The Supreme Court will decide whether the constitutional right of individuals to own firearms trumps state and local laws, reviving the legal battle over gun rights in America.
The high court said Wednesday it agreed to decide the reach of its landmark ruling last year that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to own guns and use them for lawful purposes like self-defense in the home.
The upcoming decision will be very import in clarifying and confirming the accepted interpretation of DC vs. Heller, that state and local laws do not violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
The court last year prohibited the federal government from imposing certain restrictions, but it left unclear whether the right also applied to state and local gun control laws.
The Supreme Court said in a brief order it would settle that question by ruling in a dispute over a strict gun control law in Chicago.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting all excited already. One of our newest regular commenters, VOR, has me pegged.
What's your opinion? Is this as important as it sounds? Could this be a landmark decision in the debate about the individual vs. collective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
As expected after the Chicago ruling last year, the Supreme Court has confirmed they will rule on the question of States' rights to administer gun control.
ReplyDeleteYou mean " . . . after the Washington D.C. ruling last year . . . " don't you?
Could this be a landmark decision in the debate about the individual vs. collective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
Don't see how, since Heller makes it a settled point of law that the collectivist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was a silly fiction, and that the amendment does indeed exist to protect an individual right (although Heller left egregious room for watering down that individual right).
The main issue that will be decided here is incorporation--will state and local governments have to at least pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment, as the federal government does, or will they remain free to continue unrestrained with their citizen disarmament tyranny?
If, as I'm cautiously optimistic will be the case, SCOTUS finds that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, that will be wonderful news in its own right.
Even better will be seeing petty tyrants like Mayors Bloomberg and Daley melting down in front of the cameras. I fully expect their heads to explode--I'll need to have the TiVo ready--something to watch whenever I'm feeling down.
beowulf, I edited the post to make it clearer. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWow VOR does have you pegged!
ReplyDeleteThat does make it a lot clearer, Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteActually, my confusion regarding Chicago/D.C. was less due to lack of clarity on your part than it was due to me being a bit slow on the uptake, but you've left no room for confusion now.
Ah yes, "states' rights."
ReplyDeleteWould you support "states' rights" if Louisiana decided to pass a law saying blacks could be sold into slavery? or that women couldn't vote?
Constitutional Jurisprudence has long ago done away with the notion that the States could violate the Constitution because it didn't apply to them. Even some Constitutional Rights that have not been specifically incorporated by the SCOTUS have been held to apply against the states.
I think this issue calls for a post on my part when I have more time.
BTW Mike, if you think States should have the "right" (states have powers not rights) to violate the Constitutional Rights of individual citizens you are nothing but a bigot.
The question has been posed to you MikeB...
ReplyDeleteDo you support "States Rights" to subvert the BOR if the state says okie-dokie?
As stated before, states have powers, not rights.
But you knew that, right?
I support anything that subverts your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAs you know I don't agree with it. But I admit I know a lot less about the subject than you and the other pro-gun guys. So, believe it or not, I am open-minded. But, I have to say, the more I read, the more I move away from you.
So you support a "states right" to violate any Constitutional protection it sees fit?
ReplyDeleteAnd you wonder why we call you a bigot?