printAs someone who doesn’t believe the Constitution gave the government the right to enforce the Bill of Rights in the states, the Supreme Court’s latest gun-rights decision presents with the usual dilemma. The SCOTUS has decided that “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to every jurisdiction in the country – throwing doubt on a Chicago law that bans handguns in the home.”
Still, and overall, the ruling will revive the eroded, immutable right to defend life, liberty and property. (The title of John Lott’s op-ed encapsulates exactly that: “Court’s Gun Decision An Important Win for Americans Who Want to Defend Themselves.”) This is a war. Progressives have left little of the original Constitutional scheme. A victory for natural rights in the rights-violating society we inhabit is a good thing. The good guys won. A toast to the patriots who fought the good fight: a besieged black man from Chicago and his lawyer.
Before everybody becomes too euphoric over this piece of good news we must remember we are dealing with an enemy of infinite patience and resources. While these snakes still run the legislative and executive branchs it won’t be any real trick to pull and end run such as a 10,000% tax on ammo or having some government agency outlaw brass or lead or some component required to manufacture gun powder. Stay focused folks. It aint over yet.
As you correctly point out, these “victories” are mixed blessings. Federal judges reviewing local gun laws might preserve some individual liberty but shreds state/local autonomy. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA then REQUIRED everyone to maintain a gun in the home. I opposed that ordnance (although it did contain a conscientious objector clause) – since whether I have or do not have a gun in my home is nobody’s business but my own.
Another “mixed” cases occurred in Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez where the CLS wanted University recognition/funding but had membership rules (no homosexual atheists, etc.) but other clubs like La Raza also had rules but may (?) have altered them. CLS claimed they were being singled out unfairly had the “right” to student fees of homosexual atheists just like the Jewish students had the “right” to Christians’ fees, etc. The case turned more on procedural nits and cultural preferences than a real freedom of association issue (no one was stopping the Christians or Mexicans from meeting across the street on their own dime):
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-a-fatal-stipulation/
These are the types of Supreme Court cases one gets in a screwy society which believes in Government as the Supreme Arbiter of all things.
Please, before submitting your comment, take some time to visit http://www.german-latin-english.com. Gene Moutoux has,on the left side,SENTENCE DIAGRAMS. Select it. Then, under the CONTENTS, select the 6th selection, DIAGRAMS OF 17 SENTENCES…. In that select AMENDMENT 2, then Amendment 9 and Amendment 10. Ilana’s thought that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to “enforce” the Bill of Rights (i.e. The first ten Amendments.) in the States is correct if and only if the States do not trample the ultimate authority, i.e. the People. And, in turn, the People are restrained in trampling the rights of the Individual, i.e. the Majority cannot abrogate the rights of the Individual via a tyranny of democracy / the vote. As rational, thinking Individuals – I, you, and Ilana have an absolute right to self-defense and an absolute right to acquire the tools necessary to do so. I believe the Founders understood this and wanted to ensure a Federal government would understand it as well. Perhaps some States have tended to forget and this ruling will remind them. If they do not remember, then move to those States that do remember.
A small victory every once in a while is enjoyable. On the other hand, we’re just one Obama appointee away from losing all Second Amendment rights, not to mention the basic right to self-defense. Even if Obama doesn’t succeed in packing the court, under the socialist, New Deal definition, rights ain’t what they used to be, as the government’s interest is always compelling. Sooner of later, we’ll need to use our firearms to defend our right to self-defense. Yeah, I know I’m a glass-half-empty kind of guy. Sue me.
John Lott mentions that crime rates fell after the Court nullified the DC gun ban, but I expect that so-called liberals will refuse to believe it. Someone ought to mention that the primary cause of crime in America is not guns, but government. Government pays the dregs of our society to breed criminals. Government refuses to control the borders and thereby allows the dregs of Latin America to commit such crimes as they wish here. Government refuses to punish convicted criminals effectively. We can’t solve the problem until we identify it.
“Sooner of later” should read “Sooner or later.”
“States’ Rights” still = the rights of the State. We need less of this stuff at every level of government, not just Federal. As far as guns and ammunition go – whatever the “courts” rule – we are going to need them, and sooner than most of us think. I can’t see the current regime, with its debt-drowned economy, immigration catastrophe, Culture of Death, and useless imperial wars, lasting longer than another year or two.
If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government–and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. –Ed Abbey
The criminality of firearms no longer troubles my sleep. I intend to be among the outlaws. I will simply not accept disarmament under any pretext.
The number of gun owners in this country is so vast that any serious attempt at total disarmament will result in civil dissolution, if not civil war. There are only so many increments before one comes to confiscation, and that is a river that cannot be uncrossed. Overwhelming regulation on powder and shot is no different in principle from a gun ban, and the results of such a policy will be much the same.