The Second Amendment SCOTUS Ruling

The Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling on Friday concerning the second amendment. The Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. The vote was five-to-four in the case of District of Colombia V Heller which struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns saying that it violated the right to keep and bear arms. The ruling obviously does not extend to certain prohibited groups such as felons or the mentally incompetent. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Perhaps what is more amazing is the nonsensical dissent from Justice John Paul Stevens. In his dissent he writes that "the Court 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, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy." What is amazing is that a Supreme Court Justice thinks that the bill of rights was not meant to "limit the tools available to elected officals." This is exactly what the constitution and the bill of rights does. It limits the abilities of the government to violate certain rights of the people and defines the roles of each branch of government. For someone on the nation's highest court to pretend that it is inconcievable that the Framers would include an amendment restricting elected officials from banning arms is quite pathetic.

John McCain had this to say in response to the ruling: "Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly. This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The Supreme Court, after the Gitmo and Child Rapists rulings, has finally handed down a ruling that fits into what the constitution actually says and the Founding Fathers actually intended. Americans should have the right to defend themselves and their property with firearms. The Founding Fathers believed it was a basic right of the people and they enshrined it in our constitution. Amazingly the Chicago Tribune editorialists wrote a piece entitled "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" in response to the ruling.

I still feel that the Supreme Court has become a legislative body. Sometimes conservatives get what they want, sometimes liberals do. It should be a legal body, not a legislative one. It should uphold the law and constitution, not interpret it according to personal whims. It is sad that this is the state of the Court today. But perhaps now is not a time to complain about that with the Court finally saying something that makes some sense.

FLASHACK: I thought I should repost the RNC ad run awhile back concerning Barack Obama's position on gun control. Obama now claims that he supports the Supreme Court's ruling but in fact he has a history of being a radical anti-gun politician. But the past does not suit him well in a general election so of course he has decided to do a 180 and support this decision.



Tweet