Skip to comments.A Bull's-Eye For The Supreme Court
Posted on 06/28/2010 5:16:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
Second Amendment: In the "living Constitution" era, the Supreme Court rediscovers original intent and rightly rules that the right to bear arms applies to all Americans just as the rest of the Bill of Rights does.
It's hard to conceive how the justices could have decided otherwise. But by the narrowest of margins 5-4 they have reaffirmed that keeping and bearing arms is an inalienable and individual right like speech and religion, and that it applies to all individuals as the Founding Fathers intended.
Why anyone thinks the Second Amendment does not apply to all Americans is a mystery to us. Governments have powers; individuals have rights. The Bill of Rights was an enumeration of those individual rights from freedom of speech to freedom of religion to the right to bear arms that are to be protected from the intrusion of an oppressive government.
Now the Supreme Court agrees.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive firearms laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states." Two years ago, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, the court ruled that gun ownership was an individual right but left unclear its scope.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Justice Thomas' decision was more than a bit different. He avoided the Due Process argument and used the Privileges and Immunities clause.
"I agree with that description of the right. But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to process. Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendments Privileges or Immunities Clause."
“I am surprised at how many FReepers think this one justice will change the mix of the court...”
While it’s true that it won’t, Kagan is a wildlly radical lefty, more so than the oldie Stevens. Plus, she’ll likely live more years than he.
How's this for an unexpected development?
Get one (1)congresscritter to insist on asking the following simple question of Ms. Kagan :
Is the united States of America a Democracy or a Representative Constitutional Republic?
The resulting debate would be literally unprecedented. At least since 1865.
It was a lot precedented between 1793 and 1860...
Sorry for my obtuseness! It’s late and my brain is dull - you meant, of course, where to read the dissenting arguments, not who wrote them. Duh.
Why would the 14th even have been needed if recently freed blacks became 'people' rather than slaves? Wouldn't the BOR apply to them at such time? Oh, that's right, the BOR only limits the federal government.
This is where I don't follow the argument. I believe that certain items were put there as a 'for the record' statement with the understanding that no government could infringe on the RKBA, for example, as it would now be enshrined in a document with the most supreme legal status.
I think they might have done the same with 'ownership of humans' had the issue been settled at the time of it's writing. The same for fetuses- had they imagined a million a year would someday end up in dumpsters.
To me, the constitution was to be the document of all documents, attempting to encompass as many freedoms as possible while assigning as few powers as necessary to the general government. Ammendments allowed the states a way to fine-tune the sucker.
In that light, no person's right to keep and bear arms may be infringed as many states are currently guilty of with fees, licenses, and permits, etc. However, the states might weigh-in on the What, Where, When, How, and How Much with regards to 'arms' while being forbidden from denying a right to keep and bear them.
The way this is going it'll be ages before this 'right' is enjoyed as intended, imo. Any right that cannot be exercised is not a right at all but more likely a priviledge. I still haven't come across the Bill of Priviledges. I bet there are at least four justices who have a copy though.
You can find the case, including separate opinions at:
In the right side panel, under “Recent opinions” you can download a .pdf of the case.