Latest gun ruling a case of conservative judicial activism
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of ruling that the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms was an individual right rather than a right tied to a “well-regulated militia.” Today, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled 5-4 that state and local governments are as bound by that interpretation as the federal government, a step that greatly restricts their ability to legislate in that arena.
Symbolically, the ruling is a big victory for the gun lobby. But its practical effect is another matter. A decade or two ago, when hot political battles were still being fought over gun control, rulings such as these would have had significant impact. But the truth is that the single-minded passion of gun-rights advocates long routed their opponents in the political arena, making gun-control arguments in the political arena all but moot.
In that sense, the Supreme Court is merely following the election returns, as Mr. Dooley long ago noted.
But it will be interesting to see how the issue plays out. In Heller, the court wrote repeatedly of the constitutional right to self-defense and singled out handguns as “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” Heller also noted that the right to bear arms is NOT “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In addition, Heller expressly did not apply to “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.”
As Justice Stephen Breyer notes in his dissent, the rulings in Heller and McDonald strip power from state and local governments and place it in the hands not just of the federal government, but of the federal courts. In its centralization of power, its rejection of precedent and and its investment of legislative power in the courts, the court has taken a decidedly activist role.
In fact, Breyer notes, it requires judges, not legislatures, to now address a variety of questions regarding the costs and benefits of various firearms restrictions:
“Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time of day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the presence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting patdowns designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban? Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right (to self-defense) interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies?”
“Legislators,” Breyer notes, “are able to ‘amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it.’ United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 67 (1965). They are far better suited than judges to uncover facts and to understand their relevance. And legislators, unlike Article III judges, can be held democratically responsible for their empirically based and value-laden conclusions.”
The Supreme Court — the ostensibly conservative, anti-activist, pro-states’ rights Roberts court — has taken those decisions out of the hands of legislatures and city councils and placed them in the hands of its colleagues in the federal judiciary.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
619 comments Add your comment
Paul
June 28th, 2010
1:17 pm
Kagan must’ve listened to the consultants who say the number of times you blink shows how nervous you are.
She hasn’t blinked once …
Wait…. she blinked!!!! She blinked!!!!
The rest of her is frozen, though -
getalife
June 28th, 2010
1:18 pm
I am shocked they ruled against tobacco companies.
koid
June 28th, 2010
1:19 pm
TW @ 11:57- please provide a link to your 17 to 1 ratio stat.
The government will save me right?
June 28th, 2010
1:19 pm
Agree with md- this ruling simply clarifies that the states cannot ban something the federal government allows. The Heller ruling was crafted to address only that issue, so Bookman takes the liberty of using the absence of language to support his theory of judicial activism? I guess we should be used to this column doing that by now.
Hand guns can still be regulated and the sales monitored. Only 2 all-out bans still exist so only those places are truly affected by this ruling.
People should have the right to choose whether they want a handgun or not. Anyone who argues this keeps guns out of criminal hands believes the criminals buy them….and that is what is truly crazy.
@@
June 28th, 2010
1:22 pm
Good grief, Getalife! You SMOKE pot.
Smokin’ is smokin’.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
1:24 pm
Hello, DoggoneGA
Here’s a not bad summary of the Harvard controversy.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/16/jeff-sessions/sessions-says-kagan-violated-us-law-regarding-mili/
For the purposes of this blog, I find it much more fun to say she violated the law – specifically in regards to her stance that a school has the right to enforce certain federal laws against the military. The entire Court – 8-0, rejected her idea. The law was in force, some say she merely ‘tested’ it. I like “violated.”
Tells us a lot about her view of principle when she really backed down when the military said ‘okay, you wanna do that? We’ll follow the law and yank your federal funding.”
CW
June 28th, 2010
1:25 pm
Here is an interesting thought… Why do some use the argument that revoking the right to own a gun is in the interest of protecting children. And then they also say that abortion should be allowed for personal rights.
Where's My Party?
June 28th, 2010
1:25 pm
DebbieDoRight
June 28th, 2010
1:06 pm
Hey Granny!! Hey Paul!!
Granny: Those conservative activist Judges won’t let a gun be carried into their place of business now will they?
Why Granny, of course not….
I guess that is kind of like forcing healthcare upon the masses, say for example Obamacare, but excluding yourself, you know, like Obama did.
Right?
