The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment was nevertheless open to regulation, restriction, licensing and registration, just like the First Amendment.
So much for unalienable rights.
In a 5-4 decision (PDF) announced Thursday morning, the Court upheld a 2007 appeals court decision and affirmed that while the Second Amendment does indeed refer to individuals without regard to their affiliation with a militia, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
The court struck down two provisions of the 1976 D.C. gun law: the prohibition on owning handguns, and the requirement that rifles and shotguns be stored disassembled or with trigger locks.
It did not address the issue of whether licensing gun owners and registering firearms were constitutional, but suggested that such laws may withstand scrutiny.
“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Its faults notwithstanding, this ruling will help reduce crime and save lives. “Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families,” said Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. “Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year.”
“I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne,” said Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, a strange statement to make since Chicago’s gun ban has been responsible (along with the war on drugs) for that city’s high crime.
Which is probably why Chicago mayor Richard Daley called the decision “very frightening.” Lower crime could be bad for political careers, and Daley has a vested interest in scaring the people of Chicago with wild and crazy tales of how the streets will erupt in violence if honest, peaceful people are allowed to defend themselves from violent criminals; meanwhile the streets of Chicago are erupting in violence and honest, peaceful people are powerless to defend themselves.
D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, not nearly as well-spoken as Daley, also tried the same tired old scare tactics, saying, “More handguns will lead to more handgun violence.” Most everyone with at least half a brain knows this is not true, but these morons keep on repeating it, since “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
That’s right, your elected politicians (not to mention the lunatic far-left fringe liberals who follow them, such as the Brady Campaign to Promote Gun Violence) are using Nazi propaganda tactics on you to keep you unsafe in your homes and your neighborhoods. There’s a point to this: if you are unsafe, you’ll look to them for solutions. But they don’t have solutions; all they can do is to control your life. This won’t make you any safer. It certainly won’t get guns out of the hands of criminals. In fact, you’ll be in even more danger than ever.
I can’t wait for the law which says that not only must newspapers register their printing presses and get licenses to publish, but so must individuals register their computers and printers and get licenses to print or to blog. It’s exactly the same thing, only applied to the First Amendment. Under the logic of this Court, such restrictions would be perfectly fine. And you thought “Congress shall make no law” meant something?
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Continually increasing the debt is one of the logical outcomes of Keynesianism, since more government spending is always their answer. It is claimed that government must not stop spending when the economy is so fragile. Government must act. Yet, when times are good, government also increases in size and scope, because we can afford it, it is claimed. There is never a good time to rein in government spending according to Keynesian economists and the proponents of big government.
Jersey Shore? Fuhgeddaboudit. Jersey City is the gem of reality TV. Shore is MTV. Jersey City is FBI. Like, how real is that? Killer videos of pols talking trash and passing cash have been unspooling in federal court in Newark at the trial of Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini. Beldini was busted last summer in an FBI sweep that corralled dozens of Jersey pols. It was one of the largest corruption roundups in Jersey's thick history of roundups.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Dylboz
Jun 26, 2008
What part of “shall not be infringed,” is unclear?
Kevin Dean
Jun 26, 2008
5-4 is a frightening margin to see one of the most plainly written rights within the American Hegemony narrowly avoid extinction.
Slim
Jun 26, 2008
The constitution was a good idea for the time (1780s – 1850ish) ever since then the constitution has been ignored. I personally am shocked that the decision went as well as it did.
Donald
Jun 26, 2008
It is erroneous to assert that the opinion supports licensing. It simply does not address licensing. I quote, from the opinion of the court, “Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.” By saying this, the opinion not only leaves the door open for further questions as to the validity of requiring licenses, it encourages same.
Ray
Jun 27, 2008
Hey I have a great solution for DC. Lets require all adults to have and carry a gun. Then every adult has to spend 8 hours one every other month in a group with about 5 or 10 other adults on patrol.
OK I am being funny, but it did solve some problems back home.
Joe
Jun 28, 2008
What part of “Militia” is unclear?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Interesting. I wasn’t aware that everybody in Washington that buys a gun is a cop. Are you all fucking morons or what?
