From now on, militia has nothing to do with it.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
What has to do with it is, it’s OK if little kids in Chicago get killed by drive-by shooters, as long as the ones who count, especially our “justices” and members of Congress and Pentagon officials are snug in their secure little cocoons where no “gun rights” need apply. Gunshots are for the small people.
Seriously — if gun nuts have a “right” to bring their little weenies wherever they want, then let it be so. Either it’s a right or it ain’t. Anything short of pure “freedom to carry” unrestricted, in the courts, legislatures, and executive offices cannot be justified. Time for Congress, the NRA and ACLU to get off their asses and go all in on “liberty” and “justice” for all.
Once again we see how the neo-fascist court drops its devotion to states’ rights as soon as they hear their masters’ voices. It’s come down to their survival or ours.
SCOTUSBlog
Textually it’s not an unreasonable interpretation to allow a lot of gun ownership. There’s no getting around it: that’s what the Founders wanted, individuals to own firearms and few restrictions on their ownership.
The issue for us is how to build support for changes in a changed world. I’d like to think that knowing what we know they would be a bit more circumspect with Amendment 2, but that’s cold comfort for us today.
You have special insight into what the Founders wanted?
There was a reason that there is the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” clause at the beginning of that amendment. The militias of that day were neighborhood organizations that had organization and drilled and served other functions as well. For example, in a lot of parts of the country, the census districts were identified by the names of the militia captains.
Textually, a surface reading is not sufficient. But that is what the Supreme Court has done in a 5-4 decision.
The obvious parallel today would be the way that the Swiss military is organized through cantonal governments. If we did that, we could probably pull back from our forward military bases, reduce the military budget and still have a strong national defense.
But that is not what the Second Amendment peacocks have in mind.
I’m not clear what the Founders had in mind except what they experienced at the hands of the British government was not a power that they wanted a government to have. I’m not sure what they would think about the NRA driving gun sales.
But what this says is that if you are a group of law-abiding citizens in some of the more violent neighborhoods in the US, you can to some degree collectively take the law into your own hands and deal with your local violent criminals. As long as it is in self-defense.
And it says that blacks in Mississippi and other Southern states can own guns for self-defense. And so can Hispanics, documented or not.
I think everyone should have the right to own a firearm for the purpose of protecting themselves against home intrusion, and that is particularly important in our cities where home intrusion is a common occurrence. But I don’t see how the Second Amendment has anything to do with home intrusion, nor do see any precedent for saying that the Second Amendment applies to the States. It’s just a victory for the NRA and nothing else.
I don’t disagree, but the horse left the barn last year. That was the victory for the NRA. This decision just falls out of that one.
well, I see your point about the militia element, but the DC ruling applied because the Federal Government runs DC. That ruling did not extend the 2nd Amendment to the states.
The founders, at the most extreme “rights” interpretation wanted citizens to be able to own breechloaders and flintlocks. I could live with that. Think the NRA goons would go for it? If not, let’s put the “original intent” bullshit to rest, shall we?
The gun ban has been sooo effective in preventing those drive-by shootings. And it seems that poor black residents in high crime areas of Chicago are so concerned about their “weenies” that they have purchased illegal guns that they used to shoot home invaders, presumably just dropping in check their weenies.
People in Beirut have guns because of the militias. Some (many) parts of Chicago are a veritable Beirut with small arms fire crackling all night. Not in Mayor Daley’s
Green ZoneBridgeport neighborhood which is saturated with police, of course. He has no use for a gun.You ignore the question: why do the members of the SC and Congress, among others, have a right to a weapons-free zone while Chicago schoolkids don’t? Either there are involable rights or there aren’t. Where Daley lives has nothing to do with it (not that he lives in Bridgeport, FYI).
The Supreme Court nullified the “militia” clause in its decision in Heller, a year ago. That was the activist judge decision.
This is just the first step to dismantling gun laws in cities and towns. This decision follows directly from Heller.
The next obvious step for conservatives is to dismantle the police as a “socialist” institution that oppresses people.
Right to bear arms has nothing to do with the right to buy bullets. a 3 day waiting period to buy ammo and a background check will be fine with me