Thursday, June 26, 2008

The 2nd Amendment: It Ain't About Duck Hunting ...

Photo by Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

In case you missed it: Read the story here.

And the opinion here.

The court, by a narrow margin, allowed essentially that individual rights did not require collective membership in an official organization to be valid; and that since the "militia" of the day was a de facto requirement for able-bodied men, citizens, of a certain age, and who might not be in the barracks when the call to duty came, having a firearm handy at home was a good idea.

Of course, times change, but the intent of the Constitution's framers by putting in this amendment right after free speech makes it clear that they thought the way to resist tyranny was to have access to the tools. And the SCOTUS agreed.

Of course, 5-4 isn't what you'd call a wide margin; still, this one I agree with.


Dan Gambiera said...

Unfortunately, this won't change much outside of DC. The rather oddly written majority opinion said that restrictions other than total bans and inactivation were probably fine. Banning them in public places? Fine. Banning them within 1000 feet of a school or other "sensitive areas" (in other words, effectively banning them in all urban areas)? Not a problem.

Trust the Scalitorobertsmas faction to uphold a right in the abstract but let it be detailed out of existence.

Steve Perry said...

NRA is already unpacking the lawyers. MIght not be able to carry in school zones or post awfuls, but you will be able to keep one in the house.

Small victories are better than losses, and if you live in D.C. or San Francisco, it's maybe not so small.

Mark Jones said...

Yeah, they say it ain't over til the fat lady sings. Well, the Heller case wasn't the fat lady singing--it was the opening whistle. As disappointing as the ruling was, in some ways (5-4 split on whether a TOTAL ban was a violation of the RTKBA?), at least it explicitly recognized an individual right.

The gun grabbers can't claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn't recognize that any longer. Okay, they can--and will--but we have an actual ruling from the Supremes to point to now when we argue with them.