« What was the IOC Thinking? | Main | First Day of Spring...Maine Edition »
March 19, 2008
An Individual Right
Today, the Supreme Court discussed whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own firearms or not. Judging from the discussion, this decision is going to make gun-rights advocates very happy.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.It looks as though this will be either a 5-4 or perhaps even a 6-3 decision in favor of a citizen's right to own firearms. Their ruling will be helped by the fact that those arguing in favor of the DC gun ban made terribly weak arguments.Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.
I have no doubt that Souter, Ginsberg and Stevens will be in the pro-gun ban minority in this case. I look forward to seeing how they justify their position, given that they express agreement with Roe v. Wade, a case that finds rights in 'penumbras.' If they disagree with the idea that this amendment, located in the bill of rights, explicitly protects an individual right, then it shows they are not ruling on law or plain meaning of the Constitution, but on personal ideology.
I find it amazing and disgusting that such learned and accomplished jurists can be so intellectually dishonest about the document they have sworn to uphold and rule upon.
Posted by slublog at March 19, 2008 12:06 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3682
Comments
If you haven't already seen it, go to IMAO and read Frank J.'s version of the oral argument in Heller.
Posted by: 509th Bob at March 19, 2008 02:08 PM
I dont think there is a question they will find that there is an individual right. I have a feeling they could still dodge the DC gun ban part of all this by saying that DC isnt a really a state so they can do it.
Posted by: Ben Keeler at March 24, 2008 01:44 AM