"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."Now take that in context, look at the 9th amendment:
"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."i.e. just because it's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it's not a right and doesn't mean it's not important.
And then also read the 10th:
"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 - if it's not spelled out in the Constitution it's up to the States or People to decide.
I take real issue with Thursday's ruling. Not only because I am a libertarian but because I like reading, and writing, and choosing what t-shirt to wear, and where to attend religious meetings. Let's back up to the 1st amendment (the one that came right before the 2nd):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."I know, I know firearms have nothing to do with free speech. Living in a state that doesn't restrict concealed carry for those with a CCW I'm not really concerned by this ruling's direct impact. The thing that we should all be concerned with is the indirect consequences. The ruling basically says: 'you do have a right to keep and bear arms, but only inside your house.'
That the implications of that settle for a moment. Apply that to the first amendment: 'you have a right to free speech but only within your own home' or what about the 13th amendment; 'Slavery is no allowed, except in your own home.'
Those honestly examining constitutional law and it's full implications would quickly run away from attempts to limit the 2nd amendment. The supreme court has routinely broadened it's interpretation of the 1st amendment and at the same time almost constantly narrowing the scope of the 2nd. This serious contradiction in U.S. law can't last for long. Saw what you will, the fact remains, the Supreme Court has drastically reversed it's self before (Brown vs. Board of Education is just one example) and it can do it again. With one ruling every bit of 1st amendment protections we currently enjoy could be reversed and interpreted with the same standards as those used on the 2nd amendment.
Make no mistake it can happen, it will happen if we don't start demanding respect for ALL constitutional requirements instead of cherry picking the ones we do and don't like.
The 2nd Amendment now effectively reads: "For sporting purposes,
Switch in phrases from the 1st amendment and you will see how truly scary it becomes.
Post a Comment