Posted on 06/26/2008 7:24:53 AM PDT by Bob Leibowitz
In an eagerly anticipated and strongly worded decision, Justice Antonin Scalia this morning led the Supreme Court to discover and define the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual's right to own firearms.
In a stunning but narrow 5-4 rebuke to liberal dogma of the past 30 years, where penumbras carried more weight than words, SCOTUS has confirmed what is known as the standard view of the amendment, that it means what it says.
While the decision does not automatically expand Second Amendment protections and prohibitions to affect state laws, it will immediately change the terms by which those restrictions are debated. In the long run, it is likely that some future case will arise where the issue of "incorporation" will be decided by the Court under either the 14th Amendment or the Privilege Clause, thereby bringing the Second Amendment to a level with the First and Fourth.
The case, which reached the Court as Heller vs. The District, is a special tribute to the foresight and conviction of one man, Robert Levy. Mr. Levy, who has never owned a gun, structured and financed the case, selected the plaintiffs, recruited the lawyers and developed the strategies that led to today's decision. At leaset initially, he did so against the wishes of the pro-Scond Amendment establishment, much of which believed at the beginning of the case, before the elevation of Roberts and Alito to the Court, that the risks as too large.
As Heller gained traction, particularly after an unambiguous decision by the Appellate court overturning D.C.'s handgun ban based on a finding that it was unconstitutional, the arguments and briefs filed by the opposing camps became a treasure trove of Second Amendment scholarship that will be studied by constitutional scholars for a century.
Justice Scalia, widely regarded as the shootingest Justice, was obviously enthusiastic in his writing, defining for history the Constitution's protection of the individual's right to keep and bear arms.
RELATED LINKS: Heller Will Win in June. How Big? has a complete review of the case and more than a dozen links to its history.
Oh happy day. On so many levels.>>>>> Says it all.!!!
This may be taken as hyperbole, but I really don’t think it is.
Liberals TRULY BELIEVE that they are wiser than anyone else who has ever lived in human history, AND they are wiser than God Himself.
“would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Yes they did.
And Stevens would have us believe that 150 years ago, the authors of the XIVth amendment made a choice to forbid regulations on abortions while they were busy trying to protect black ex-slaves from being de facto slaves. The Constitution says “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but says nothing of abortion at all. What an idiot.
When the dust settles, time to demand that the `blue states’ give full faith and credit to our states decisions to issue carry permits to their citizens.
(I know what you’re thinking, but there is no right to homosexual marriage, outside Kaleefornia.)
Not my fav guy out there, but we've got a better chance with him than we do B.O.
I share that unease. It's an obscenity that so much of our liberty is in the hands of a few judges, and that presidential campaigns are now merely struggles to control the courts. The outcome of this case was good, but both the anxiety and relief over it are proof that the system is badly distorted.
5-4 decisions are likely to be the NORM for the foreseeable future!
"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
HA!
You’ve inspired my new tagline!!!!
Fight B.O. with RIGHT GUARD!
This in spite of the death & debris they typically leave in their wake.
Whats that they say about good intentions?
Ya’ know, since the liberals find a penumbra in the 14th amendment that says we have a God given right to murder babies and make that a litmus test for judge appointments to the Supreme Court (whether they agree on Roe). Why can’t the conservatives take the plain language of the 2nd and this case and make it a litmus test for future Supreme Court nominees (whether they agree with Heller)?
I guess then in non-crime ridden areas it is acceptable to carry guns. Another fine example of liberal psycho-babble.
One element in common in any totalitarian form of government is the replacement of God with the State.
Leftists think that “1984” was a suggestion instead of a warning.
That’s what it’s all about. I want the government out of my way. Liberals, on the other hand, think it should “take a village” to raise my kids.
I wish more people understood that simple fact.
Libs believe that they ARE God, and that they have the right to dictate the terms of existence to everyone else.
At the end of the day my FAL and I say that they’re dead bang wrong.
The fact that four out of the nine justices would vote against such a minimal case indicates that we are nowhere near out of the woods on this one. All it would take is one Obama judge.
Oh, it’s not just a “right” to dictate terms to everyone else,
it’s an OBLIGATION approaching the level of religious zealotry.
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.