« | »

SCOTUS: 2nd Amend Applies To Entire US

From an apoplectic Associated Press:

Otis McDonald, one of four plaintiffs in the Chicago handgun ban takes part in a news conference in front of the Supreme Court. McDonald has said he joined a federal lawsuit to challenge Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban because he wants a handgun at home to protect himself from gangs.

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer

June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution’s Second Amendment restrains government’s ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

Or, to put it another way, “a recent trend” to enforce the unmistakable words of the Second Amendment.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

And, even if they didn’t signal this, the AP would say they did.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Isn’t it funny how equal protection under the law is such a selectively concern of the left.

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Since when do federal laws not supersede state and local laws? Especially federal laws enshrined in the Constitution?

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans…

Hardly. New York City has effectively banned handguns since 1911 for all but celebrities and the politically connected, in direct defiance of the US Constitution and now even the Supreme Court.

Will Mr. Obama’s Justice Department sue New York City and other cities and states that do not fully comply with this ruling? Or will they be too busy suing Arizona for enforcing other federal laws?

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Well, that quaint old concept will change, once the liberals take full control of the court.

Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

Is this what the AP was referring to when they claimed earlier that, “the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.”? If so, how hilarious.

For it sounds to us like Justice Alito was merely stating the obvious. That states and cities can still pass legislation to address social problems.

But they cannot defy the clearly expressed intentions of the Constitution.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, June 28th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “SCOTUS: 2nd Amend Applies To Entire US”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    A little GOOD news for a change
    From the Wall Street Journal:

    Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gun Rights

    By NATHAN KOPPEL

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection

    WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for infringing on Second Amendment rights.

    The ruling was 5-4 along the court’s usual conservative-liberal split. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

    The court in 2008 voided a District of Columbia handgun ban, and Monday’s ruling extended that to the rest of the country. Because Washington is federal territory and not part of a state, the legal basis for imposing federal constitutional limits on gun laws adopted by states had been unclear.

    The legal question before the court had much to do with questions of constitutional history. Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

    The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions—such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments—apply only to the federal government and don’t necessarily bind states.

    Monday’s ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can’t abridge.

    This is very good news. It bodes very badly for liberals and the current party in control of our country. I’m sure they look at this as a usurpation of their goals and that “the people just aren’t listening” to them.

    Well, given the line-vote, I’m glad we have the current justices that we do, at least for now. But, I’m sure the issue is far from over because once the loose-left gets a majority on the bench, it will do away with that and make gun ownership illegal throughout the land. But, fortunately, many Americans still own a great many guns and are capable of protecting themselves.

  2. Mithrandir says:

    In a world where Robert Byrd doesn’t exist, and the Supreme Court actually follows the original intent of the Constitution? WOW, feels like I am back in the 1800s!–Thank God!

    Remember when the Constitution was supposed to be an outline of our rights and a check on government intrusion upon them? When did government decide to turn the tables on us and use the Constitution to control us instead?

    That is when you truly know it’s time for revolution, when a small helpful compliant government becomes an oppressive expensive monster micromanaging every aspect of our lives. SCOTUS probably set back the time table for revolution another 5 years or so.

    • untrainable says:

      When did government decide to turn the tables on us and use the Constitution to control us instead?

      It all started a long time ago in a country far far away from where we are today. I like to call it the incremental lie. They did it little by little, and now that they’re in the home stretch they’re going for it balls to the wall. They’ve turned this country into a socialist nanny state with baby steps.

      Have we finally reached a point with this ruling where the liberal anti-gun nuts can be hoisted by their own social justice. They used freedom from slavery as the justification for guns being an individual right. GO CLARENCE!!! You’ve got to wonder how the left is going to spin this one. I know, they’ll rip the decision apart as only the leftist elite can,.. zealously before they read it,

      -see “Beer Summit”

  3. NoNeoCommies says:

    Nice to get this done before Kagan starts her activist term.
    Just be ready to hide those guns when Obama finds a crisis that he believe excuses seizure of them.

