 Printer friendly version |
 E-mail to a friend |
Updated Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:32 PM
Updated: Supreme Court set to discuss issues that divide nation
 |
|
Click to enlarge
GARY SEWELL / HERALD DEMOCRAT
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case about the City of Chicago's ban city residents ownership of firearms. They will determine if the ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
|
BY JONATHAN CANNON
HERALD DEMOCRAT
"The honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States," the Court's Marshal shouts. "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
On Oct. 5, these historic words resonated throughout the courtroom as the nine justices took their places. The scene has been the same throughout the Supreme Court's history as the justices have continually decided cases relating to issues that have divided and continue to divide our nation. This year's term is no different.
The justices will rule on cases relating to the establishment of religion and the right of individuals to bear arms to name a few. Though how narrowly or broadly they will rule, which will in turn affect the reach of the decisions, is yet to be seen.
National Rifle Association v. Chicago/McDonald v. Chicago
According to the NRA complaint filed against the city in June 2008, the city of Chicago has enacted an unconstitutional ban on an individual's right to bear arms. In complaint, the NRA contends that the Chicago ordinance violates the Second Amendment ("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") by way of the 14th Amendment ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").
While the Bill of Rights only protected against federal government action, the 14th Amendment is cited as way to extend the Bill of Rights to state action.
The NRA complaint further argues that it extends to the states and their "political subdivisions."
Former Austin College professor Kenneth Street, who holds a doctorate in political science with emphasis on constitutional law, expressed concern that this logic, which was successfully argued in a similar case last year, is a slippery slope. Streeter pointed to last year's case, District of Columbia v. Heller, as an example of judicial activism. He said the justices should be simply discussing the constitutionality of the issue.
"If you do this right, that keeps you from reading your own prejudice into the ruling," he said. Street added that as the Second Amendment reads, it is clear that it was intended to protect the right to bear arms only as it relates to raising a militia.
Jason Webb, the owner of Red River Firearms in Sherman, said that he felt the law does extend the right to bear arms to private citizens, but admitted that it was an issue of interpretation. He added that rather than banning guns, however, the laws should be more focused on those who commit crimes with guns. "I'd really put it to the people that are causing crimes," he said.
For Second Amendment advocates, as well as their counterparts, this will be a case to watch as a broad decision, either way, could impact local gun legislation across the country.
"If the Supreme Court applies the new individual right recognized in the Heller case to overturn the city of Chicago's handgun bans, it will mark a major change in constitutional jurisprudence," Brown said.
Salazar v. Buono
According to court briefs, in 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross as a memorial to fallen soldiers on public land without government approval. It stood until 1999 when the U.S. Park Service denied a request to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross, citing its plans to remove the cross. However, in 2001, Congress passed a law prohibiting the service from using government money to remove the cross.
Then in 2003, Congress ordered that the land be transferred to the VFW, where the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") would no longer apply.
Now the question for the court is, did the government violate the clause and who owns the property now?
Street said how the court decides will depend on where they land with respect to three theories on the establishment clause. Street said the prevailing opinion currently seems to be that the government should be accommodating all religions -- in this case, allowing the Buddhist shrine.
"Civil liberty groups have long contended, and Supreme Court has in the past held, that this provision means not only that the government cannot establish a religion or church, but the government also cannot take an action which aids one, or all, religions or gives preference to or endorses one religion," said Grayson County District Attorney Joe Brown.
In this case, as with all Supreme Court decisions, the court can decide to rule narrowly -- deciding on the land ownership and avoiding the constitutional issue -- or broadly -- deciding if religious symbols on government property are a violation.
Brown said he looked for the court to make a broader decision, while Streeter said he hoped for a more narrow one. Streeter said this would stop what he described as a trend of judicial activism -- where justices base decisions on their feelings about the case and not on the government's authority to act.
"Others argue that the framers of the Constitution, by prohibiting government action 'respecting the establishment of religion,' were intending only to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or discriminating against any religious belief, and never intended to take the Christian God out of government," Brown said.
He explained that they point to religious symbols and references to God in the writings of the Founding Fathers as evidence.
"Either way the case is decided, we will continue to be a nation deeply divided about the role of God in society," Brown said.
Graham v. Florida/Sullivan v. Florida
At issue in the Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida cases is whether life in prison without the possibility of parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment.
In the Sullivan case, a 13-year-old with a previous criminal record committed sexual assault of an elderly woman. He was tried as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to life without parole. In the Graham case, a 19-year-old received the same sentence for attempted armed robbery and violating parole. He was on parole for two previous robbery attempts he committed as a minor.
These cases, too, use the 14th Amendment to apply a bill of rights to the states. Graham and Sullivan's attorneys argue that minors are uniquely positioned to be rehabilitated though correctional programs, and giving them a life without parole sentence denies them that chance.
"We're in the business of rehabilitation; we believe there is the ability to rehabilitate children," said Bill Bristow, director of Grayson County Youth Services. "From my perspective, I do believe there's occasion that a life sentence for a child should be handed down, but I believe there should be review."