Drifter
June 28th, 2010
1:25 pm
Well, Mr. Bookman, how would like to hand the right of a free press over to the legislature? There’s absolutely no difference.
md
June 28th, 2010
1:26 pm
For all those in favor of gun control, look no further than Mexico, which has strict gun control laws. The cartels sure are abiding by those laws – aren’t they?? And are the police protecting their citizens?? Uh, that would be a big no, as the police are out gunned.
AndyW
June 28th, 2010
1:26 pm
Jay, your headline should have been: “Latest gun ruling proves that only 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices actually understand the Bill of Rights.”
UsmcDawg
June 28th, 2010
1:29 pm
Jay Bookman= Anti-American d0uchebag!
Lawrence
June 28th, 2010
1:29 pm
If Jay is for it, I am against it, and vice-versa.
He is a complete loser.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:30 pm
Jay
June 28th, 2010
12:54 pm
Gun control may have been the “way” of it, but it was not the reason. Politics and power was the reason.
Del
June 28th, 2010
1:31 pm
The anti-gun crowd, who are the activists got a spanking and that’s good. The time has long past to put this left wing anti-gun fetish away permanently but that won’t happen any time soon.
Outhouse GoKart
June 28th, 2010
1:31 pm
CW. “For the children” is the lefts way of legitimizing damn near anything. If we do it for the poor defenseless children then we are doing a good deed.
All smoke and mirrors.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:31 pm
Jay,
Also the Clanton crowd was kinda dumb. If I were one of them and I saw Doc Holiday carrying a 12 guage Greener, I’d left town right then!
NowReally
June 28th, 2010
1:32 pm
The “Constitution” is a federal document, so let’s do away with “state” laws all together and see how fast the conservatives throw a fit.
Smokewagon
June 28th, 2010
1:33 pm
Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.
George Johnson
June 28th, 2010
1:33 pm
So following the constitution is “conservative activism”??? How stupid can you get???
hmmmm
June 28th, 2010
1:36 pm
During the last presidential campaign Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry tepidly spoke out against the ban by some states on ex-felon voting. He should have shouted out against it. The ban hurts Democrats far more than Republicans. Blacks make up a huge percentage of those barred from voting because of a prison stint. They are far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.–Ofari Hutchison, BlackNews.com
Convicted felons=Proud democrats
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
1:36 pm
TW writes at 11:57 am
“For every ONE time someone claims to have used a firearm to successfully defend their person, there are SEVENTEEN accidental deaths resulting from firearms”
Source? Data? Any support?
hmmmm
June 28th, 2010
1:40 pm
Keep Mickey D’s out of the hands of our children. LOL
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
1:41 pm
All I knows is that ifin I thinks that I needs a tank to properly defend myself, then I ought to be able to git one at the army surplus store. Right along with all the other regular supplies like mortars and grenades and such… as long as they ain’t sellin’ no nooclear, or is it newkleer, weapons to terrierists, it is all right by me. Yesirreeee.
Jimmy Joe Bob
June 28th, 2010
1:41 pm
Well, just let one of Them try to get the jump on me! That’s ’cause I got my 2nd amendment right here in my front pocket with my finger on the trigger at all times! So what if people think I’m enjoying a little “secret pleasure?” Security is what it’s all about.
David Granger
June 28th, 2010
1:43 pm
Jay, I frequently disagree with you…but usually can at least understand the logic behind your arguments. But to pretend that it is “judicial activism” when the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution means EXACTLY what it says, and must be followed throughout the ENTIRE nation? Come on…you’re just saying that “tongue in cheek” to get us riled up a little, right?
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
1:44 pm
“For every ONE time someone claims to have used a firearm to successfully defend their person, there are SEVENTEEN accidental deaths resulting from firearms”
That don’t sound right to me. I would think that it is more like a one in one thousand, or greater, event.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:46 pm
Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.
All the sausage falls out?
theyeshaveit
June 28th, 2010
1:46 pm
md, here are some statistics for you.
Japan, with the strictest gun control in the world, experiences a murder rate of about 1.1 per 100,000 people. Germany has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the gun loving U.S. is 8.7 per 100,000 people. US statistics are from an FBI report in 2005.
Matti
June 28th, 2010
1:46 pm
The states are oppressing us. Why can’t we even VOTE on whether it should be legal to purchase alcohol from a store on Sundays, when the Constitution clearly states “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves?” If you don’t think cold beer on a hot Sunday is a blessing of liberty, ask a thirsty inmate. Let’s revolt against this tyranny!!!
jewcowboy
June 28th, 2010
1:46 pm
Just put a $400 tax on each bullet sold. As Chris Rock said…there will be no innocent bystanders then…
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:47 pm
With this new ruling, it won’t be long before we will be reading, and making a movie about “The gunfight on K Street.”
T Knight
June 28th, 2010
1:48 pm
The Supreme Court got this one right. Narrow margin of victory, but I’ll take it.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:49 pm
…or “The Congress war”…
Constructive Feedback
June 28th, 2010
1:49 pm
[quote]There’s a good chance this Court might give us our slaves back.[/quote]
TW:
I volunteer you to be Slave #1 if they do.
You already appear to be slavish in your demeanor regarding what you want the government to do for you.
I will keep my 9mm and my .347 – thank you very much.
Obama gonna take yur gun
June 28th, 2010
1:50 pm
He gonna take it. And yur ammo two.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
1:50 pm
I took an oath four times to defend the Constitution of the United States (not the President, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, not state legislatures and certainly not city councils – all of which have violated the Constitution at one time or another) and spent 37 years risking my life to defend it.
Today it was defended by the Supreme Court and that makes me happy.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:50 pm
jewcowboy
June 28th, 2010
1:46 pm
Right, like your computer printer and the ink cartridges….
Normal
June 28th, 2010
1:51 pm
.347???
Paul
June 28th, 2010
1:52 pm
eyeshaveit
Germany? Japan? England? You really think those countries make a better comparison to US society than, say…. Mexico?!!?
jewcowboy
I still think that’s a great idea.
____________________________
Sen Graham’s just got Kagan to smile!
DebbieDoRight
June 28th, 2010
1:54 pm
Where’s My Party – what the heck are you talking about?
joe
June 28th, 2010
1:56 pm
Yeah…one less attempt at taking away our rights by the government. I applaud the S. Court’s decision. If our gov’t cant even handle security our borders, how can trust them to keep our fundamental rights in place? Lib gov’t will eventually try to take away the freedoms that make the USA great.
DLink
June 28th, 2010
1:59 pm
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm
Can convicted felons have a gun to defend their home, in their own home?
md
June 28th, 2010
1:59 pm
“Japan, with the strictest gun control in the world, experiences a murder rate of about 1.1 per 100,000 people. Germany has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the gun loving U.S. is 8.7 per 100,000 people”
Hmmm…………….Britain 9.1. And they HAVE gun control. So what is your point??
Lewis
June 28th, 2010
2:03 pm
Jay Bookman wouldn’t know the constitution if he bit him in the arse. Daley and the Chicago machine is the only judicial activism in this story. The Supreme Court simply undid the garbage the Daley tried to enact. The 2nd amendment is very clear, Jay. Stop using lies and deception like the title of your blog. Reversing activism by a junior court circuit is not an example of activism by the Supreme Court.
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2010
2:05 pm
md, theyes, you might want to check those murder rate stats.
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Scooter (the Original)
June 28th, 2010
2:07 pm
The constitution empowers the people and limits the governments rights. Jay seems to be concerned the constitution limits the government’s power to create a land of ice cream unicorns.
Guns, drugs and poverty are all here till the end of time.
Tyrone
June 28th, 2010
2:07 pm
Jay,
Why are you so afraid of citizens having the right to bear arms?
DawgDad
June 28th, 2010
2:08 pm
By all means let’s legislate sex out of existence and sterilze everyone. Sex is far and away more dangerous than guns, what with abortion, HIV, STDs, placing children with unfit parents, adultery, rape, population impact on the environment, contribution to rising health care costs, etc.
Logically, there is only one rational argument for restricting gun ownership among law abiding citizens – enabling tyranny.
Nick
June 28th, 2010
2:09 pm
Judicial Activism – a now useless term because it has come to mean simply anything that the writer does not agree with.
Kyle Wingfield SUXS
June 28th, 2010
2:09 pm
Im confused as to w hat the fuss is about. The Supreme Court just put limits on bans..seems like a win for both sides.
As far as judicial activism, that really never holds. The job of the Supreme Court is to INTEPRET the constitution. Any ruling they have is based on interpretation and very hard to be proven wrong.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:10 pm
“OFF TOPIC #1″
Headline: “Obama on War: ‘I Don’t Have a Crystal Ball’
You did during the campaign ! What happened to it ?
Halftrack
June 28th, 2010
2:10 pm
How can this be an unprecedented ruling. The second Amendment is clearly stated in the Constitution. What do you call separation of Church & State, which is not even anywhere written out in the Constitution? I believe you went to school with the recent city official that is opposed to Arizona’s illegal law because she didn’t know it was on the Mexico border. This is our public school education at work and you were in the same classes no doubt.
Democrat Supporter
June 28th, 2010
2:11 pm
Jay is right.
We must take guns away from citizens.
Who knows what kind of mischief the common man may cause.
No one should be allowed to have a firearm.
We must repeal the 4th amendment.
DebbieDoRight
June 28th, 2010
2:12 pm
Nick in that case, it’s always been useless then.
AmVet
June 28th, 2010
2:13 pm
I love watching the emasculated cons get their panties in a wad over this stuff.
Better go out and buys lots more guns and ammo, cons. Cuz for sure, the Uppity Muslim is gonna take them away form you! Besides, you just never know when one of them terrists is hiding in a bush outside your front door. BOO!
The constantly tripping-over-their-tongue cons believe in a living, breathing document. And love their activist judges.
And when it suits them, their goofball mantra of “States Rights!” disappears quicker than a shot from .30-..30.
Hysterical…
Gay Blade 5
June 28th, 2010
2:13 pm
Why should anyone be allowed to have a gun?
Logic 05
June 28th, 2010
2:14 pm
Jay,
Are there any other parts of the Constitution you would like to repeal?
md
June 28th, 2010
2:14 pm
“Germany? Japan? England? You really think those countries make a better comparison to US society than, say…. Mexico?!!?”
Interesting, when it comes to illegal immigration, “those” people are just like us, but when it comes to gun control – not so much.
Class of '98
June 28th, 2010
2:15 pm
This is not complicated. All those rights not specifically enumerated to the federal governement are left for the states to decide.
The 2nd amendment is enumerated to the federal government.
The founding fathers wanted us to have guns to protect us not only from each other but from the government itself.
That’s what “militias” are for. This ruling correctly interprets the Constitution.
Christopher
June 28th, 2010
2:16 pm
Where in the constition does it say a convicited felon can’t possos a firearm? What if that person when he was 18 got in trouble for having a bb gun in Nj and that’s why he is a felon? Now as an adult I don’t deserve the right to have a rifle to go hunting for food, keep a pistol in my house, car, or on my belt to protect my family? In 1791 everyone was equel again after a dept for a crime was paid. Why is it impossable to get a carry permit in the most dangerious cities in the country? Why do we need a permit to carry a gun at all? Don’t I have the right to bare arms? Why do we need special permission for each state and town we go to? When guns are made ilegial the people that will have them are the people we used to have guns to defend ourselfs from.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
2:16 pm
“Nick in that case, it’s always been useless then”
Of course it has. The best example *I* can think of is the decision that corporations have the “right” to spend money on campaign ads. THAT shot down nearly a century of precedent…aka: ESTABLISHED LAW.
If ANYthink was “judicial activism” or “legistlating from the bench” THAT was.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:17 pm
Gay Blade 5:
“Why should anyone be allowed to have a gun?”
a) Because a cop is too heavy?
b) Because the Constitution says so?
c) Because the Supreme Court says so?
d) All the above
Normal
June 28th, 2010
2:17 pm
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:10 pm
No man! He said he had crystal balls, balls, man! Get your facts straight!
A private sector employee
June 28th, 2010
2:18 pm
Jay writes: ““Judicial activism” involves a subset of “wrong;” i.e., the claim that judges are usurping decisions that are better made in the legislative branch, substituting their judgment for the judgment of those elected by the people.”
If those in the legislative branch choose to amend the Constitution, there is a process to do so. But the legislative branch, in 1787, identified 10 basic individual rights, codified them into Amendments, and passed them. It WOULD have been judicial activism to declare that only one of those amendments, the 2nd, did not apply to individuals, but was reserved for States.