  4. wstuga says:

    I am thrilled that SCOTUS saw fit to apply the 2nd amendment to the states as it is applied to the federal government. Our founders gave us this right, with many others, to protect our freedom. The right to carry a firearm allows citizens to protect themselves from from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    My biggest complaint is that SCOTUS sent this decision back down to the liberal activist judges that upheld the decision in the 1st place. So the appellate court now allows guns in Chicago, but with what restrictions? How many more law suits will be filled to sort all this out? Will SCOTUS hear other cases on gun restrictions should cities and states impose new slightly leaner gun restrictions? From what I have gleamed from the AP article (I admit I have not read the decision), is that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states just as it applies to the federal government, but did not give an specifics on what if any restrictions the states could impose.

    Personally I am unsure what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand, but liberals in government and on the bench seem to need some help with basic reading skills. Of course if they attended the public schools they fight so hard to make more and more the worst in the schools in the world I could understand their reading problems, but most of them attended private schools. Therefore I am left to conclude that they understand the word perfectly well, but choose to ignore them. This is no different from the Obama administration ignoring a judges ruling about the off shore drilling ban.

    While this is certainly a win for America, I only see this as a victory on paper. SCOTUS did not (once again I have not read the decision, and I am only trusting what I read in the AP (dangerous I know) reported. If I am wrong please correct me!) lay out the rights citizens have on firearms. I expect liberal around the country both in government and on the bench to more or less ignore the decision, and reimpose gun restrictions more or less on par with those that were struck down. Have practical gun rights in DC changed since Heller?

    Citizens will have to file suits so that we can exercise our right to bear a firearm, and hope that it lands on the bench of a constitution defending judge. We must hope that SCOTUS will continue to hear the cases brought before it, and that the liberals do not pack the bench with anti american justices.

    In closing why is it that our President is suing a state (Arizona) that has a law consistent with federal law, and not suing cities and states with laws contrary to federal law (i.e. San Francisco et al with amnesty communities or Chicago, NYC, et al gun bans)?

    Thank you for allowing me to vent my frustrations at the lack of government caring for it’s people.

  5. AcornsRNutz says:

    For all this ballyhoo about this, espescially troubling is that both in this instance and with heller V DC, we saw a five to four vote. That is ridiculous. I do hope we can get some supreme court judges to look up what infringed means too, since to my way of thinking all these gun restricting laws in many states would very likely be construed as infringment on my ability to keep AND BEAR arms. I don’t see how my right to protect myself is not infringed if I have to keep my gun locked up ten different ways and unloaded in a bank vault in order to comply with the laws that are ostensibly designed to allow me to still have guns. If I can carry a rifle and a machine gun into Iraq 3 times, I damn sure ought to be able to tote my .45 around a bad neighborhood, and I guarantee any of the founding fathers would have found the idea of a carry permit or magazine restriction law absurd and frightening. I agree.

  6. Jamfish says:

    I’m really bothered by this “extend gun owner rights” language being adopted throughout the press. Even a mailer I got from GunReports.com contained this language.

    Let’s be clear: this was a reassertion of the fact that the Second Amendment, like all other fundamental rights, is applicable to all states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

    We’ve got more fights ahead of us, but any small win for liberty is a big win for all.

  7. bill says:

    So if a written, enumerated, fundamental right, in the Bill of Rights only gets 5 votes, what the hell are the other 4 Justices thinking their oath means?

    We have big problems … How far are we from dictatorship?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Rush mentioned that to day but it was on the mind of, I’m sure, millions of conservative Americans. What happens when a lefty-liberal base is the bench? What then? The Constitution and Bill Of Rights become bird-cage linings?

