SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Rights

Today, the Supreme Court struck down the 37 year old D.C. ban on handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court and said that the Constitution does not provide for the absolute ban of hand guns. The case was brought forward when Dick Heller, who is an armed security officer, filed suit after his application to keep a handgun in his home and was rejected. That’s right, he wanted to keep the gun in his home for personal protection, but the city wouldn’t allow it.

The 2nd amendment reads: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is debated whether this amendment is in affect today because we have no need for militia since we have an army. However, the first part of the amendment gives a reason, but, as Justice Scalia points out in the courts opinion, does not limit the 2nd part or in law terms, the operative clause. Until a new amendment is passed to change the 2nd Amendment, the right of the citizens to bear arms cannot be infringed upon.

If you were to look through history, the first thing a government does before it become a dictatorship or oppresses its people is to take away the right to own a weapon and right to defend one’s self. This is why the forefathers wrote this into the Bill of Rights. It was a matter of great importance to them, evidenced by the fact that it’s the 2nd amendment, not the 10th, 11th, or 12th. It’s hard to comprehend tyranny in the United States; and it’s admittedly not likely happen anytime soon. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

That being said, I don’t believe in unrestricted gun rights. There is no such thing as a limitless right. You have the right to free speech, but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. You have the right to practice religion freely, but if your religion involves polygamy or sacrifice, you cannot lawfully practice those elements of that religion. The same stands here, I don’t believe the felons or the mentally incapacitated should be allowed to own a firearm because that would be an endangerment to the public. However, I am a law abiding citizen and a gun owner. If someone were to break into my house, I would hope that I would be able to defend my self, my family, and my property from harm.

A blanket law like the D.C. handgun ban in unconstitutional in that it stops everyone, including the law abiding, from owning a handgun. Unlike Kennedy v. Louisiana, which was decided yesterday, I fully agree with court and its opinion in this case. It seems that the federal government has been on a streak of trying to strengthen its power. It has been taking power away from the states, thereby the people, as it did yesterday by banning executions of child rapists even when the people of Louisiana supported the law. This landmark judgment is undoubtedly a win for the people.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. So if the court ruling makes so much sense, then why was it not a unanimous decision? I mean really, the case came down to Antonin Scalia, the “originalist.” Clearly there are convincing arguments for both sides of the debate. Perhaps the only tyranny we should be afraid of is the tyranny we bring onto ourselves. Remember, “It’s not God Bless America, It’s God BAM America!”

    –Chris

  2. Obama wanted to change the 2nd Amendment but now that idea of his has fell apart, he is flipping all over the frying pan! I will now cling to my guns and enjoy hunting!
    http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/06/26/sen-john-mccain-gives-barack-obama-the-left-jab/

  3. two words jury nullification ,if you dont like a law ,or don’t believe in the case you are sitting thru jury duty on, vote not guilty ,this is your greatest power and you do not have to explain yourself to no one for the way you vote

  4. It isn’t unanimous because people interpret the Constitution different ways depending on what they want the outcome to be. That’s my interpretation. Like I said, the first half states a reason, but it isn’t the operative part of the amendment. I believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution, because it was written to restrict government. Bottom line, if they want to ban guns, they’re going to have to write a new amendment. Besides, when do people agree on anything?

    Personally, I think that would suck because criminals are going to get guns some way. I hate to have to defend my self with a kitchen knife if someone broke into my house while I was home.

  5. Maybe if we had a society where crimes had consequences there wouldnt be a need for this ‘argument’. Do I want an uzi? No I do not, do I like a .22 cal rifle to target shoot, or a .308 to go hunting – yes I do. The point is when you start chipping away at rights it gets whittled down to nothing. People can ‘what if’ anything to death, and I see that attitude so prevalent here. Stop looking at the syptoms go to the source of the problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: