Supreme Court upholds Second Amendment

          Another small victory for individual gun rights was handed down by the Supreme Court today. In a narrow ruling, the court reversed an appeals court ruling on the Chicago gun ban and remanded the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

          The court’s 214-page decision means the National Rifle Association’s members, and those of other pro-gun organizations, should expect another round of requests for donations to keep the fight against gun banners going.

          For many members, the NRA’s exemption from the Congress’ First Amendment assault known as the Disclose Act causes heartburn. I don’t condone the shady carved out exemption, especially after the NRA’s excuse that they backed the Disclose Act to strengthen their “one issue” fight against gun banners.

          The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling is welcome good news for Second Amendment believers, but the ruling includes language that will allow states and municipalities to impose limitations on firearms ownership and carrying outside the home.

          The fight is far from over, but the court’s ruling is a victory for Constitutional rights and individual liberties for Americans. We must now stay on guard for attacks against our rights and liberties that are sure to follow.

          The Washington Post‘s Robert Barnes gives the highlights of the ruling. The court affirmed the individual right to own a firearm, but ruled state and municipal entities may impose some restrictions. The dissenting view points out that any local gun regulation now becomes a matter for the federal courts to decide.

UPDATE 1: Let the fearmongering begin

          The WP‘s David Ignatius wasted no time before predicting anarchy in the streets and questioning the court’s ruling.

          Bonnie Erbe’s column at U.S. News and World Report bemoans the democratic surrender on the Second Amendment blaming it on lethargy which “caused many Americans to lose faith in government … that even our local police and sheriffs can no longer protect us from harm.” She is correct in that assumption, but wrong in stating that the court ruled incorrectly.

UPDATE 2:

          Worth taking a few minutes to read is The New York Times blog opinions debating today’s court ruling by:

  • Glenn H. Reynolds, law professor, University of Tennessee
  • Donna Schuele, legal historian, U.C. Irvine
  • James Alan Fox, criminology professor, Northeastern University
  • John Feinblatt, adviser to Mayor Bloomberg
  • Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School
  • Paul Butler, George Washington Law School
  • Saul Cornell, history professor, Fordham University
  • Advertisements

    About zingstrom

    Journalist, free-lance writer, photographer and aviator.
    This entry was posted in News and views and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

    Leave a Reply

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

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

    Google+ photo

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

    Connecting to %s