Today is a Good Day for Liberty!

28 06 2010

Today the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, and affirmatively established the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Read the full ruling here.

Over the next few weeks I will be surveying and commenting on the fallout, which promises to be substantial.  For now, I would direct you to this early commentary by Ilya Shapiro on Akin Gump’s SCOTUS Blog.  Shapiro correctly points out that the Court arrived at the right conclusion, but took the wrong path.  It would have been preferrable for the Court to rule on the basis of the Privileges and Immunities clause, but they wimped out and ruled on the Due Process clause.  Only Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, made the case for the obvious.

Nonetheless, today the right to keep and bear arms was affirmed as fundamental to our established notion of a free and ordered society.  Today is a good day for liberty!

“…just a few gun-related changes …”

20 03 2009

That’s how U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently described what the Obama administration wants to do, and among those changes is reinstating the ban on assault weapons. OK, I can understand that liberals don’t like the 2nd Ammendment. What I find offensive about Holder’s comment is this:

“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

In other words, the 2nd Ammendment is responsible for Mexico’s drug violence, which is now creeeping inexorably accross the U.S. border.   Not the complete lack of immigration enforcement for the last thirty years. Not the failure of the Bush Administration to close the border, or the failure of the Obama administration to follow through on the fence.   And certainly not the fact that Mexico is a corrupt third world country and has been for the past 100 years.  What’s driving Mexican gangland killings, in Holder’s view, is your God-given right to gun ownership.

Don’t think for one minute that the only change they want is a ban on assault weapons, as bad as that may be. They have other plans to make further abridgements to your Constitutional rights.

Be vigilant. Be ever vigilant.

Answer to JR (Who doesn’t read SCOTUS opinions, apparently)

7 03 2009

JR:  Asserting, as you do, that all gun owners are murderous freaks who hold irrational beliefs, only betrays the irrationality of your own position.  There is absolutely no factual basis to anything you imply in your post. 

The truth is that Bush did not tap your phone, gun owners are not crazies with wacky fears, and they are not proud when criminals misuse firearms.  The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding, peace loving citizens who wish only to hunt lawfully and protect their families.  Certainly criminals own guns, but they are criminals first, and only incidentally gun owners.  Gun ownership did not drive them criminally insane.

Finally, you are apparently not much a legal scholar.  You have swallowed whole the liberal canard that the 2nd Ammendment somehow limited gun ownership to militia members, and consequently is no longer needed.  In fact,  the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 2007 (District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, SCOTUS, 2007) that the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes is an individual right not dependent on militia membership.  It also held that a total ban on handguns such as the one it struck down in D.C., and even the requirement that they be stored dissasembled or trigger-locked (as the Rush bill would mandate), was unconstitutional.  Before you start typing, gather a rational argument and learn your constitutional history.  If you would like to read the opinion, it is here.

I guarantee that if this bill ever became law, and it almost certainly will not, it would be invalidated by the court.  Licensing people to engage in an activity explicitly protected by the constitution would be held unconstitutional on its face.  A license to own a gun — not one to carry one concealed, mind you, but to own one — would place in the hands of the Executive the arbitrary power to de facto decide who gets to exercise his or her 2nd Ammendment right.  Imagine that same licensing process applied to the First Ammendment, and you start to get the picture.  Would you tolerate licenses for speaking freely, or worshiping freely, or writing freely?  Of course not, unless you are some kind of tyrant.  Let’s assume for one minute that you are not.  Why would you support the government’s right to abridge a pre-existing, inalienable right, no matter what it is? 

You can keep writing, and I won’t try to outlaw your right to do so.  Just don’t try to outlaw my right to own guns.