison promised in The Federalist No. 46, since the regular army would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

Note that the militia thus described by the very author of the Constitution was conceived as a force of common citizens who could oppose the orders of the government -- not obey and enforce them, like today's National Guard.

"The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the final decision of the court's nine-month term. "These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. ... The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."

Justice Scalia's ruling also specifically addressed the requirement of the D.C. law under review that handguns be kept inoperable: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional," the court found.

Critics -- and the court's dissenting minority -- worry the decision may make gun restrictions in Chicago, New York City and other cities more vulnerable to legal challenges. We hope so, though Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the court, stressed that nothing in the decision should be seen as challenging sensible laws that forbid felons or the mentally ill from having guns.

He also said governments can still regulate when and where people carry guns. For example, he specifically wrote that guns may still be prohibited near schools and in or near government buildings. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Scalia wrote.

Thursday's modest court decision is a solid step back toward a nation where Americans can believe the Constitution means what it says -- no matter how inconvenient the government may find it.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; heller; scotus; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
My favorite point of the editorial: "Would the Founding Fathers -- who had just defeated the greatest military power on earth thanks to the fact that the American yeoman farmer carried a serviceable rifle -- have enacted a Second Amendment to guarantee the right of the central government to disarm the common populace, who it could then overawe with its own armed might?"
1 posted on 06/27/2008 8:23:11 AM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
I like Madison's quote:

The government could never impose a tyranny, Madison promised in The Federalist No. 46, since the regular army would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

2 posted on 06/27/2008 8:25:48 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
Pretty good piece.

I had to laugh today when I read the headlines of the SF Chronicle - they were in such a lather about the ruling they referred to the "gun loby".

3 posted on 06/27/2008 8:26:58 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Yes, it is a great quote!


4 posted on 06/27/2008 8:28:32 AM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

the job now is to remove the four judges


5 posted on 06/27/2008 8:36:50 AM PDT by jrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
Any other reading would have been absurd.

Unfortunately, we have 4 absurd justices and quite a few moonbats who really don't care what the Constitution says.

6 posted on 06/27/2008 8:40:07 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
"a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

The population of the US is about 300 times what it was then and I doubt that we could muster that many good men to fight a tyrannical government today.

7 posted on 06/27/2008 8:40:24 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
Thursday's modest court decision is a solid step back toward a nation where Americans can believe the Constitution means what it says -- no matter how inconvenient the government may find it.

Talk about an inconvenient truth...for the government!

8 posted on 06/27/2008 8:55:54 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("Facts are stubborn things." –Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

Funny how none of those four dissenters could find a penumbra in 2A.


9 posted on 06/27/2008 8:57:30 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Teach your child to be an American. Take him out of public school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

25 good reasons:
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT DERANGED

1.An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2.A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3.Colt: The original point and click interface.

4.Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5.If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6.If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7.Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8.If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

9.Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10.The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11.What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

12.The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13.64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14.Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15.Know guns, know peace, know safety.No guns, no peace, no safety.

16.You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17.911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18.Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19.Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21.Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22.You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23.Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.

24.When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25.The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.


10 posted on 06/27/2008 9:26:08 AM PDT by SeabeeDet01 (OOORAH SEABEE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
As for the 4 fools:

"US Code. Title 18. Section 241. Conspiracy to deprive individual Rights under color of Law. Maximum penalty is Death. Minimum is 10 years."

11 posted on 06/27/2008 9:28:18 AM PDT by ironwill (I want my daddy's records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

+1


12 posted on 06/27/2008 9:37:11 AM PDT by Christian4Bush ("In Israel, the President hit the nail on the head. The nails are complaining loudly." - John Bolton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ironwill

From your lips to the US Attorney General’s ears. LONG past due for some prosecutions under title 18 section 241. Way overdue.


13 posted on 06/27/2008 9:43:24 AM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
The population of the US is about 300 times what it was then and I doubt that we could muster that many good men to fight a tyrannical government today.

You couldn't then either. General Washington never had more than 90,000 men in the field at any time and this included the militia.

The most he ever commanded at any one time was only 17,000.

14 posted on 06/27/2008 10:00:48 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
"The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the final decision of the court's nine-month term. "These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. ... The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."

So to take this statement further, it is reasonable for all citizens to acquire M4's as they would be used to reign in a tyrannical government, per the spirit of the Constitution. I see no declaration in the 2nd Amendment that defines a class of arms and to say otherwise suggests an agenda.

15 posted on 06/27/2008 10:02:39 AM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

excellent editorial - refreshing


16 posted on 06/27/2008 10:23:12 AM PDT by rbmillerjr ("bigger government means constricting freedom"....................RWR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

“Refreshing” is a good way to describe it. I often wonder if the majority of MSM journalists actually live in an alternate universe. They don’t seem to handle facts well!


17 posted on 06/27/2008 10:33:17 AM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

“.....a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.”

I am getting very sick over this “at home” crap. My copy of the Second Amendment does not hint at restricting my gun rights to my home.

With limited exceptions, I have and will pack a gun anywhere and anytime I choose.


18 posted on 06/27/2008 11:18:23 AM PDT by Gator113 (Drill here, drill now...... or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeabeeDet01

#26. You call 9-11, I call 1911.


19 posted on 06/27/2008 2:45:43 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
>> citizens who could oppose the orders of the government -- not obey and enforce them, like today's National Guard. <<

Worth repeating. Especially to liberals.

20 posted on 06/27/2008 4:17:13 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson