Skip to comments.Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights
Posted on 02/27/2012 7:35:49 AM PST by neverdem
Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.
In other words, despite the victories in the Supreme Court, the battle for Second Amendment rights in America is far from over. There is perhaps no better reminder of this unfortunate state of affairs than a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Two pro-Second Amendment groups the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Illinois Carry filed a lawsuit last May challenging the ban on carrying concealed guns in the Land of Lincoln, which is the only state with a complete ban on the books. The common-sense basis for the lawsuit is that Illinois ban on concealed carry deprives citizens of the fundamental right of self-defense, simply because they are in public.
While Judge Myerscough conceded the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public, she tossed out the lawsuit, claiming that the Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.
As absurd as this federal judges ruling appears on the surface, it unfortunately finds some basis in the inchoate opinion issued four years ago by the nations high court in Heller. While the five-member majority in that case importantly recognized the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms and in so finding, invalidated the Districts restrictive gun control ordinance the actual language of the opinion has been interpreted now to recognize the right to possess a firearm only inside ones home.
Common sense, and a fair reading of the history of the Second Amendment, leads to the obvious conclusion that its guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was never intended to be limited to intra-home firearms. Unfortunately, the uncertainty created by the pinched opinion in Heller which may have been necessary to secure the fifth vote (Justice Anthony Kennedy) is now causing serious damage to firearms rights, as is manifest in Judge Myerscoughs recent ruling.
SAF and Illinois Carry are taking their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But the lower courts ruling does drive home a couple of important points.
First, the U.S. Senate needs to stop sitting on its hands, and pass the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which received overwhelming support in the House last November (passing 272 to 154). This legislation would treat concealed carry licenses much like drivers licenses, through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and require states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states.
Perhaps even more important, however, this ruling by a lifetime-tenured federal judge reminds us of the importance of presidential appointments to the federal bench and the severe damage to our Second Amendment rights that can be expected from a second term for President Barack Obama.
Bob Barr represented Georgias Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He provides regular commentary to Daily Caller readers.
You should live in MD.
Hubby had to remove the magazine that contained his *7* allowed bullets to go 300 yards up to the hunt club property my dad owns, never once touching an inch of public land, just to hunt deer.
A DNR nazi made ‘surprise visits’ this whole season to make sure nobody had a loaded gun unless they were actually pointing it at a deer.
When I was in high school, every boy had his loaded rifle in the rack of his truck to haul @ss out after school to catch as much daylight as possible.
They’ll hang you for that, now.
_On my dad’s land_.
So what other Rights in the Constitution don't apply outside the home: free speech, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, blacks not being slaves, women voting??
So I don’t have a home. Am I then deprived to the right to keep and bear arms? Don’t see this as holding water.
You aren’t expecting consistency, or anything approaching justice, from the Left, are you?
Hope you all had your rifle's on safety. I remember on the local news years ago when a man was putting his loaded rifle, not on safety, into the gun rack and accidently shot and killed his 19 year old son who was across the cab. I would always unload before securing a gun. I can't imagine the guilt this man will live with..
The time is coming when they cross the line from soft tyranny to hard tyranny. Gun registration is the first step toward confiscation, which then always leads to the same end under socialism - mass civilian graves.
So the “judge” is a glittering jewel of collosal ignorance.
She’s liberal, so what’s the point?
“loaded rifle in the rack of his truck “
Most intelligent people didn’t drive around with a loaded rifle in their car. It’s part of that whole gun safety thing. If you are a gangsta, you keep your AK locked and loaded at all times because you never know when the hatas are going to go off on you.
>>>Two pro-Second Amendment groups the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Illinois Carry filed a lawsuit<<<
There’s the problem. Gun-rights groups don’t make for sympathetic plaintiffs, gun-rights individuals do. Both Heller and McDonalds were individuals simply trying to get by.
Ask Alan Gura.
Why can’t the people of Chicago and DC be trusted to carry firearms?
Exactly. What the judge ruled was that you have the right to live inside your home, but you lose the right to live outside your home.
Oh for crying out loud. There's a difference between "loaded" in a magazine and having a round chambered.
Keep it loaded but always clear the chamber. Keep the bolt/action open if you like. It's not that difficult.
Newt is the only candidate in my lifetime willing to use the Constitutional power our Framers designed for us to check the Judiciary.
We are no longer a self governing people. We are ruled by Executive commissars and judges.
We should be thankful the judge is a lefty moron. Though granted it depends on Kennedy doing the right thing, I imagine the SCOTUS will do the right thing here. If the lefty judge had just decided in favor, they could have firewalled it down at Illinois(or just that circuit) without it being applicable to the whole country which will be the case if SCOTUS calls it.
Has the USSC ruled that free speech exist soutside the home? Just where in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights exists only within the home?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.