Because violations of firearms laws are so egregious to society, punishment for violation is harsh. In our system of law, the only way to challenge a law is to be denied by it in some way (generally by breaking said law). This is not a problem if the law is freedom of speech and the punishment is a night in jail. This IS a problem if the punishment is 20 years imprisonment as Bubba’s prison wife.So it took a LONG time to get the right case in the right jurisdiction to the Supreme Court without someone going to prison in the case of a loss in the courts.
It is not judicial activism to simply affirm what was codified in law: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
2:18 pm
Class of 98
“The founding fathers wanted us to have guns to protect us not only from each other but from the government itself.
That’s what “militias” are for. This ruling correctly interprets the Constitution.”
So, the National Guard, under control of the state’s governor (when it hasn’t been called into federal service) exists to protect the citizens from the government?!!?
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:19 pm
Normal:
LOL!
Bumper Sticker:
Two “oval” shaped Obama symbols placed right together with the words “neuter in November!”
Kyle Wingfield SUXS
June 28th, 2010
2:20 pm
The constitution states that you have a right to bear arms, but does not say that there can not be legislation. Thats why you need a permit. As long as it does not infringe on your right to “bear” arms then it is a states issue as to how they are legislated.
Matt
June 28th, 2010
2:23 pm
and here’s what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY 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”
Terms that strike me as key are “well-regulated” and “being necessary to the security of a free State”.
The right to carry a concealed firearm in a bar is neither of these things…
Normal
June 28th, 2010
2:23 pm
Scout,
I think a better bumper sticker would be…”neuter your congressman.”
md
June 28th, 2010
2:23 pm
“The best example *I* can think of is the decision that corporations have the “right” to spend money on campaign ads. THAT shot down nearly a century of precedent…aka: ESTABLISHED LAW.”
Yeh, it only makes sense that corporations headed by Murdoch, Immelt, Cox, etc should be allowed to do that – equal protection is not the goal.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
2:24 pm
…or just plain old “neuter Congress”…
twister
June 28th, 2010
2:25 pm
Will some brilliant legal mind please tell me why ‘incorporation’ ever became an issue when the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution clearly states that the Bill of Rights equally applies to the states along with every other federal law passed by Congress.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
2:25 pm
“…or just plain old “neuter Congress”…”
Not really necessary…given the decision on the Iraq invasion, they’re doing a really good job of neutering Congress themselves.
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
2:25 pm
Don’t I have the right to bare arms?
Danged straight! It’s too hot to wear long-sleeved shirts.
Jason
June 28th, 2010
2:26 pm
Idiot. Being able to read equals “judicial activism”?
Paul
June 28th, 2010
2:26 pm
Well, Republicans are saying Kagan should decide cases based upon the law and Constitution. Senators Schumer and Durbin are saying she needs to get on the Court so she can counter the decisions of the right-wing, conservative activists judges now on the Court.
I notice both cited decisions they disagreed with. Not on the basis of law but on the effects or their view of what’s ‘good.’
kayaker 71
June 28th, 2010
2:27 pm
I wonder how Justice Bryer will rule on the state’s right question when the Arizona law comes before the Court. Another one of Bookman’s selective indignation stands to object when it goes against his opinion.
Outhouse GoKart
June 28th, 2010
2:29 pm
“So, the National Guard, under control of the state’s governor (when it hasn’t been called into federal service) exists to protect the citizens from the government?!!?”
Oh my the river of naivetee” doth crest over its banks.
neo-Carlinist
June 28th, 2010
2:30 pm
so Jay, is your beef with “conservatives” or “judicial activism”? seems to me the very term judicial activism is a conservative talking point when the SCOTUS or other Federal Court rules against their interests. I can understand this from a political or ideological standpoint, but whose “interests” are protected/effected by the 2nd Amendment?
N-GA
June 28th, 2010
2:32 pm
Let me understand this. The federal government has laws restricting possession and use of automatic weapons, but a state/municipality cannot restrict possession and use of handguns. Is the federal law illegal (un-Constitutional)?
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:35 pm
“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington
Jefferson
June 28th, 2010
2:39 pm
I doubt the court would allow a gun in their courtroom.
Christopher
June 28th, 2010
2:39 pm
Lol please excuse my spelling, I’m driving on the garden state parkway and I’m just passing where the Nj state trooper shot and killed himself in his patrol car last week, Who do gun laws protect?
md
June 28th, 2010
2:40 pm
“Let me understand this. The federal government has laws restricting possession and use of automatic weapons, but a state/municipality cannot restrict possession and use of handguns. Is the federal law illegal (un-Constitutional)?”
