Posted by
HvySlpr on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:09:53 AM
On Thursday June 26, 2008, in a truly landmark decision, the first like it in over seventy years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington D.C.’s
effective ban on firearms was in fact unconstitutional. Hallelujah.
I wrote about the pending decision
way back when, but wasn’t expecting such a great ruling:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.You can read the rest
here if you are still awake. By the way, “prefatory” is my new favorite word.
With an open and clear-cut example of how liberals want to take away your rights, and In predictable liberal fashion, the Chicago Tribune
called for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
No, the Chicago Tribune was not the only bunch of liberals irate with the Supreme court. Add to that list the Washington Post who said “IT IS deeply disappointing, though not surprising, that the Supreme Court [Thursday] struck down the District's gun laws after finding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.” Damn those Constitutionalists… damn them.
Not to be outdone, The New York Times chimed in: “The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.“ Subtle, and unemotional, but I picked up on where they were headed. By the way, someone may want to inform the Times about what happened to the D.C. homicide rate after the “gun control law“ was passed (psst… it didn’t go down).
I also remember reading (from some liberal, useless blog) that The Constitution does not explicitly allow the individual a right to bear arms. You may ask; “Where exactly is the explicit right to abortion in the Constitution (an old and tired “pro-choice” argument)?” You took the words right out of my mouth. I think I may be rubbing off on you. J
I don’t usually quote comedians but Larry the Cable Guy, of all people, said it eloquently; "Blamin’ a gun for killin’ people is like blamin’ a pencil for misspellin’ a word.”
I will give the Chicago Tribune a pea-sized amount of credit for doing something right: If you hate the Second Amendment, overturn it. Although, by doing so, at least in this context, you are admitting to its guarantee of the individual right to bear arms. Unless you don’t believe in the rights of militias either. Hmmm…you anti-constitutionalists are in a pickle indeed…like it or not.
Update: A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance banning firearms was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association. Interestingly, the people who have been killing others, via gun violence, in Chicago said it really wouldn’t affect their lifestyle, as the law really didn‘t concern murderous lawbreakers in the first place. Go figure.