The NRA is pushing to end further gun bans across the country following the US Supreme Court ruling against the D.C. handgun ban on the grounds that such weapons were protected under an individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution:
Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the NRA today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.
“The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words.”
The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Oak Park.
All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as “incorporation.” Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.
It seems unbelievable that an argument against incorporation could stand at this point. Someone would actually have to argue that people in federal territories have a protected right to keep and bear arms but that people in States do not. I'm sure some will try, one way or another... but it's difficult to see how any court could deny incorporation after this ruling.
Especially when the court eloquently pointed out that the primary purpose of the Amendment was to ensure the people were armed so that the common people could be an effective militia (all persons capable of bearing arms for the common defense)... but the critical point was that the primary reason was not the only reason for the right, and the right exists regardless. Given this right exists so prominently in the bill of rights, and all incorporation cases thus far have involved fundamental liberties being protected from infringement by State/local government... these cases sound like sure deal to me.
I'm excited, but cautiously excited.
It really is quite a positive victory for liberty, the defense of the Constitution, and common sense. It is interesting and more than a bit troubling that any of the Supreme Court justices voted against the Constitution. I have met people who have told me that there are 3 or 4 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights that they do not agree with.
I was taught in grade school that the reason for the 2nd amendment right was that the people had the right to arm themselves for defense, not only against varmints and hoodlums, but also as armament against the government at such a time as it became necessary to raise up arms against the government to forcibly overthrow it, as they decided to do in 1776. That sort of action against the government was treason in 1776 and punishable by death. The possession of arms by the people was essential, otherwise the people would be completely helpless against oppression.
Although it should not be suggested that violent overthrow of the government would fix any of our problems and although it is likely that when such overthrow does come, it is almost a certainty that it will come from the outside rather than from domestic forces, the right to bear arms is still a constitution-guaranteed right.
The people have the right to bear weapons and the reasons for doing so what ever they might be are irrelevant to that right, whether the weapon is a spear, a sword, blowgun, pistol, UZI, AK47, or RPG. The people also have to bear the consequences of engaging in acts they choose that are supported by their bearing of arms.
There are two kinds of people who want to take armaments away from the common people. One kind is the "Nicolaitanes", those who really do want to oppress and control the people. The other kind is the weak and fearful, the pansies who are unable to face the harsh realities of life, and who are both unable and unwilling to deal with the root causes of violent crime. They are the pricks in our eyes and thorns in our sides who vex freedom, those of whom Franklin said deserve neither liberty nor security. Just because they are weak and fearful doesnt mean that they are not dangerous, sort of the same way in which a Doberman is a fear-biter. You can expect to hear their shrill plaintive voices rising as they ferret out the first case of gun-related violence they can reasonably or unreasonably blame on this court decision and parade it before us as evidence that we have too much liberty.
You know I did read the "eloquent" decision and it left me wondering when I can line up to purchase a nuclear weapon. Since the right to bear "arms" is so obviously designed to allow the individual to challenge the government with weaponry, the only logical conclusion is that I must be allowed to own nuclear weapons, since that is what the government has in its cache. I see no doubt that my friends and I have every right to tote around our handguns, ready to shoot anyone who acts suspiciously at the Target. And I also see no doubt that I should be allowed to keep one or two nukes out in the garage.
This decision is absolute garbage. Though it is an eloquent example of how activist judges can rewrite the law for their own purposes.
Dboon-How much money do you have?
It's the Constitution.
*
Excellent piece on CBSNEWS.com discusses the story of how a Libertarian worked on this case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/29/sunday/main4217235.shtml
...and just when we all thought Liver-tarians were out of touch and ineffectual.
As to the actual decision, I see the pros and cons for either side. I think more people will die in urban areas, but as they say, it's not a good idea to sell out freedoms for individual security, and some may see it as help to urban residents arming themselves against state brutality.
I do think it is a clear example of court activism and a relative loss of state sovereignty. But sometimes those are not bad things in the case of expansion of constitutional rights.
On June 29th, 2008 at 11:35 AM, xian said: "I do think it is a clear example of court activism and a relative loss of state sovereignty. But sometimes those are not bad things in the case of expansion of constitutional rights."
Regarding the "relative loss of state sovereignty", how did you come to that conclusion? One of the more interesting takes on the Heller decision looks at Heller in light of the Kelo decision (basically, comparing property rights and gun rights in light of the current court's make-up).
By the way D.Boon, the court's majority opinion spoke to your concerns, and, hyperbole aside, the decision in Heller still allows a healthy amount of governmental regulation.
HG
"You know I did read the "eloquent" decision and it left me wondering when I can line up to purchase a nuclear weapon."
You either didn't read all of it, or you misunderstood some of it, because it directly addressed such concerns and isn't a slippery slope to the right to keep and bear ICBMs. Nice try though. As HG noted, it didn't attempt to throw out any widespread regulatory power of the government, merely two limitations that would infringe upon the individual right.
xian... it was actually the minority suggesting that the court establish all sorts of tests and meddle with the regulatory concepts that bordered on legislating from the bench, not the majority which merely said the government had overstepped its authority as defined and limited in the Constitution. They were even desperate enough to try arguing that other rights in the bill of rights were "collective rights" in order to stop something they personally disagreed with in the Constitution they swore to uphold. Now that is an activist judge.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Xian,
It was for sure activism through the court which is a valid means of resetting policy to cause it to comply with the constitution. Activism is not a bad thing or even a bad word. It's a good thing, sort of an opposite in motion to Ignorance and Apathy. Just knowing the truth and caring enough to defend the Constitution isn't enough. The Unconstitutional wrongdoings of government cannot be corrected unless someone takes a case to the court, and even then, it is one hard tough battle.
I saw one really goofy comment in the clueless media this morning claiming that the court was flip-floping on issues to the left and the right with Justice Kennedy at the hinge point. It is unfortunate that the media think that the sheeple will eat this drivel tossed to them instead of the truth that there was no flip-flopping at all, and that there is a consistent theme of upholding the Constitution among the majority.
The Supreme Court does not scan the country looking for bad laws to overturn. People have to do the extremely difficult and incredibly expensive grunt work to uphold the Constitution. Governments frequently infringe upon our personal constitutional rights with full knowledge that they are doing so, and figure they can get away with it because it requires so much trouble, vigilance, effort, and money to have such bad laws nullified.
For example, Robert Lewis, one of our local Fascist Democrats who is a member of the Urbana City council, recently suggested that the City of Urbana enact a clearly unconstitutional restriction on free speech and simply dare the courts to try and overturn it. The city attorney pointed out in no uncertain terms that what Mr. Lewis was suggesting was indeed unconstitutional, and Lewis countered with the idea that the infringement it was worth a try anyway. This act of treason deserved tarring and feathering of Lewis on the spot along with his cohort Lynne Barnes, but these days we just have to wait for elections.
This kind of stunningly bizarre behaviour of our elected officials is not an isolated incident. Governments at all levels continue to constantly seek to destroy our constitutional rights (for our protection they say), and we are simply fortunate enough to have hard working intelligent people to have the talents and resources to defend our rights against the barrage of authoritarian intrusions that constantly threaten us.
*
How do you figure it to be a loss of state sovereignty?
1. Which state forfeited sovereignty as a result of this activism through the Supreme Court?
2. Isn't the 2nd amendment is a benefit of the Constitution unto the citizens of all states that joined the Union and ratified the constitution?