The Supreme Court made a ruling today which orders a lower federal court to reconsider its previous ruling regarding Chicago’s ban on handguns. It’s likely that ban will fall.
I don’t so much have a problem with extending certain gun rights to more owners. My passion on the issue isn’t as strong as, say, that of kooks like John Lott, but it does bother me how the purely political right-wing justices have routinely been ruling on these issues. This is how the Second 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.
The spirit of the law is in the regulation of a militia, something relevant and needed in the time the amendment was written. The only way it should be applied today is insofar as there is a need for gun ownership. It can be argued that the Chicago ban on guns runs counter to a genuine need for protection, even outside the existence of a militia, but the purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court never argues that. They simply ignore the opening clause. Under their misunderstanding of both the spirit of the law and basic grammar, there should eventually be a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons for the average citizen under the constitution.
It’s often a problem that people think we ought to be beholden to the times and wishes of the framers, but in this case just the opposite is true. The purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court is ignoring the common sense of the framers while outright discarding the context of their times. The consequence of this obvious mistake may not be grave, but their argumentation is weak and embarrassing.
Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: Chicago, Gun rights, John Lott, Supreme Court |
For the Sake of Science 
It clearly says the right of the people not just the militia. If “the right of the people” were not there I might be inclined to agree with you. As it stands it mentions militias AND the people as a whole.
The language and context puts limits on that right. Under the purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court’s understanding (and yours), the conclusion is that the Second Amendment allows for nuclear weapons for anyone who can make one.
You are correct, society is perfectly entitled to put reasonable limits on rights. The supreme court has held that reasonable limits can be put on the second amendment.
Is a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms requiring registration than not allowing any registration?
Is a reasonable restriction on that right barring people from keeping a particular class of firearm in their home, one that is best suited for self defense?
Is it reasonable that after recognizing a persons right to defend themselves one should have to keep the tool to do so inoperable, that is unloaded?
I should think the reasonable answer to all these questions is: no.
You of course may correct me if I am wrong, but I see nothing in this ruling that says people have a right to keep high explosives in their home. I see nothing that says people have a right to build an atomic weapon. I see nothing that says people must be given the right to carry said arms in public.
Any restriction put on firearms by the states, just like with the federal government, will be reviewed by the courts to determine whether it is reasonable, upon the filing of a lawsuit obviously.
This won’t even affect many states as many of them have the right to bear arms written into their state constitution. Maine is such a state.
I disagree that the Second Amendment indicates that the Supreme Court can place or remove any limits on gun rights, except insofar as a militia is concerned – and that’s now irrelevant. Until there’s a national security need for citizens to hold firearms again, state and federal laws mean more to gun rights than the Second Amendment.
People should not have a right to own firearms? Perhaps only men should be able too, after all men are the only ones that can be drafted (currently, should be changed, if we ever need a draft again it probably will change) the entire male population essentially constitutes the US “militia”, our ultimate military “reserve”.
Citizens should be able to hold firearms to counter the threat of government tyranny. After all the pages of history are littered with cases of the state trampling a populace unable to defend itself. How would the American revolution have turned out if the citizenry had no weapons? I know, I know we are past the point of a malevolent government coming into power. Benevolence is a forgone conclusion.
I forgot to add self defense, but I assumed that was obvious.
If the enemy you fear is your neighbor, then a gun is probably all you need for protection. If the enemy you fear is your own government, then the right to own (e.g.) surface to air missiles is required. Not taking a position here, just pointing out the example. The original framers weren’t worried about protecting themselves from wild bears and neighbors so much as they were equalizing the arm’s race (or their era) between government and citizen. Technology has advanced to the point where the balance of power between citizen and government has been shattered.
Enjoy.
Really? It seems that the terrorists in Afghanistan are holding their own over all. Being a soldier I have to disagree that the thing that matters most is how far along in tech the military is. Dedication to whatever cause is at the root to the conflict is right up there at number one, followed closely by superiority of small arms and stealth.
To be honest there are more trained marksmen out of the military than in and the average gun owner likely possesses superior firearms to the M-16 and the M-4 that are favored by the US military. Much of that superiority is due to the round though. The standard NATO 5.56×39 cartridge is a crappy round compared to pretty much everything else.
It would be very hard indeed for the US government or any other government to deal with the firepower a revolting citizenry could bring to bear in this country. All bought for a relatively low violent crime rate that has been steadily falling even after the end of the “assault weapons ban” which did more to frustrate collectors than anyone else, banning such things as bayonet lugs.
Thankfully that reduced bayonet related crime to zero… albeit from zero.
5.56×45 actually