Monday, August 2, 2010

The Results of the Chicago Gun Ruling

The Pioneer Press published a wonderful essay about the lifting of the Chicago gun ban.

In controversial decisions by the narrowest of margins, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is about self-defense and guarantees the right of citizens to possess a gun in the home. The court never mentioned handgun suicides, domestic shootings, children getting hold of guns, guns getting stolen from the home, or gang members taking family guns for a drive-by shooting. It overlooked that these laws were passed by legislative bodies after much debate and then were upheld by many court reviews over a period of 30 years. In the case of Oak Park, the ban also was ratified in a referendum.

Now that's what I call a good summary. And here's what I call a happy ending.

In the years ahead, the courts will be inundated with cases about the Second Amendment pushed by both sides. Sooner or later there will be another Virginia Tech shooting, another Northern Illinois incident, or another political assassination.

At some point America has another tradition -- after trying to work under sometimes onerous Constitutional limits and court decisions, finally opting to amend the Constitution and to change the court personnel.

Did you get that, "amend the Constitution" and "change the court personnel," not in that order, I would suppose.

What's your opinion? Is the mention above that this decision was by the "narrowest of margins," something the pro-gun folks like to overlook? Is the future possibility of amending the Constitution a realistic one?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. "Is the future possibility of amending the Constitution a realistic one?"

    In the future, anything is possible. The future of freedom is never guaranteed.

  2. And here's what I call a happy ending.
    Sooner or later there will be another Virginia Tech shooting, another Northern Illinois incident, or another political assassination.

    Only a total nutjob looking for a tragedy to capitalize on and restrist the freedoms of all Americans would call this a 'Happy Ending'.

  3. RuffRidr, the gun banners have always hoped for violence. They are the profiteers of violence. Remember the Brady Campaign seeking out $32 donations after Virginia Tech. For them, every person who gets shot is money in the bank.

  4. The way the anti-freedom loons hope and pray for violence to move their political schemes is disgusting. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    "Is the future possibility of amending the Constitution a realistic one?"

    No. The amendments comprising The Bill of Rights are not "granted" by the Constitution but rather are guaranteed by it and cannot be so easily removed. You would have better luck with a new constitutional convention.

  5. You guys are of course absolutely right. It's never right to hope for a tragedy to bolster your point-of-view. It's probably a sin. And, no, it's ridiculous to talk about changing the second amendment. Obviously the SCOTUS can change its meaning anytime they want to.

    The essay by Clarence Kulis is not so easily punctured. The guy had a brother who was killed on a train. He was a federal law enforcement officer. He has worked with families of victims of handgun violence. His is a voice that deserves to be heard. He's upset with the SCOTUS decision with some good reasons. Reducing the quantity and availability of handguns should indirectly reduce the total number of handgun deaths.

    But what Clarence doesn't get is that the constitution itself no longer matters all that much if it can be manipulated or interpreted any of several ways. It becomes no more than a historical archive. Take a look at what happened to the fourth amendment.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Whether it all began with the implied consent law and the right of law enforcement to know if drivers are carrying alcohol or drugs, really doesn't matter any more, does it? All across our fair land uncostitutional searches are carried out every day as a consequence of racial profiling, or simply as a huge revenue generator, as in the case of Arizona's marijuana enforcement. The letter of the law is just a formality. You can, of course, refuse to submit to a search. Just stick around 'til the drug-sniffing hound arrives.

  6. The pro-gun claim that we "dance in the blood," or even worse that we consider tragic shootings to be "happy endings" is total bullshit.

    The happy ending I'm talking about is the changing of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which (mark my words) is coming as soon as the balance on the Supreme Court changes.