Shawn Earnest
Jun 28, 2008
Little concern. Focus on handguns, and assault weapons is a proper concern for many, but there is a cure-all remedy for every-ones concerns here and for the people as a Nation.
I think full Nation-Wide Federal Martial Law should be established,and the removal of all children from ages 11-18 from the parental bad elements and sending the siblings to primary and secondary free federally funded/operated boarding schools located on all major college campuses nationwide. The relearning boarding schools institutions will be equivalent to ivy league colleges. From the ages of 18-26 will be offered free federal funded ivy league college education. This is much like the military as each and every citizen is expected to serve US.Government Military 8-years regards the individual and nations best interest after graduation will be served after the age of 18 years old. This is an excellent on the job training for 8-years of enlisted and officer military service.
Those who have chronic behavioral problems will be placed into a boot camp type military prison till evaluations of improvements are made proving themselves to the nation rehabilitated and graduate from this correctional education system to serving the US.Government Military 8-years after completion. Otherwise,if no rehabilitation achieved then these personnel remain serving the country as labor force until mental saturation of correctional relearning by said institution completed.
Civilian rights and legislation have failed over and over again, cause I am so frustrated with mentally ill parents pushing out new born babies like assembly line products into our nations streets just to spread their genetic and psychological infections onward is eating your country like a virus unchanged and uncensored. Only the Most unstable nation in the world would allow parents to raise children is by this unacceptable rearing.
All of us Americans are responsible for this insensitivity of sibling neglect nationally, and this will never change until our own government role plays “Mother and Father Government disciplinary Parent” via federal martial law in full restriction
until a stable Nation. Sooner the better.
The problem in this country is not handguns, is not assault weapons but the siblings raised by these disturbed civilian parents in our great Nation of America.
God Bless America.
and
God Bless You All.
—
- —
Michael Hampton
Jun 28, 2008
Now that’s a modest proposal.
Bob
Jun 29, 2008
These types of decisions should mean nothing to a free American. Just smile and shake your head at this kind of fluff.
A weapon, (be it knife, pistol, tank or nuclear explosive) is useless to the owner if the owner lacks the will to use it.
It is quite a challenge to take away someone’s weapon if that someone is willing to use it and refuses to give it up. If you have a weapon now, that you feel you need to protect your life and what is yours, and you allow the courts and government to take it away from you without a life or death struggle, your problem is not with the authorities, your problem is in your own mind.
You’re not free.
Be your own person, trust what you believe and stand up for it. To hell with what the courts and government and kings have to say.
That’s what Americans used to be.
Ray
Jun 29, 2008
Wonder how long until the right to say that our president is a jackass and should be removed from office by congress for high crimes will also face a 5 to 4 vote. :-( :-(
Shawn Earnest
Jun 30, 2008
Do the research, make the changes, stop whining. It appears no-one is aware what uncle sam has planed… Wow, amazing.
susan28
Jul 03, 2008
>Be your own person, trust what you believe and stand up for it. To hell with what the courts and government and kings have to say.
28 <~~~~ likes the cut of Bob’s jib..
Bob
Jul 05, 2008
Hey, baby. Good to hear your voice.
Q
Jul 08, 2008
The world the framers of the US Constitution lived in was far more scary and dangerous than the world we live in today. There were far more unknowns back then, and yet they felt these rules they laid out were important.
Yet today, people are so ready to cast aside their rights to feel safe. What a croc!
Phil
Jul 15, 2008
Joe, Joe ….
Where to start?
Well, let’s begin with the fact that the police are not a militia. So the issue of whether everyone in DC who buys a gun is a sop is a complete straw-man.
We should probably go on from there to ask, if not the police, then who IS the militia? And the well-documented answer is that the militia is, essentially, everyone. “You ask who is the militia? Why, sir, it is the whole of the people.” Like it or not, YOU are part of the militia.
(I know, the thought makes me shudder too, but probably for different reasons.)
