As everyone knows by now, there was great victory for the pro gun community in the Supreme Court's decision in the DC vs. Heller case. Although it was a victory I am still a little disturbed by how close the vote was. 5 to 4, a little scary. I can understand that there are liberal people and conservative people in the Supreme Court that are expected to vote a certain way, and this country for some reason has decided to accept that. The last time I checked, the Supreme Court was supposed to interpret the laws, not make them! After reading much of the document published after the decision, it seems to be pretty logical that there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that would allow for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say that you are only allowed to keep or bear arms only when part of a militia, as the DC lawyers were trying to argue. They used strange things like dictionaries and other examples of things written in that time with the same phrasing where the intention was clear to come to this amazing conclusion. Despite these facts the vote was still 5 to 4. To me this demonstrates an extreme lack of logic and a push for personal agenda in the interpretation of the Constitution. Once it is demonstrated that the language clearly gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, how can almost half the interpreters of that law then say that is not the case? That is just a blatant attempt to change the Constitution without having to go through all that trouble of you know, changing the Constitution.
One of the dissenting justices actually said the following:
"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
That is funny I thought the whole purpose of constitutional rights was that they were in fact untouchable, at least not without a lot of red tape.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I lived in a crime-ridden urban area, that would be the first place where I would want to have a gun for self defense. It is quite obvious that the state cannot protect me from crime in that area (or any area for that matter), so I should be able to provide for my own defense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here's a thought experiment: what if the case had gone 5-4 to reverse, and the argument "there is no untouchable right" was the majority decision? In that event, the Supreme Court would have established itself as unconstrained by Article 5, and we would find ourselves in the post-Constitutional era.
We were one vote away from tyranny.
Good post!
And not only is the state incapable of protecting you, but courts have consistently ruled that the state has no legal obligation to protect individual citizens.
Exactly! All the more reason why we should be allowed to protect ourselves.
Post a Comment