Yes We Can - keep our guns

In District of Columbia v. Heller the U. S. Supreme Court finally, after 217 years, weighed in on whether Amendment II of the U. S. Constitution granted an individual right to keep and bear arms. Surprisingly, the decision was a narrow 5-4 majority in favor of Heller which recognized the individual right. It is hard to understand how it could have been otherwise. The Bill of Rights is a laundry list of individual rights, enacted in order to limit governmental authority.

Justice Stephens, in the dissent, wrote that the majority, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made the decision to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons." This is, in my opinion, exactly backwards. The purpose of Amendment II is to limit the tools of government against the individual.

I am no Constitutional scholar, but I can read, and it is sometimes hard for me to understand the contortions the Court must go through in order to reach a decision that fits the justices' individual prejudices. Today is a good day for those of us who believe that the Constitution means what it says rather than having some obscure meaning that is hidden somewhere just out of sight of the rational mind.

Below are the first ten amendments of the U. S. Constitution:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Buy a car get a gun

This is a great idea.

I recall that a Colorado bank used to give away deer rifles when a CD was purchased. (No, not a music CD, a certificate of deposit.) This bank did a great business on time deposits. I wonder what happened to that program. Even Michael Moore got one, though I doubt he passed the necessary background check. (The background check excludes gun ownership by dirty, socialist, hippies.)

The Supremes like gun rights

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country’s history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. (L. Greenhouse. NYTimes. March 19, 2008).

This is such an odd statement.

The right to bear arms has been recognized since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The right has been severely infringed by state and federal government. The only thing new here is that SCOTUS has deigned to hear an appeal and clarify the constitutionality of individual gun owners’ rights. Only a tortured reading of the amendment makes it possible not to find an individual right to bear arms. The questioning by the Justices seems to have made that very clear.

The right to gun ownership has always been embraced by those who do not live within the confines of modern liberalism. There are vast areas of the country where non-ownership of a gun is considered to be a character flaw. Guns are not to be feared. They are a tool.

If the Supreme Court heard a case on press freedom I guess the New York Times would define that as a newly recognized right? It seems what really gives Ms. Greenhouse heartburn is that a decision confirming the second amendment’s clear meaning might diminish government’s ability to disarm citizens.

It appears that SCOTUS is walking a fine line with the appeal. The affirmation of the second amendment exposes all state and federal gun control laws to attack. The opinion must be carefully tailored and narrowed. If not, hundreds, if not thousands, of statutes would have to be defended. The costs would be astounding.