And finally, let us not forget that the prefatory clause which you are brandishing with such ill-informed fury is neither a condition nor a limitation, but rather a brief statement of reason, upon which the body of the amendment is not in the least dependent.
The sad part is that if you’d actually read the ruling, you’d already know all of this.
susan28
Jul 16, 2008
well stated, Phil.. i wanted to say something but was tired of sounding like a broken record.. thanks for taking up the slack :)
Gary Treistman
Jul 22, 2008
To read the second amendment’s commentary “a well organized militia” as somehow constraining the amendment to mean that only those who are part of a government militia have the right to bear arms is exactly the same as saying:
“Of the people who are members of the government militia, their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Well, obviously with such a reading, the amendment reserves the right of the government to bear arms. (As government is only administered by agents in its employ).
And what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?
Are we to believe the founding fathers went through all that trouble to draft up a full (the 2nd) amendment to the Constitution, just to say that the government guarantees itself the right to bear arms?
Such a reading is silly, stupid, redundant, and nonsensical.
Nobody every questioned whether the government had the right to bear arms – it is a given that it does, as do all governments ultimately.
It is obvious that the second amendment to the Constitution, that is the second of the Bill of Rights, refers to the individual, and his right to carry and use arms for lawful purpose.
Shawn-Earnest
Jul 22, 2008
+The Second Admendment – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
a.) “A well regulated Militia,”:
=This means “any embodiment of people, “regulated Militia”, by government and that is the only regulating body, or Representatives of such. “Regulated Militia” Means Government Only, thus regulated.
b.) “being necessary to the security of a free State,”:
=A body of Government Militia necessary to the security of the free states.
c.) “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”
=”The right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, under a regulated militia, thus meaning Government only.
d.)”shall not be infringed.”:
=That is “we the people”, civilians, and not a militia, cause we are not regulated, therefore we shall not be infringed upon for the sake and might of the government “regulated militia.”
susan28
Jul 22, 2008
Sean,
agreed on the “we the people” part, though a cursory study of language usage at that time reveals that the term “well regulated” in this context simply meant “well trained”, not “government controlled” as it is commonly understood today.
Bob
Jul 23, 2008
Today,. . . . I don’t care what the big, fancy words say. I have some rifles and a shotgun and some pistols and lots of bullets and I’m….keeping….them. I think I’m going to need them all to stay alive.
The rest just doesn’t matter.
Simplify.
susan28
Jul 23, 2008
hoooo, yeah, heard that baby.. it’s been all over but the shouting for awhile now, and the more i wonder when that became the case the farther back it goes.. i think it’s been over since the late 1800’s we just didn’t know it.. i think public school was the beginning of the end.. at this point we’re just chronicling the fall. but at least we can say we tried to warn ‘em, lived by our principles and eh, it passes the time.
ok there’s yer morning dose of optimism, hehe :)
Meadester
Jul 24, 2008
@Joe, Phil’s explanation is exactly right. It wouldn’t make sense for the framers to put an amendment in the constitution allowing professional soldiers to carry guns, because obviously that’s legal in every country that has armed forces. So if the amendment has any meaning, it has to be assumed that the amendment means all of the people, which documents from the time prove was the framer’s intent.
Besides that, it has been shown time and again that guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, while strict gun control laws increase the rate of violent crime. Murders and most other forms of violent crime have gone up dramatically in states, cities, and countries (like Britain and Australia) immediately following the passage of severe gun control laws (in the States it has come down somewhat in recent years as part of an overall trend of violent crime but most places still have more crime than they did before the gun control laws were in place. In states that have made it easy to get a concealed carry permit crime has immediately gone down more so than the national trend.
Gary Treistman
Jul 27, 2008
To Meadester:
I think you are replying to MY commentary, not Joe or Phil’s.
refined
Oct 27, 2008
there is no greater army then the american people, if the goverment ever fell into the hands of a tyrant. that tyrant could not use the standing army to enslave the people. the people could then bear our arms and overthrow there army. the second amendment protect us and our freedom from tyranny. :i luv the second amendment