Posted on 06/28/2010 8:21:01 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for violating the Second Amendment.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that binds states.
"Self defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day," wrote Justice Samuel Alito. He was joined in reaching the result by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
An earlier 2008 holding by the Supreme Court, striking down a District of Columbia handgun ban, "unmistakably" required the court to likewise overturn laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that limited handgun possession, Justice Alito's opinion held.
Justice Thomas agreed with the majority on the result but wrote a concurrence offering different constitutional logic for viewing the right to bear arms as fundamental.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
State and country were used pretty interchangeably. Hence, Virginia was ofter referred to as “my country” by Virginians for example.
But the Second amendment was not intended to apply to states as Barron v. Baltimore explained. It was written entirely to mollify states-righters and remove their pretensions that the federal gov would disarm their militias. There was no federal militia. State militia could be federalized into federal service but their were formed, trained and equipped by the states see the Whiskey Rebellion as an instance.
Black codes disarmed freedmen in the post civil war period throughout the South.
Churches were often state funded until the middle of the 1800s.
There was no freedom of the press in the South until after the Civil War. Abolitionist papers and magazines were routinely seized and destroyed. Anyone brave enough to start such a newspaper had their presses destroyed and lives threatened.
Ditto wrt freedom of speech and free association as slaver mobs would attack them with state authorities applauding.
I agree with that. The RKBA does not depend on the 2nd amendment, and does not come from the second amendment. Its function was essentially a promise that the federal government would not create federal laws that infringed the right to keep and bear arms.
The people need to be armed, in order to maintain a boot on the neck of the government - that was (past tense intentional) the radical design of the United States government. The people in charge of the government, not the other way around. Those days are history.
Actually the “people” are more in charge today and that is the problem. In 1787 the electorate was restricted to certain white men.
Now socialist ideology is rampant because of the expansion of voters to women and minorities previously not allowed to vote. When 50% of the taxable pay NO federal income tax it will not be stopped or significantly rolled back.
Yeah, that's part of the problem, or one way to view it. As you noted, when a majority of voters figure out they can vote largess for themselves from the public treasury, the system is ripe for collapse into dictatorship, or so goes the traditional cycle of governments.
But assuming the people are faithful to the design of the constitution (at this point in our history, they are not), then having the ability to enforce their will with a credible threat of violence is necessary in in order to maintain the pecking order. Once the government obtains superior firepower, IT will take over, and the will of the people will just be manipulated, and "government of the people, for the people" becomes a figment of imagination.
Elections today are used largely to facilitate preservation of the illusion of limited, constitutional government. There were "free" elections in the USSR, and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Freedom does not come from elections, it comes from superior force.
Government will always have “superior firepower” and a few guns will make little if any difference. What will an AK47 do against a nuclear bomb. Our largest weapons systems have hundreds or thousands of men operating them.
In point of fact, it is rare that the majority of people make the right decision. Even in times of crisis about the best you can hope for is 1/3 for, 1/3 against and 1/3 does not give a crap. We constantly skate on the edge of disaster.
I thihk you're right, and that the second is a waste.
It is useful for other reasons but the idea of taking on the Marines is an obsolete fantasy. Life moves on. It is particularly important to win the battle of ideas and right thinking people are losing badly in that.
Yup. And the battle of ideas is never the "end all," either. Power flows from the barrel of a gun; and whoever has superior force will always prevail in the end.
Actually you are incorrect. Though the individual self-defense aspect of the Second Amendment is rather muted in the wording, the debate surrounding the issue at the time is profuse with discussions regarding individual self-defense, and irrefutably demonstrates that the right to bear arms did, indeed, encompass that notion as well...
The power of government arsenals is overwhelming and growing more so. Our chances are strictly limited by whether the American soldier will fire on Americans. History shows us that is a very slim hope.
Chairman Mao’s adage ignores the spiritual element in history not to mention the fact that Marxism (Marxism-Leninism, Maoism) is an idea.
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.