221 years ago this September, the founding document of the United States became the Law of the Land.  Attached to main document was a list of ten amendments which came to be known as the Bill of Rights.  Since the Constitution’s ratification, and specifically since Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS or The Supremes) has taken it upon itself to decide the meaning of the various articles phrases, and clauses which make up this truly inspired document.

Sometimes the Supremes get it right.  Sometimes they get it dreadfully wrong.  This week’s decisions brought a little of both. In the Kennedy vs. Louisiana case, they blew it. Simply put, if raping a young child doesn’t the offender for the Death Penalty, then I question the wisdom of those who set the qualifications.  I seem to remember a scriptural reference to tying millstones around those who “offend” little ones.

But I digress.

Yesterday, for the first time in the history of the Supremes, the Court took under its magnifying glass the Second Amendment which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Emphasis Added)

The issue posed by the case before the Supremes was whether or not the City of Washington, DC had violated the Constitution by enforcing a near-total ban on private gun ownership in the District.  Gun bans are supposed to reduce crime, but crime stats prove that if DC isn’t America’s Murder Capitol, its nearly always running a close second or third.

In short, DC is the city personification of the NRA bumper sticker which reads “When guns are outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns.” Good thing in-laws can’t have guns. That would be scary!

On the Gun Case, the Supremes broke along ideological lines with Kennedy as the swing vote. Gun control advocates had hoped for a different ruling whereby the Supremes would have effectively repealed the Second Amendment without the need for the long drawn out amendment process.  Five votes are much easier to round up than the vote percentage required by the Constitution. Congratulations, DC residents. You can now legally own a firearm.

Which brings me to my main point. You know it takes me awhile to get to it. Elections have consequences.  The list of issues upon which John McCain and I have differences is very long.  Having said that, the Supreme Court is my Reason #2 why I’ll touch the screen for him in November. This case could have just as easily gone the other way depending on what Justice Kennedy had for breakfast on the day votes were counted.

The next POTUS will appoint at least one and probably two members to SCOTUS. Having seen BO’s (no, evidently I can’t refer to him in classic three initial presidential style) foundationless judgment over the course of this campaign, the closest I ever want him to get to a SCOTUS choice is casting his advise and consent vote in the Senate.

Oh, by the way Senator Obama, your hometown city of Chicago (which by the way has held the Murder Capitol of the US Award for three of the past seven years) is next.

Comments

  • Justin Jackson

    As a DC resident it is good to know I can cary a weapon without being prosecuted. However I do believe certain guns should be banned and their should also be strict screening. That doesn’t seem to fit the criteria of infringement to me. It is just being smart. Also the idea of cops and random screening is present and should be challenged. It is pretty outrageous. But then again I think seatbelt laws are absurd…

  • Lazlo

    Pretty good article.

    OHB. See, that wasn’t so hard.

  • BrianH

    Whodat and myself both live in Texas where honest law-abiding citizens are allowed to not only own hanguns, but to carry them concealed on their person. What a wondeful feeling it is to know that if the life of myself or family is threatened there will be someone…including myself who can defend those lives from the “evil-doers” who are trying to take it.

    As the state anti-litering slogan goes……

    “DONT MESS WITH TEXAS”

    • AndDru1

      “DONT MESS WITH TEXAS”

      You better believe it.

  • RedstateEddio

    Wasn’t it John Stossel who did a report on ABC that found that when everyone’s packing heat, the overall crime rate goes down?

    There’s deterrence for you…

  • Eric

    BTW-Obama, who said he supported the ban throughout the primary, said yesterday that it was unconstitutional.

    He was probably unfamiliar with the ban, or with the second amendment.

    • Cordeiro

      Eric…are you questioning Obama’s street cred as a constitutional scholar?

      I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!

      • Troy La Mana

        No, I think it’s “Oh it’s Flip-Flop Season once again”

      • Eric

        Well, by election day, I’m not sure we’ll really know what either of these candidates believe about anything.

  • Troy La Mana

    I feel like taking a walk up and down the Las Vegas Strip with my pistol strapped to my side as it legal to do. (you do realize that I’ll be harassed left and right for it thought.. right?)

  • JE

    The mayor of Chicago is already decrying the ruling. Chicago has some of the strictist gun laws yet as you point out is murder captial of America and recently has had multiple murders rampages each weekend to the point they have had military style checkpoints to get to certain areas of the city. Which part of ‘if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns’ or ‘laws only affect the law-abiding’ do we not get?
    Memo to mayor Daley, murder has always been illegal so how are adding those gun restriction laws working out for you?

  • Fabs

    While I’m another fellow supporter of the 2nd amendment and the people’s right to bear arms, I’m still highly supportive of making those rights conditional on people’s ability to bear those arms responsibly. I’m grateful I don’t live in one of the higher crime areas, but we’ve still had our share of nut-jobs who haven’t had the mental/emotional stability to understand that guns weren’t meant to be used for random shooting sprees on innocent people.

    • BrianH

      You are right Fabs. It is a good thing we have outlawed “random shooting sprees of innocent people”.

      When nut-jobs choose to violate laws against “random shooting sprees of innocent people” it is clear that another gun law wont deter them any further. Unfortunately, gun-cintrol laws restrict honest good people from defending themselves and killing the bad guys who are going on killing sprees. We do not make society more safe by ONLY allowing those who dont care about societies laws to carry and use weapons used to kill.

      • Fabs

        I agree that people should be allowed to protect/defend themselves, but I also feel that not all gun control laws are bad (call it the moderate in me). I’m a supporter of systems like concealed weapons permits where people get to show that they actually know how to use a gun, get to have lovely background checks, etc. to provide more reassurance that those who do have guns are more likely to use them for the reasons we would like folks to have them.

  • Eric

    SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment prevented the division of a special “armed” class of people, working for the government, from the rest of the people. (Thanks for the link, Cordeiro.)
    I think to deny this is just another way of saying that the people cannot be trusted and must be managed by a higher caste.

  • East-of-Eden

    The sad thing is that this was not a 9-0 ruling. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” did the four dissenters not get?

    • kristen

      Was totally thinking the same thing.