A Supreme Court gunfight
Last year, the Supreme Court declared in a Washington, D.C., case that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals and not, as gun-control advocates had hoped, just to state militias. Last week, the court agreed to decide whether that broad, and debatable, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment applies to states as well as the federal government. At issue is a Chicago law imposing stringent restrictions on gun ownership, including a ban on the private ownership of handguns.
If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.
Holy crap. When even the LA
There's still quite a ways to go - they insist that the government maintains the right to impose "reasonable" restrictions (now, just what the editorial staff of the LA Times might consider reasonable vs. what I might consider reasonable may differ by a tad...) - but it's refreshing to see an editorial that's more than just ZOMG GUNZ 'R' TEH EEEEEEEVIL!. Even as Mayor
The article closes on an interesting note:
This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
Well, you're several decades too late for that, but nice try. We've seen restrictions on our speech with Campaign Finance Reform. We've seen Kelo vs. New London define what the government views as "reasonable" seizure. We've seen intrusion after intrusion on our Second Amendment rights sacrificing our hard-won liberty piecemeal for illusory safety, and failing every time. The court can't start picking and choosing - they've been doing that for years.
But they can damn well stop picking and choosing, especially with the Second Amendment...
That is all.
Special thanks to brad_in_ma for sending this to me!
6 comments:
The tide is definitely turning. It seems that even Mediazilla: The Propaganda Machine is showing spots of dissent. What an exciting time we are living in!
JG,
I think you are confusing what the 14th Amendment was to do (apply the Bill of Rights to the states).
Also I believe you are confusing the Fifth Amendment (taking clause) with the Fourth Amendment (Unreasonable search and seizure).
Shootin' Buddy
Shootin' Buddy,
If there's any confusion, it's at the LA Times. I was more amazed that they printed an editorial that was less-than-vehemently against the second amendment...
But thanks for the clarification.
Shootin' Buddy,
While applying the 2nd to the states via incorporation IS a 14th Amendment thing (albeit a new, should have been old, thing), the simple fact is that the 2nd should ALWAYS have applied to the states. Notice that the 1st states that "CONGRESS shall make no law..." [emphasis added], the 2nd Amendment has no such limitation on who may not do something - and thus it must, logically speaking, apply to all levels of government. Looking at the intent of those who drafted and ratified it, I would find it utterly unimaginable that they would have done anything with the suggestion that a state could ban guns than to start oiling up their muskets again, this time to fight a domestic enemy.
Jay,
When I first read this editorial, I nearly fell out of my chair I was so stunned. As to the writer of the editorial, I have to wonder, "does the LA Times have a token conservative much like Jeff Jacoby is the token conservative voice for The Boston Globe?" None the less, the case is an interesting one indeed.
Watch sites like scotusblog.com or johnrlott.blogspot.com for updates.
- Brad
Brad, the "token" conservatives only get to write the op-eds, never the editorials.
I always laugh when the media talks about "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment. I wonder how they would feel about "reasonable restrictions" on the First Amendment?
Actually, I probably know.
The incorporation argument is very strong, since it's hard to argue incorporating one amendment without incorporating them all. Of course that logical disconnect has never stopped liberals or the Lame Stream Media before.
I predict essentially the same 5-4 split with the Wise Latina filling the Souter vote. I also expect this to be defined as a "narrow vote", as if it matters.
Post a Comment