Supreme Court Upholds Right to Bear Arms

Just today the US Supreme Court has made a historical 5-4 ruling setting a precedent concerning the 2nd Amendment which has not been conclusively interpreted since its ratification in 1791. For those of you who don't know, this case, District of Columbia v. Heller, was because of Washington D.C.'s gun law, which has now been nullified by this ruling. It was among the strictest in the nation. Passed in 1976 it
"bar[ed] residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks."
FoxNews said "The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia."
But, it was determined it is an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court's decision. (Yahoo! News)
This will have far reaching impacts as Sen Cornyn from Tx says, "The nation's top court made the correct decision by reaffirming one of our founding principles, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. This historic ruling has implications far beyond the District of Columbia." — Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas.
This law does not however provide for unlimited access to weapons. It won't cast doubt on most current guns laws, such as those that prevent convicted felons and mentally ill from owning one. The same with gun registration laws.


It is interesting to note some of the reactions to this ruling. :-)
There were positive reactions from both sides of the aisle:
"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right." —Sen. Patrick Leahy D-Vt.

"The right to bear arms is a fundamental right we enjoy as citizens of the United States. From individuals being able to protect their family and their home to sportsmen venturing into the outdoors, this is an important and historic day for all citizens of this great country." —Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

"Today's ruling is a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed." — Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

"I think this is a long overdue decision; I don't think the precedent has been seriously reaffirmed in decades." — Sen. Russel Feingold, D-Wis.


And then there was also the typical left wing remarks:
"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.

And this one particularly made me smile. One interesting thing to note is this ruling wasn't strictly "party lines." There are only 4 "conservative Justices" on the court and it was made in favor 5-4.
"Today, 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.


I am glad the court was willing to strictly interpret the US Constitution, and I hope they will continue to make this a practice in the future more than they have in the recent past.


Hopps
41

Why Are We Copying Europe?

For those of you who may not have heard. Today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling in Louisiana that gave the death penalty to two men convicted of raping children. They declared the law unconstitutional. The ruling was 5-4 with the liberal "Europe Loving" Justices ruling for it, and the conservative Judges ruling against it. Quoted from Yahoo! news:

"Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions."

Unfortunately this is all turning into "...more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," says Bobby Jindal, and I would heartily agree.


The thing I find most interesting about this, and other rulings is the desire of these judges and others to copy what Europe does. Why should we just coy Europe because Europe is doing it? Because it is chic to be like Europe? Why don't we actually look at the results they have achieved with their policies and make our decisions based on that?
Here is an excellent article I was reading today from an Investor's Business Daily editorial. It talks about just this, and was I thought quite well done. I would highly recommend you read it.



Hopps
41