Bristow said the review should come in the form of a parole board. And while he said a sentence without that review might be excessive for a minor, he advocated long sentences for some juveniles when the case warrants them.
"Having the ability to have that 14, 15, 16-year-old have a long term prison sentence, I think is appropriate," he said, while still stressing the importance of review.
Brown, however, said, "Those that would limit the punishments available to juries for serious crimes do not, in my opinion, understand the realities of crime. I believe in the jury system, and juries can take into consideration all of the arguments made by ... those who would have no juveniles sent to prison for life."
Brown pointed to the previous records of both juveniles in the cases as evidence "that they could not conform to society." However, he said, the occasion for such severe punishments for juveniles is rare.
 Comments ... 14 found!
Recognition of Rights : 11/9/2009
Governments don't have ANY Rights, to be recognised as wrt in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Changes to the Constitution are accomplished specifically through Amendments. Not what Judges think necessary. A clause, in the partial listing, "The Bill of Rights" doesn't eliminate that Right. As much as it is sought by Progressives/Statists in their pursuit of Change without amending the 'rules' properly.
El Tigre
Freeam Erican : 11/5/2009
Thank you for your post. Clever sign-off name. I said that I preferred not to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense, because of my perception of the risk to family members. But that was not meant to imply that I expected everyone to perceive the same level of risk as I, or to take the same actions. If I left that impression, I apologize for my poor choice of words. And as you apparently noted, I certainly do not include handguns on my list of weapons that should not be allowed for sale to the general population. Your comment about “the primary purpose of 2A is for the protection of our own freedom” is interesting. That comment dovetails nicely with my view of the historical environment occurring during the time of the development of the Second Amendment. At that time, the individual States were understandably concerned of potential future attempts to consolidate more power within the newly formed central government (at the expense of the States, of course). And the most effective means of initiating the process to do so would be to begin by weakening the individual State Militias. Thus was born the Second Amendment – a one-sentence amendment that was a promise from the new United States government that the State Militias would not be suppressed as a result of action by the US government to disarm the people. Few words were needed to make that promise, because few words mean less wiggle room for misinterpretation. And there were no exceptions in the Second Amendment to include phrases such as “except for felons” or “except for the mentally disturbed”. Nor should there have been. According to the Second Amendment, the US government does not have the legal authority to disarm any citizen as a potential member of a State Militia – no exceptions! But after all, why should it be otherwise? Only the States controlled the militias, including the qualifications of who may or may not be a member of the militia. And it would be totally counter to the purpose of the Second Amendment to let US federal laws determine who may or may not be permitted to be members of a State Militia (i.e. - who may keep and bear arms). Obviously, such laws would defeat the very objective of the Second Amendment. And so has been the status of legal jurisprudence for the last 200 + years (until this year’s USSC ruling of Heller vs. Washington D.C.). It is my understanding that the Federal Govt. typically does not pass any legislation regarding qualification for US citizen gun ownership for any weapons other than those of the more lethal technology (which does not include any handguns that I am aware of – though I may not have the latest information on this subject). And the Federal Courts have previously taken a hands-off approach to suits against the States or Municipalities regarding qualifications for citizen gun ownership or usage. The Court’s attitude prior to Heller vs. Washington D.C. has been in the spirit of the Second Amendment – and that is that the States (and their political sub-divisions) have sole authority over actions related to citizen gun ownership). Thus judicial resolution is at the state (or lower) level. On a prior posting I have already remarked on the Heller vs. Washington, D.C. USSC ruling, as well as on possible consequences of the ruling. I will add, however, that if Heller vs. Washington D.C. had been Heller vs. Dodge City, Kansas in the mid 1800s – Matt Dillon would not legally have been able to prevent drovers off the cattle drives near Dodge from bringing their guns into town on Saturday night.
