Michael Leon blogs at http://malcontends.blogspot.com. Michael is a writer living in Madison, Wisconsin. His writing has appeared nationally in The Progressive, In These Times, OpEdNews.com, and CounterPunch.
SC Decision Striking Down Gun Control Is Fine with This Progressive
Posted June 26th, 2008 by mal contends
in
Update II: Supreme Court pushes the gun issue back to the forefront of the nation's agenda
Update: Candidates React to Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling
via mal contends - The Supreme Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment in its landmark decision, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), and found a right to own and carry a handgun.
That's okay with me. I like the result.
Quote from ScotusBlog:
Examining the words of the (Second) Amendment, the Court concluded 'we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation' — in other words, for self-defense. 'The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,' it added.
I think DC v. Heller is a partisan opinion by a corrupt and partisan Supreme Court (consonant with Republican electoral strategy to ward off Democratic gains in the west), but a citizen cannot have too many rights.
Hey, we may have to remove this government, in theory, by force sometime in the future.
As for politics, I have met women who keep guns in their homes and on their person for the sake of feeling safe. What man would presume to tell a woman that she cannot feel safe?
It's time for Democrats to realize that the libertarian urge to carry a gun is not all that different from the liberty interest that is vested in the right to privacy, and in the enumerated liberties in the Bill of Rights that progressives cherish and Republicans despise.
I personally do not like guns, so I don't own them.
But the liberty interest in owning a gun is valid, even if the rightwing jurists made up their interpretation of the Second Amendment out of whole cloth and political electoral concerns.
Let's hope Obama realizes this and realizes that not everybody who owns a gun is a nut. Some people, rational people, just like guns.
Some like guns for safety, some like guns just for fun. And as Scalia and the disingenuous members of the five-four majority know, a lot of these gun-liking folks live in swing states in 2008.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Second Amendment Decision Interpretion Out of Whole Cloth
If you think the majorities opinion in this case was made of whole cloth, you must really be amazed by Roe v. Wade (abortion rights). At least the terms "arms," "keep" and "bear" appear in the Constitution. I can't say the same for the "right" to terminate a pregnancy.
Yes, but Scalia is the
Yes, but Scalia is the justice who only a month ago or so went on 60 Minutes and stated that the Constitution, history be damned, says nothing about banning cruel and unusual torture only cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, the Constitution can not be interpretted as prohibitting the US Government from engaging in torture of its' citizens or any other countries citizens. If the very literal Scalia could not make the leap from punishment to torture in that instance, how does he make the leap from the explicit language in this one to an individual right. Well, by precisely the methods of interpretation he always reils against. Same way he found an equal protection right in Bush V Gore that he could not bring himself to find in any other voting rights case he has ever voted on. The usually highly literal minded Scalia has principles that he seems to apply selectively. And if that is the case, then they are not principles at all, are they?
Activist
The justice you are describing is Activist Justice. Decisions to fit the larger agenda.The larger principles the fruit of a larger agenda. The Justice is appointed to do something Congress won't do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
"Let us put our minds together, and see what life we will make for our children."
---Tatanka-Iyotanka (Sitting Bull) --- Hunkpapa Lakota chief
Privacy right
is not enumerated. But the Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Though Roe was not artfully written, the right of privacy can be found in both the text and structure of the Constitution.
You'd think the NRA lost the case!
This is one of the very rare and brilliant SCOTUS rulings. Short and sweet and a win-win for both sides.
You get to own a handgun.
The district has the authority to regulate guns.
I've been blogging on this and you;d think the gun nuts lost...I think they assumed they would be able to own any gun, take it anywhere and use it for any reason.
The ruling did limit, to the issue within a house, not outside in the districts streets, etc.
Now the NRA is planning on a waste of time lawsuit to challenge background checks...something the ruling already stated was part of the local authority!
OK, it's time to the sane hunters to step up and agree with the ruling and registration.
My preference is that all guns are registered and only the owner can buy ammo, and only for the gun he proves he owns. Kinda like getting a license plate for car...it only applies to one car.
Post new comment