SCOTUS: Right To Bear Arms Belongs To Individuals
Posted by: Jubal | 06/26/2008 11:05 AM
Boo-ya!The U.S. Supreme Court has declared the obvious: the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right.
The decision was a 5-4 split. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy affirmed that individuals have a constitutional right to own a gun.
Of course, the four usual suspects of the Left -- who usually have no difficulty finding individual rights lurking in the penumbra and emanations of the Constitution -- dissented.
This ruling is cause for celebration for freedom-loving Americans, and hopefully will provide food for thought for those Republicans who are think of sitting out the election in s fit of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Left, manifested by the four liberal Justices, came within a hair of re-writing the Second Amendment to mean something it does not. Who do we want nominating Supreme Court justices for the next four to eight years:John McCain or Barack Obama?
Here is a link to the decision, and plus some reactions - here and here.
CATEGORY:
Liberty, National Stuff
This decision is nothing less than a triumph for individual liberty over government tyranny.
Unfortunately, it's clear that none of the SCOTUS justices understand what individual liberty is about. Witness the triumph of liberty in the 5-4 habeas corpus ruling, with the liberal justices leading the way, and contrast it with the triumph of liberty in the 5-4 gun rights ruling, with the conservative justices forming the majority. The justices were ruling on their pet issues, not on freedom and limited government.
Unfortunately, neither Obama nor McCain is going to give us justices that are committed to upholding the rule of law and individual rights. Instead we'll get more of the same -- partisans who like liberty when it's "their kind" of liberty.
But, in the meantime, it's a great day for the Constitution and the people of the United States.
.
"individual right" & "great day" - indeed!
It's too bad the "gang of 4" . . . . who have no regard for their sworn OATH "to protect & defend" . . . . can't go the way of Rose Bird . . . . the unicorn . . . . & the dodo bird . . . .
Vaya con Dios.
.
Speaking of Rose Bird, Ron George needs to join her . . .
Balance,
Yep, just like the OTHER "gang of 4" who voted against the Great Writ of habeas the other week.
. . . among the ranks of CA Supreme Court Justices voted out of office.
Interesting, I must say to compare the opponents' reactions to this ruling and the habeas ruling.
Following the Boumediene v. Bush ruling, where the Court's liberals upheld habeas corpus, Justice Scalia (in-) famously said the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Following today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, Dianne Feinstein told us, "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
Here are two great examples of people on the right and on the left who pander to fear in order that government may have more control over individuals. How tragic. The Founders would be ashamed that these words are coming from a Supreme Court Justice and a senior Senator.
MRWHIPPLE,
"Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that
goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension
Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separationof-
powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional”
test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus
(and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other
constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes
important precedents, most conspicuously Justice
Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager.
It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law
that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens
abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically,
it sets our military commanders the impossible task
of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards
this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports
the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent." Justice Scalia
Makes sense to me. You?
btw - The same SCOTUS gang of 4 + 1 called the death penalty for rapists "cruel & unusual punishment." Huh?
These extreme-justices are far more concerned about the "rights" of violent & dangerous criminals, & enemys of war - than the rights of their innocent American victims.
How can you support these actions of the extreme 4?
Vaya con Dios.
Balance write:
"These extreme-justices are far more concerned about the "rights" of violent & dangerous criminals, & enemys of war - than the rights of their innocent American victims."
The majority was right in Boumediene because it should fall to the government to demonstrate they have evidence that someone IS, in fact, a terrorist. To allow this -- or any -- administration to imprison people for as long as they want, without charges, without access to counsel, goes against the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the long historical precedent upon which it was based. If the Bush administration had devised a way of detaining people caught on the battlefield that included some semblance of rights, they could have avoided Boumediene. But Bush's bald-faced refusal to abide by anything resembling law forced the Court's hand.
Their decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana is a difficult one. I am the husband of a woman who was sexually molested as a child, and my feelings are that there is nothing bad enough that can be done to men who do such things. But passion is a bad way to administer justice, and death is so extreme, so final, that I must agree with the Court that it should remain limited to exceptional cases of murder. To water it down is a slippery slope.
In short: The people have rights given by God; the government has powers delegated to it by the people. May the Court always rule in favor of rights and against power.