Topic: Constitutional Issues
Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment Rights (Some Restrictions May Apply) While it's good that the court upheld the constitution, there are some things to be concerned about.by DustoneGT
(libertarian)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Supreme Court released their decision today in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, striking down the district's oppressive gun laws and reaffirming our Second Amendment rights. Before you pop that bottle of bubbly open, it would be a good idea to read the whole opinion ([link edited for length]).
The 157 page ruling isn't that hard of a read. The margins are very narrow (presumably to leave room for note-taking and doodling) and the font isn't that small. I also wouldn't worry too much about reading past page 67. The subsequent pages are mostly the complaints of the judges who didn't get their way (this is also known in lawyer jargon as the dissenting opinion). If you don't have time to read a 67-page paperback, the first three pages are a pretty good summary of the decision.
Don't get me wrong--the ruling could have been much worse (see pages 68-end), but there are a couple of things to be concerned about.
First, the ruling states that there are limits on the rights guaranteed by the second amendment. It allows for laws barring firearms "in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" and laws regulating the commercial sale of firearms. It also states that the prohibition of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons is acceptable because it is supported by 'historical tradition' (pages 57-58).
I changed my son's diaper this morning and it didn't stink as bad as this should to anybody who professes to love the constitution or liberty in general. What exactly qualifies a place as sensitive? Could this be construed to include BLM land, national parks or wildlife refuges? What about interstate and U.S. highways? How much regulation on the sale and trade of firearms is acceptable?
More importantly, when did 'historical tradition' start trumping the constitution? According to the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution above any other law of the land (See Marbury v. Madison). Article VI, Clause 2 of The Constitution states that The Constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the land" not "the supreme law of the land unless you ignore it long enough".
Second, speaking specifically about the case at hand, Justice Scalia writes: "Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." This leaves the door wide open for registration and licensing laws for firearms and other weapons. It is unwise to have a list of firearms owners and exactly what firearms they possess. For one thing, a criminal could gain access to that list and make a more 'informed decision' about what houses to burglarize.
The other problem with licensing and registration is that the government might at some point decide to disregard our constitutional rights. This has happened in the past and will happen again. How much easier will it be for them to confiscate firearms if they have a database of all firearms owners and exactly what they own? Can we really be secure in our 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' (Do I really need to cite this one?) with registration and licensing of firearms?
It is also worth noting that for obvious reasons criminals and felons will not license or register their firearms, leaving only law abiding citizens affected by the law. It is foolish for the court to leave the door open for this sort of activity.
I will end with one final question: What part of "shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of DustoneGT only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. DustoneGT is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Well it could have been worse if the other 4 had their way. And that's a good illustration of how quickly our rights could be gone. I share the concern about what type of impossible regulations might be imposed.
I was pretty sure this would come down to a 5-4 decision. But I wasn't sure which side would get the 5. So at least we have to be happy they didn't throw out the 2nd amendment altogether.
5-4? Damn it! That should have been 9-0. How do we get rid of the dissenting 4? ... and to think that they are there until they die or quit! These so called justices are the one that are supposed to rule on the constitiution itself? We are all screwed!!!! I am not a gun owner myself, because I don't feel the need to own one........yet! I may change my mind. I truly support the choice of the individual to carry whether conceal or not or to have it at their homes as self defense. We need to keep the criminals and the government (same as criminals) guessing!
I'm glad someone is looking at the ruling critically. Certainly the tacit support of registration is something to object to. Here in Canada long-gun registration has posed a problem for a lot of people, and opposition to it played a big role in electing the current gov't; yet that gov't has so far been unable to eliminate it.
Some of the other restrictions are more reasonable, though. I don't think there's a Second Amendment right to bring guns into other people's homes against their will; and where the gov't is the owner of a building, it should have the same right to keep them out. (Parks and highways are, of course, a different matter; we'll have to hope that lower courts have or will get the line right.) Nor do I think there's a Second Amendment right to own WMD.
Your home is pretty sensitive. I mean, with all those supposed private property rights you could very well be hiding an entire battalion of tanks, room permitting of course.
This was a major loss for the citizenry today. It's unconstitutional, but only because they didn't do it right.
The only step towards true second amendment freedom is to get rid of any sort of licensing whatsoever. As long as the government has the ability to control through license they have the ability to just not issue them.
Until the subject of licensing and NICS checks are destroyed and left smoldering in their own tyrannical juices, we will never be truly free. We will always be one law/executive order away from slavery.
This case did nothing more than say, "No, you can't but this is how you can. Have fun!"
First, Welcome to Nolanchart, since this looks like your first post.
I concur with you, but put my concern more on the general acceptance of SCOTUS rule, rather than this specific case-nine people in robes should not, indeed we dare not allow them to, determine what our rights are. Silly me, I read somewhere they were inalienable. There is where the arguement must form, I think.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