Subject to interpretation, but an automatic weapon is a “type” of arm, the restriction sets limits, but does not ban all possession of arms.
Greg Bruce
June 28th, 2010
2:41 pm
The first act of every dictatorship is to outlaw gun ownership by its citizens. Citizens without guns are slaves to the tyranny of the State. The Constitution of the United States recognized that government was the source of tyranny and guaranteed the right of citizens to bear arms. At the time the Constitution was written, a militia was a spontanious gathering of armed citizens such as the “miniutemen” at Lexington and Concord to resist the tyranny of King George’s government.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:41 pm
Jefferson:
It’s “their courtroom” and guess what. You don’t have to allow a gun in “your house” ! Even for a permit holder ………………..
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
2:43 pm
“The federal government has laws restricting possession and use of automatic weapons, but a state/municipality cannot restrict possession and use of handguns. Is the federal law illegal (un-Constitutional)?”
I can see the possibility of it shaking out something like this: that regulation and control of guns must be done at the Federal level. That the federal laws and regulations can restrict what guns can be owned, and even who can own them (i.e. I can see convicted felons losing their right to own guns) and that any government lower than the federal level cannot restrict or regulate guns at all.
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
2:43 pm
Isn’t one of the purposes of the Federal government to keep the States from usurping the rights of the people?
On the Gunfight at the OK Corral:
Admittedly, I’m not an expert on that event but there were and are those who believe the Earps basically anbushed and murdered the Clantons. There are ample instances in the Old West were people went back and forth from being lawman to outlaw. (Doc Holliday was no choir boy).
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:43 pm
Greg Bruce:
Excellents points that will fall on deaf ears (symbolically speadking of course).
“If the 2nd Amendment meant only flintlocks, then the 1st Amendment meant only quills and ink.”
Paul
June 28th, 2010
2:44 pm
Jefferson
“I doubt the court would allow a gun in their courtroom.”
Why would they?
Christopher
“Lol please excuse my spelling, I’m driving on the garden state parkway ”
For cryin’ out loud, get off your Blackberry or laptop before you kill someone. Sheesh -
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:44 pm
Hillbilly Deluxe :
You are basically correct.
States can grant more rights but they can’t restrict what the U.S. Constitution grants.
PE
June 28th, 2010
2:45 pm
Sorry TW, I doubt you’ll get your slaves back. They will own guns.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:46 pm
Lock & Load !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE888XOS12U
Jefferson
June 28th, 2010
2:46 pm
They should have their own guns to protect themselves. My pocketknife sets off the metal detectors.
kayaker 71
June 28th, 2010
2:47 pm
I am not a lawyer but it seems that the Constitution is pretty clear about the reasons that we have a right to arm ourselves. “Necessary to the security of a free State” is not too hard to understand. Seems like the Amendment is meant to protect the citizens of these free States from their government with a “well regulated Militia”. That being the case, why is Brewer criticized for protecting the border of Arizona against foreign invaders? Seems like her “well regulated Militia” aka, the National Guard and the State Police have every right to protect the citizens of Arizona from those who would elect to do harm, ie, drug dealers, illegal felons and the government of the United States if,as is the case, they are not doing their job. What are the people of Arizona to do in the face of blind incompetence from Bozo and his gang?…. sit by and watch their state go into the bucket?
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
2:50 pm
“That being the case, why is Brewer criticized for protecting the border of Arizona against foreign invaders?”
How does this constitute protecting “the citizens of these free States from their government”?
Steve
June 28th, 2010
2:52 pm
TW @ 11:57
The N word seems to be just fine when blacks want to use it amongst one another. So it does seem to be socially acceptable in that context.
Amazingly, as much as I drive through the streets of Atlanta, I’ve yet to see a GOP van parked anywhere handing out automatic weapons to the locals. Please point me in the direction, I could use a good AK47.
Jefferson
June 28th, 2010
2:52 pm
A lot of the Mexicans aren’t illeagel, just undocumented. They claim their was no signs restricting their entry where they crossed into the US.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
2:52 pm
kayaker 71
“Seems like the Amendment is meant to protect the citizens of these free States from their government with a “well regulated Militia”.”
Isn’t the modern National Guard what the 18th-century ‘militias’ morphed into?