Antonin Scalia and 2nd Amendment Decisions
Antonin Scalia and 2nd Amendment Decision, L.A Times, 06/27/2008.
Justices affirm gun rights.
THE 2ND AMENDMENT: KEY RULING ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
In a historic 5-4 ruling, the high court says the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects Americans' right to own guns for self-defense -- resolving one of the Constitution's oldest disputes and reviving the debate over gun rights, crime and violence.
The landmark decision struck down a District of Columbia ordinance, the strictest in the nation, that barred homeowners from keeping handguns. The ruling brought immediate court challenges to similar laws in Chicago and San Francisco.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not limited to state militias, as some historians have argued. Rather,
it protects "the inherent right of self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia said. Joining him in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
The four dissenters -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter -- said the majority had unwisely opened the door to legal attacks on popular and effective gun-control measures. "I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion.
Scalia stressed that the decision, though historic, was narrow and its practical effects limited.
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings," he wrote. The majority opinion also said that prohibitions on carrying concealed or dangerous and unusual weapons, such as machine guns, were not in doubt.
Scalia did not say how 2nd Amendment rights were to be evaluated. "Since this case represents this court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field," he wrote.
Gun rights advocates Thursday made it clear that they would pursue more legal challenges, providing ample opportunity for the high court to revisit the issue.
"It looks to be a phenomenal day for gun owners and District of Columbia residents," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Assn. "The next step is to ensure that every American has access to this right."
Gun control advocates, however, took heart in the fact that the ruling left room for some gun regulations.
Scalia spent most of his 64-page opinion explaining why history was on his side. He cited the Stuart kings of England and how they had used their militias to disarm their opponents. "By the time of the founding [of this country], the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects," he said. "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."
But in his 46-page dissent,
Stevens accused Scalia of misreading the words of the 2nd Amendment and spinning its history to ignore its focus on organized militias.
IMHO, Justice Scalia is playing THE Political Chess Match of his lifetime.
His motive is,,,, Positioning himself for the upcoming Presidential Election, so when the time comes, HE will be in the spotlight about the 2nd Amnd. just as Chief Justice Roberts was concerning ObamaCare.
Justice Scalia is just a pawn in the Political Game of LIFE and he wants to make certain that he leaves a legacy worth talkin' 'bout for a long time after he leaves the bench.
DO NOT FORGET THIS OBAMA QUOTE !!!
2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008: on Gun Control
Barack Obama: Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.
But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide
common-sense :lol: approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets.
We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. ( HA !!! Like that will EVER Really happen !)
We can make certain that those who are
mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. (i.e.,
Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009. The sole suspect is
Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major serving as a psychiatrist.
We can
trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets. (i.e., President Barack Obama & the Department of Justice's
Operation Fast and Furious gun-running program.) =
*** Obama Executive Privilege Asserted Over Fast And Furious Documents *** !!!
Obamas *common sense* ain't to common :exclaim: