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.
We the people...
Choose to vote these lefty-lib Dhimmi-Dems OUT-OUT-OUT at every turn and opportunity...
----We INVESTIGATE, EXPOSE their socialist/globalist agenda, then RECALL or IMPEACH them through every legal and moral means...
They remain in power -- and strip away at our God-given liberties; ceding our Constitutional rights and protections to the U.N. or other "global visions".
It's time to wake up...
Revisiting our decision-making paradigm...
...for electing representatives & officeholders...
Holding them accountable on a daily basis.
End of Monday rant....
Have a great week everyone!
Respectfully I add this comment:
Newt SAYS he is "willing to use the Constitutional power our Framers designed for us to check the Judiciary."
He has yet to demonstrate that.
When he was Speaker of the House he never made a concrete move to do so.
Politicians say many things during their campaigns. If Newt becomes President I would like to see him act on these words but what are the odds?
Accidents always happen with unloaded guns. For this reason, I always keep my guns loaded.
This kind of tyranny will continue until someone decides to use one of those 7 rounds
Oh man, that was OUTSTANDING!!! If a homeless person doesn’t have a home, then home is wherever he is. Therefore he has the right to possess a firearm.
Seriously, too, never trust a mechanical safety.
Geeze...this was in the early/mid 70s.
I don’t think the rifles even *had* safeties.
Nobody ever got hurt.
The boys all had their own trucks so I doubt there was much call for other guys to be getting in, anyway.
Moot point now.
The empty rifle hangs in the rack and the ammo is locked away somewhere else in the vehicle.
That’s the law, now.
Lord knows the lowland AFA kids and band members were always layin’ for the ridge runners.
The surest path to armed revolt is for public officials to believe and behave as if it will never happen.
You misspelled “rhetorical”.
I was wondering how I ever survived my youth for a minute, there.
Twenty years ago, judicial activism was barely on the radar, and then mostly in the hard-core liberal jurisdictions. Now that it has spread like kudzu, the political reality is much different. At least one of the candidates is talking about this problem.
Fixing the problem is, of course, another matter. It would require a major shake-up in the Senate and decade-long (minimum) political commitment within Congress to take back and hold what is theirs. The labors of Hercules seem insignificant by comparison.
Somebody let off a barrage of gunfire on the other side of the ridge towards dusk one night.
Didn’t see the jackboot after that.
[I have no idea who was shooting over there but they sounded like they were taking out a whole herd of deer]
So did I until I had that miserable boating accident.
Don’t try that excuse with an AR-7...
Indeed. Had a rifle fire just when disengaging the safety. Loose screw.
I suspect it simply won't take up the issue. Historically, it let stand, for decades, Circuit Court rulings that read Presser for the opposite of what Presser actually says (and thereby let unconstitutional state laws stand); and it grossly misrepresented the Miller case in handing down the Heller decision.
Whoever, above, pointed out that Congress has and should use the remedy of impeachment, is right. Not that Congress will do so, it too is in favor of restrictive gun laws and has passed a number of unconstitutional restrictions itself.