More Thoughts on Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment Ruling

I have re-read the Supreme Court’s decision on the 2nd Amendment, only this time I also read the dissenting opinions issued by Justices Stevens and Breyer. I have also spent several days pondering everything.

It is unbelievable that each side took about 10 pages or more just to define the words, “keep”, “bear”, “arms” and then another 50 pages to define the context (talk about BORING). I ended up with a major headache when I was finished the reading.

Personally, I thought the 2nd Amendment was written in English and easily understood even by 6th graders.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Statethe right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Granted, they spoke differently way back then, BUT it is still in English and understandable. Only lawyers could take something simple and convolute it to such a degree……*rolling eyes here*.

I have also read a lot about what so many seem so fearful about with this decision.

I have to say, I haven’t changed my mind. I still think the decision is a good one. What disturbs me is how close it was.

I personally still don’t get the hysteria of some people. Chicago’s Mayor, Richard Daly, in particular I think is really over-reacting, when he calls it “a most frightening decision” .

What I’m getting out of the opposition is a fear that now everyone will run right out and get guns, including assault weapons, and start running through the streets on shooting sprees.

THAT is NOT what the Supreme Court ruled. The Supreme Court simply upheld the Constitutional guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and that the DC ban against handguns was UNconstitutional. The Court went on to stipulate that just because the people have the right to own and keep arms does NOT mean that there can not be sensible and reasonable rules and regulations. The Court also stipulated that the right to own and keep arms did NOT mean that common citizens had a right to own AK-47’s.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves.As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

What the opposition isn’t seeing, or realizing, is the obvious. Law-abiding citizens who want to own a handgun to keep in their homes for protection will probably buy a gun. However, being law-abiding citizens they will do it legally by applying for a license to own, which will be run through a criminal background check first to be sure they have NO criminal record and/or no record of mental impairment; then they will register it as required. They will also make sure they learn how to care for the gun, how to keep it safely, and most importantly how to use it. In States with “right to carry” laws, they will do that legally also. In other words, law-abiding citizens are not about to go on shooting sprees.

Law-abiding citizens also don’t go around committing crimes. The criminal element will always get their gun, usually automatic ones also, and they usually do so illegally OR they steal them. All the bans and laws in the world won’t stop a crook hell-bent on having a gun to use in a crime.

Considering that, why is it then that law abiding citizens are the ones who are always punished with overly-restrictive laws just because a few choose to be criminals?

Those that never wanted a gun, will still not want a gun so there’s no problem there.

There are already reasonable and sensible laws in place regarding the licensing and registration of guns. Prohibiting law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in their home does NOT prevent crime OR homicides by guns.

As is usually the case, I think they need to enforce existing laws rather than making new, more-restrictive/prohibitive laws that ONLY affect those NOT committing the crimes in the first place (which is exactly what most new laws do).

Here are some quotes from the days when our country was being formed, some by some of the very founders of Constitution.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Libertyis a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

Abraham Lincoln: This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.

Thomas Jefferson: No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Samuel Adams: The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Alexander Hamilton: The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

James Madison: Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

Supreme Court of the United States, quotes about Liberty: (no date for this one, so I don’t know when this was said) Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.

Judge Lawrence Tribe: [The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it’s also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government.

Declaration of Independence, quotes about Arms:
But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

More interesting, take a look at some quotes for DIS-arming the people:(Personally, only one was of surprise to me)

Adolf Hitler: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

George Mason: To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

Benito Mussolini: The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. […] They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.

Josef Stalin: If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.

Janet Reno: (THIS is scary) Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.

Gun registration is not enough.

Obviously I haven’t changed my mind on this issue. And while I do understand where the other side is coming from…………I still don’t get it.

For the record, in case you are wondering, I do NOT own a gun, I have never even held a gun. I have never had any desire to either. However, the way things are going these days, I am seriously considering learning how and going through the LEGAL steps in procuring a hand-gun for myself. I’m a female who lives alone and am not a physically strong person, nor do I have children here, so it would make sense to keep one in the house for my protection, and laws like Chicago and DC have would mean I couldn’t defend myself. Well I suppose I could sleep with a kitchen knife under my pillow…….they haven’t tried to ban those yet.

As a law-abiding citizen I’m sick and tired of my rights and freedoms being restricted just because law enforcement can’t get a handle on the minority criminal element.


~ by swfreedomlover on June 30, 2008.

2 Responses to “More Thoughts on Supreme Court’s 2nd Amendment Ruling”

  1. Well, I have to congratulate you. You did your homework this time.

  2. Thank you, Watcher.

    Actually, the only thing I hadn’t read before was the dissenting opinion. I’d been listening to the reports of everyone being upset with the majority.

    I still don’t get why everyone isn’t understanding that law-abiding citizens will NOT be running around shooting everything up. The criminals element will NOT increase and neither will gun crimes, unless they start counting self-defense in your own home as a crime (which wouldn’t surprise me either)….hehehehehe

    I probably should have just done this post first, but I was so thrilled that the Supreme Court didn’t cave in, that I just had to post the news right away……….not that I thought I was the only one mind you….and since I was at work at the time…..well, you know, poor excuse and all…..LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: