Despite the SCOTUS ruling, at least Washington, DC (and probably, so far, Chicago and San Francisco) seem determined to skirt the Second Amendment because of the necessarily narrow definition cited in the decision.
As I said in "We Won - Sort Of", the lack of a full definition of the Bill of Rights will continue to haunt legal firearms owners for decades, and we're only now beginning to perceive the tip of the ice berg.
Shepherd, in case you didn't know, makes The Shooting Wire his forum for exquisite examinations of the issues experienced by Shooting Community. I've decided that he has deliberately chosen not to provide permalinks to his commentary, to encourage you to subscribe to the newsletter. You should go there and do so.
In the meantime, I will continue to quote his articles in almost-full content:
The legal landscape may appear changed since the Supreme Court's ruling that the Second Amendment does, indeed, cover an individual right to own firearms, but the political landscape seems determined to maintain the status quo. In other words, the politicians and organizations that hysterically decried the decision continue their ranting today.(*) The Chicago Tribune article which Shepherd cites is referenced in Michael Bane's blog here; the direct link to the article is available here, and I recommend that you read as many of the (disparaging) comments as you have time for. It will help you to understand why the Trib eventually seemed to disown the article, and effectively relegated it to the "South 40".
Just in case there were any doubts about where they were ideologically concerning firearms, we offer these quotes from notable anti-gun politicians:
"President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
"While the Supreme Court has ruled, not unexpectedly, that individuals have a right to bear arms, the court clearly allows for reasonable regulations like the Brady law and the assault weapons ban. It is my hope and belief that the ruling will not change much in terms of how the states and the federal government are allowed to regulate guns."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
"While it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It appears some politicians believe that they know better than the people, the courts and anyone else what is best for the United States. In their statements, it is obvious they are not going to follow the Supreme Court ruling because they believe it is wrong. In that respect, these Senators are worthy the same amount of respect accorded those politicians who stood firmly against desegregation and women's rights. Their constituencies, rather, comprise those liberal areas whose residents claim to be champions of civil rights.
Those same civil rights - and their alleged champions - don't appear so important if you're talking about law-abiding citizens who want the same right in Washington, D.C. (or Chicago) as anyone else in the United States.
And the anti-gun hysteria went even beyond my imagination this weekend as the Chicago Tribune called for a repeal of the Second Amendment. (*) In their editorial, the Tribune called the Second Amendment an "anachronism" that should be repealed. In its argument, the Tribune quoted the 1939 case, U.S. vs. Miller. In that ruling, the Tribune said the amendment was established as a "collective right" that applied only to service in some form of militia. The fact the majority of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court felt otherwise, apparently had no bearing on the Tribune. Neither, incidentally, did the fact that there was never a clear ruling on the Miller case. That 1939 case involved a pair of moonshiners charged with violating the National Firearms Act (NFA) by transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. By the time the case had come before the Supreme Court, Miller had been killed and his co-defendant had made a plea bargain, so there were no claimants to continue the proceeding. Ultimately the Court reversed the claim that the NFA was in violation of the Second Amendment and remanded the case back to the lower courts. There, it, like Miller, expired. We're nowhere close to seeing, hearing or ending the arguing about this landmark decision. At this point, it is clear, however, that those questions Justice Scalia chose not to clarify in his majority opinion will quickly become front-burner issues with anti-gun groups.
Incidentally, the Comments frequently discuss the 1939 Miller decision, with varying degrees of accuracy. I have written about that case several times here, and my analysis doesn't precisely agree with either Shepherd's evaluation or that of most of the commenters.
I invite you to go here (and perhaps less authoritatively, but more contextually oriented here). Read the court documents, and decide for yourself the essential facts.
If anything, the Miller case served to obfuscate, rather than to clarify, United States Case Law regarding a legal and definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment