Carry On: High Court Upholds 2ns Amendment
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
The court's 5-4 ruling Thursday struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.
It was the first time the court conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since it was ratified in 1791.
Here's what it says:
"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."
See, I never had any trouble understanding that. But lots of people apparently do. So it was nice that the court cleaned it up.
Of course, put a few liberals on the court and the next time around it could all change. But for now, it's nice to know the highest court in the land views the right to own a gun as sacred as the right to free speech, religion or assembly.
The decision boiled down to whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
I never understood what all the hubbub was about.
These same folks that wondered if the founders really meant "people" when they wrote "people" in the 2nd Amendment had no trouble understanding what "people" meant anywhere else in the amendments.
Like in the 1st Amendment:
"... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Or in the 4th 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 ..."
Or in the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Or in the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Or in the 17th Amendment:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; ... the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
So when the founders wrote "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment, based on references to "the people" in other amendments, I had a pretty good idea of what they meant.
I think the 10th Amendment is the one that's been trampled by Congress over the years.
It's almost as if that one was never written because it's so universally ignored.
Lets review:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Whoa.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate to the United States the power to regulate education, energy, banking, employment, commerce or any number of hundreds of things the federal government regulates?
I think the founders envisioned a minimalist, limited federal government with most of the power and decision-making left to the states and to the "people."
How far flung are we from that?
We have a massive federal government that encompasses pretty much ever thing.
I don't consider myself a strict constructionist. I understand that the constitution is a living document and it has to change.
But things as basic as rights and the role of government seem pretty unyielding to the test of time in my view.
All in all, I was happy to see the court get it right - albeit it marginally with a 5-4 vote - on the 2nd Amendment.[[In-content Ad]]
The court's 5-4 ruling Thursday struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.
It was the first time the court conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since it was ratified in 1791.
Here's what it says:
"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."
See, I never had any trouble understanding that. But lots of people apparently do. So it was nice that the court cleaned it up.
Of course, put a few liberals on the court and the next time around it could all change. But for now, it's nice to know the highest court in the land views the right to own a gun as sacred as the right to free speech, religion or assembly.
The decision boiled down to whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
I never understood what all the hubbub was about.
These same folks that wondered if the founders really meant "people" when they wrote "people" in the 2nd Amendment had no trouble understanding what "people" meant anywhere else in the amendments.
Like in the 1st Amendment:
"... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Or in the 4th 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 ..."
Or in the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Or in the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Or in the 17th Amendment:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; ... the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
So when the founders wrote "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment, based on references to "the people" in other amendments, I had a pretty good idea of what they meant.
I think the 10th Amendment is the one that's been trampled by Congress over the years.
It's almost as if that one was never written because it's so universally ignored.
Lets review:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Whoa.
Where in the Constitution does it delegate to the United States the power to regulate education, energy, banking, employment, commerce or any number of hundreds of things the federal government regulates?
I think the founders envisioned a minimalist, limited federal government with most of the power and decision-making left to the states and to the "people."
How far flung are we from that?
We have a massive federal government that encompasses pretty much ever thing.
I don't consider myself a strict constructionist. I understand that the constitution is a living document and it has to change.
But things as basic as rights and the role of government seem pretty unyielding to the test of time in my view.
All in all, I was happy to see the court get it right - albeit it marginally with a 5-4 vote - on the 2nd Amendment.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092