Supremes say individuals, not states, have right to keep and bear arms
June 26th, 2008 at 12:54pm Chuck Sweeny
Talk about landmark rulings: For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Here’s what the amendment says: “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.”
Since 1791 the battle has raged: Does the right belong to the states, or to individuals? The Court had never touched this hot potato before this term, when it decided to take up a case involving a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s absolute ban on residents owning handguns.
In the landmark 5-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court said individuals have gun rights exclusive of whether they belong to a militia.
Further, Scalia said that the amendment did not grant a new right, it protected a pre-existing right that developed over centuries in English law. The Founders, well versed on past attempts of English kings to use royal militias disarm regional enemies in England, were protecting individual citizens of the newly-organized United States against future attempts of governments to disarm them.
The Court did not strike down government’s right to regulate weapons or the kinds of weapons people can have. No one will be lining up to by tanks, bazookas or surface-to-air missles. Washington, D.C. and other communities and states may still limit gun use.
But it’s clear now that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, NOT the government.
What do you think about this? All opinions welcome.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
5 Comments Add your own
1. deuceracing | June 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
So gun folks didn’t really get the result they hoped for then? Since the first 10 amendments are all about the rights of people, how did the second amendment question get onto this track? I guess I was unaware the right to keep and bear arms ever belonged to the government. It sounds like the court clarified a question that wasn’t even asked.
2. Leatherneck | June 26th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Excellent point: If all of the first 10 amendments are a “package” of individual rights, then why would the 2nd Amendment be any exception? Seems like a no-brainer.
The NRA has been saying, for years, that it is an individual right. But the anti-gun crowd needed it spelled out. Maybe this ruling will “silence the critics”.
3. Chuck Sweeny | June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
It hasn’t been clear. Now it is. However, there is no absolute right to keep and bear whatever “arms” you want. You never have been able to, as a private citizen, buy a tank, howitzer, A-bomb or surface-to-air missle. You can’t keep and bear a machine gun.
The government and its subgroups have the right to enact reasonable regulations, that’s never been in dispute. You don’t have an absolute right to do anything. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.
It’s worth noting that Scalia’s decision went further than the Bush administration would have liked.
4. Leatherneck | June 26th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Of course. And fully automatic “machine guns” weapons HAVE BEEN illegal under federal law since the 1930s, as they should be. Of course civilians cannot buy howitzers, tanks. etc. This argument is a tactic anti-gunners use to make law abiding gun owners look absurd or extreme absolutists. For years, big city mayors try to classify anything bigger than a peashooter as an “assault weapon”. Then they passed handgun bans which disarmed everybody except for the thugs and street criminals. Now they can get those stupid laws off the books. They never should have passed them to begin with!
Lower courts have ruled previously that it is an “individual right”. This is often overlooked.
That and the fact that all 10 of the Bill of Rights were meant as “individual rights”- not just 9 of them excluding the 2nd Amendment. The gun grabbers needed a needed a house to fall on them. They finally got it today. So hooray for the Supreme Court- You are not being enthusiastic enough in applauding the decision!
5. Chuck Sweeny | June 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I\’m not an anti-gunner. I was not using a \"tactic.\" I was making an observation I came up with on my own. I am neither enthused or unenthused. Scalia clarified something that needed clarifying. And that\’s to be applauded. But people will be debating gun control measures forever. That\’s the nature of our country, we get to argue about the right way to run it!
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed