For those of you who think that the Second Amendment protects your right to own a weapon, think again. If you think that last year's Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right cemented your right to own a weapon, think again. President Barack Obama and prospective Surpeme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor have another idea.
For years, gun control advocates have argued that the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of militias to own and bear arms, not individuals. However, last year the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to own a gun is an individual right an struck down D.C.'s carpet restriction on handguns.
But this decision has not touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun ownership rights. You see, according to the judiciary the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. So while the federal government has a hard time passing strict gun laws, individual states could actually outlaw weapons altogether. Several cases have upheld this precedent - Presser v. Illinois, United States v. Cruikshank, and now Maloney v. Cuomo, a recent decision joined by Sotomayor.
President Obama has made it very public that he wanted his nominee to use "common sense." But could someone please explain to me how applying some parts of the Constitution to the states and not others uses "common sense?" Even without common sense, Article IV of the Constitution states that "this Constitution...shall be the law of the land...and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby." It's known as the supremacy clause. But apparently the Supreme Court thinks state judges are only bound by part of the Constitution.
Now isn't that scary?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wasn't Maloney v Cuomo (Rice) actually about nunchucks? How does this apply to gun ownership? It's more funny to me than anything else. She hasn't ruled on any *actual* gun rights cases that I've heard about. No one's going to steal your hunting rifle.
Haha yeah it was about nunchucka. But the law that it challenged prohibited any sort of deadly weapon, including and especially guns. Besides, the Constitution mentions "arms," not guns, so they are all lumped into one category.
I'm not worried about hunting rifles. I don't even hunt. I have a handgun for protection, and that's what I'm worried about. Making laws against guns will only take guns away from law-abiding citezens. Do you think the gang members and drug dealers are going to say "Oh no, they made a law against it. I better not buy/sell/use this gun now!" No, it will only disarm those who truly need it for protection.
Post a Comment