      Without the basic foundation of our system, there is NO system; Only the “moral relativism” that is liberalism, that eventually evolves, as it has shown to right this very moment, statism and fascism. How such a “system” would work where only gays/lesbians can have jobs; Only blacks are allowed to receive unemployment bennies and “retribution payments” and that, right there sets up a scaffold for failure.

      In the warped, twisted and sick dystopia of the liberal construct, it is doomed to failure and here we are 18 months into it so far and they are livid because it is already failing. Huge payouts of unbelievable sums of money yet unemployment is squarely parked at better than ten percent. Hyperinflation is about to hit, a la Jimmy Carter part deux. That will certainly make people sit up and take notice. Gas though…one of the left’s true desires to make it go astronomical in price, is also about to happen. A dream come true. All Europeans, us. Yet, the cost of gasoline will result in no noticeable result to the public. Only the federal coffers will grow.

      All of this by design by the boy who sits in the president’s chair. The only thing that’s making him angry is that people are noticing his tendency to megalomania. He wants to be “slick” and “stealthy” so he can brag about how he brought about communism to the once greatest free market system on Earth.

      Again: He hates this nation; Believes it to be responsible for all the ills in the world and anything and everything that has gone wrong in, at least his lifetime. He hates the British for what they did to his relatives. He hates anyone who disagrees with him. Hell, he hates more than half his staffers, no doubt as …..well….he is a damaged human being with anger as his only companion.

      Mark my words, He will explode one day. Very loudly, very visibly and no one will be able to cover for him.

    • proreason says:

      Why would they pay any attention to their oath if they don’t pay any attention to the Constitution?

      If one of the conservative 4 dies before 2012, the emperor’s mission is complete. He can appoint himself dictator for life and we can print the Constitution on toilet paper because that will be wh’s what it will be worth.

  8. Petronius says:

    bill : “How far are we from dictatorship?”

    The Fiendish Four voted to allow the States or local governments to disarm us :

    Sonia “the shredder” Sotomayor
    Ruth “no-American-civil-liberties” Bader Ginsburg
    Stephen Breyer
    John Paul Stevens

    These Four voted against incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment. Against the Second Amendment. Against the Bill of Rights. Against the Constitution.

    That is their Liberal “empathy.”

    They also voted against the English Declaration of Rights, which was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and which English settlers transplanted to the American colonies, where it took root over 320 years ago.

    In 1689, William and Mary accepted the Declaration, and it was codified by Parliament in the English Bill of Rights. As such it applied both in England and in her American colonies. It declared that all British subjects who were Protestants “may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions ….”

    When George Mason drafted the Virginia Constitution (1776), he inserted the famous Virginia Declaration of Rights, which embodied the main features of the English Bill of Rights, including in Art. 13, “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state ….”

    All of which were later folded into the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

    The Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution were manifestly conservative in nature, as movements to preserve the traditional, common law rights of Englishmen.

    The Fiendish Four, precisely by their votes, have reminded us of the relentless advance of tyranny, and of the role of the Second Amendment as fundamental to the protection of our ancient freedoms.

    • wterrier says:

      Awesome post Petronius, thanks.

    • bill says:

      I guess the answer is closer than you think.

      Very nice writeup … and much appreciated history lesson

      Isn’t it time we force their oath to mean something before they get on the court.

    • Mithrandir says:

      That’s right, and if the people of Chicago and D.C. are so wretched, that the Constitution needs to be shredded in order to control them, then it’s time to:
      1. Move away, and let the citizens and city crumble under their own weight. (see Detroit)

      2. Strengthen everyone else’s 2nd Amendment rights to crush the criminal class.

      3. Find a new government that doesn’t see confiscation of your rights as a solution to everything.

  9. canary says:

    Is it effective immediately? Was the man who took it to the Supreme Court rich?

    Well Ginsburg died immediately after the vote, but I assume someone cast the vote for her. On her last days from cancer, no doubt she was on heavy duty medicine.

    alas. Sotomayor outlawed little sticks, but allows canes.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »