Legacy shmegacy. The administration had nothing to do with this; the credit goes to gun-owning individuals and member organizations (GOA, NRA, 2A Sisters, etc.) who have stood firm and not backed down in the face of unconstitutional restrictions and "laws."
Let's not forget the brief filed by the current administration's solicitor general -- not at all helpful to the constructionist argument.
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial by Lawrence Tribe, the legal scholar, who essentially admitted the 2nd amendment refers to an individual’s right but that the Supreme Court should now enable the limits to which that right can extend. His argument seems to be that the limitations should be so great that the individual’s right to arms would be extremely small. So small, that handguns would not be allowed and the DC’s infringements would be reasonable.
This argument can not be squared with the individual’s basic right to self defense and to arms. The militia clause would be rendered meaningless if any arm suitable to militia use (contemporary service grade arms including handguns and others) were ok to ban. In the DC case, the issue was self-defense with handguns. In other words, the anti-arms crowd wants a meaningless 2nd amendment—you can have arms but only the very few that government allows you and only then if you own them according to the strict rules government applies, directly conflicint with the amendment (”shall not be infringed”). The enemies of individuals’ freedoms must stay up late seeking creative arguments to keep people bound.
In the 1800’s there were restrictions on concealed carry. Few noticed or complained. Further restrictions were placed on guns to keep them out of the hands of “those people” (blacks, Jews, anyone different and with too little voice to defend their rights; just like the old 1680s English law barring Catholics from having pistols). Too few complained. Then in the 1930s, during the wave of gangster movies, a large array of arms were tightly constrained by applying a tax no one could then afford. Only gangsters used sawed-off shotguns or machine guns, or so it seemed to many, so few complained. In the 1960s, political assassinations led to further restrictions, but not on the guns used in the assassinations. Few would complain, else they would seem insensitive to the tragic deaths of the times.
In the 1990s, political speak would be applied to a number of arms and “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” would be born and banned. The concept that the Constitution didn’t acknowledge people’s rights but rather acknowledged the government’s rights was openly touted but was so brazen and obviously corrupt it would prove insufficient to fully complete the process of erasing an American’s right to arms. Now, a few more people were complaining, a larger number of people were becoming aware of a vanishing right.
Now, the new attack on individual’s rights is about how much of a right the individual should be allowed. However, the phrase “shall not be infringed” stands in the way. Will the Supreme Court recognize this new attack for what it is? Many see the allowance of this right to be too risky and fear other Americans will be dangerous if allowed this degree of freedom. They think of deranged individuals and evil people and they recoil from the idea that people might have access to arms. But that puts the people’s rights at risk from the actions of insane and evil people. Is that the point of erasing our freedom? Others want the right to extend only to hunting. But, the 2nd amendment was never about hunting, it was about power in the hands of the individual. The Constitution and the philosophy of American government was much about limiting the power of government and much about protecting the power of the individual. That goes to the core of what it means to be an American and over 200 years of American freedom shows what the power of the individual can achieve. Yes, there are risks and there is uncertainty. Are those risks worth erasing every trace of the individual’s right to decide how to defend himself? The Supreme Court is reflecting on a case that touches on nothing short of that. This is a very important moment in American history.
Of course not!!! The current POTUS has had nothing at all to do with appointing conservative judges to the SCOTUS.
Katrina=Bush's Fault
Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual's right to own a firearm=Not Bush's Fault!