LDW
LDW : 11/4/2009
LDW - Thanks for an intelligently written post as well as for your own respectful tone. "...the Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of ALL people to own and carry weapons, without interference from any level of government. I do not believe that is the correct interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment." I am an NRA member and a very strong supporter of the right of the individual citizen to keep (own) and bear (carry) a firearm. I do NOT, however, believe that ALL people have the right to own and carry. "...And if you think through the consequences of such a belief, it means that no state or municipal government law that attempts any form of gun control (such as restricting gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill) is valid under the Second Amendment." Again, I agree. There needs to be basic common sense control that keeps Felons and the mentally ill from LEGALLY possessing a gun. The simple fact is that these controls are already in place. "...did not prevent municipalities from attempting (through local legislation) to resolve specific problems they were having with firearm injuries and fatalities." Sadly, instead of enforcing the existing laws in attempt to resolve the problems, MANY of the cases are plea bargained down or tossed as part of a deal. The bad-guys are routinely released back into society to reoffend. The problem is with the lack enforcement and a focus that is on the tool and not the hand. "If a similar ruling occurs in the upcoming Chicago case....every weapon action that needs to be taken by a City to improve the safety and livelihood of their local citizens will require federal court approval – to ensure compliance with whatever new standards the Federal Courts cook-up along the way for the 'correct' interpretation of compliance with the Second Amendment. And that is a slippery slope indeed." IMO, this comes back to focus. There needs to be a set of common sense standards for states to follow as to the LEGAL ownership and carrying of a handgun. They should not be time or cost-prohibitive and they should be the same across the board. Break the law and lose the right. There does not need to be new gun-focused legislation with every crime that is committed. Just enforce. It does not need to be a slippery slope. "I also believe in rights for individuals to own and carry certain weapons, but only under satisfactory licensed conditions that ensures as much safety as is reasonably possible for those who may inadvertently become exposed to the potential harm of the weapon." I agree. I am not a "Carry whatever you want" type of supporter. I am also opposed to ownership of certain weapons by the general public– such as Stinger missiles, Bazookas, RPGs, and assault weapons. "I do not keep a handgun at home for defense purposes – because it is not effective as a safety measure unless the weapon is loaded and located within arms reach of where I sleep. The resulting risk of death or injury to a family member is too much for me to bear. We agree and disagree here LDW. I DO keep a handgun (as well as others) at home for defense purposes. They are loaded and located in areas as to facilitate quick and effective use if, God forbid, that situation ever presents itself. ALL of my weapons are securely locked and are not accessible to my family...All of whom are also well trained in the safe correct use of each. The "resulting risk of death or injury" is a comment that is based ONLY on the fear of the weapon based upon not having what I call a "compotent-confidence" with it. I believe it is irresponsible to own any tool that you do not completely know how to safely use. Handgun ownership is a right that comes with responsibility. I am not averse to a minimum training requirement. I do, however have a problem with registration and record-keeping as I believe that the primary purpose of 2A is for the protection of our own freedom. A government that knows where the guns are is the government that will not have a difficult time finding them, if and when it decides to take them away. As far as the NRA being a business, I agree that their first priority is to the success of that business interest. I do not fault them for that either as it is necessary for them to be successfull in business in order to survive as the power they have become in the battle to protect our right. I too frequently receive, in the US mail, solicitations from the NRA to join their membership. As a member, I find it interesting that they waste those marketing dollars soliciting the existing membership. "...I was not offended by the false premise that the Second Amendment conveyed such individual rights." I do not think that it is a false premise. After extremely exhaustive research and indepth reading of the professional and personal writings of the founders, I believe that the Second Amendment ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES an INDIVIDUAL right, that was intended to extend to the citizen, not to be infringed by federal, state or local governments. "...the NRA is the most influential special interest lobby in government. I admire them for their business acuity, but this time they probably sent their message to the wrong chap. I did not join the group, but I do like their business savvy." Yes, the NRA is the most influential special interest lobby in government, and thank God they are. Without the business savvy of the NRA, it is quite likely that America would already be an unarmed oligarchy. Thanks again for your post LDW. I enjoy being motivated to take the time to analyize and write down my own ideas and beliefs. Have a great night.
Freeam Erican
: 11/3/2009
As the author reads it: [in so much as] A well regulated militia being necessary [and sometimes may need to be raised as authorized by the federal govt and/or states and we infer retroactively to mean the "National Guard" although it didn't come into existence until the 20th Century ] .... Somebody needs to go read the U.S. Militia Acts. There is an organized (i.e. STATE run) and an unorganized (everybody else) militia. The 2nd Amendment is not there to RAISE the militia is there to make sure that there is ALWAYS a militia. Dangerous slope? LOL....let's apply your logic to the First Amendment. For some reasons the FA is always exempt. Blogs are protected are they? They didn't even exist back then!
anon
LDW nice big word package : 11/3/2009
Very well written. An excellent job of defining a strict constructionist. ..... A fine job until you allowed your feelings to reveal why you don't really believe a strict constructionist can exist: ... "I can think of no way that the Second Amendment can be used to justify overthrowing the right of the City to attempt to control the carnage occurring there (highest death-rate in the nation caused by semi-automatic weapons). Such weapons were not even invented until many years after the writing of the Second Amendment. It is indeed a huge stretch to envision that the legislators of the time could have had such lethal weapons in mind." .... For the Washington D.C. gun ban case you point to was not based on "semi-automatics." Single shot derringers were also banned by Washington D.C. ..... We Americans can all hope our justices aren't founding their interprettations based on their personal fears of the "carnage" which might or might not eventually take place. ....... LDW, your above does an excellent job in demonstrating how far too many politicians and judges seem to allow their feelings to guide anything they offer to pass as leadership. Such politicians are known as liberals in my eyes. Take Anne Richards for example, back when she vetoed the Right-To-Carry law. Her justification was something to the effect her citing, "there will be blood running in the streets" following all those "high noon shootouts" she was so sure would happen. ........ LDW, you must, or should live in constant fear of all these Texans you meet on the street who may in fact have a "semi-auto" in their pocket, or purse? BTW: LDW, did you know that most revolvers have a higher cyclic rate of fire than a "semi-automatic"? And, did you also realize that one well placed shot can yield just as much "carnage" as 15 sprayed willy nilly shots?
A strict constructionist
About Gun Control : 11/3/2009
Just an observation here: has anyone else noticed that Washington DC has about the highest violent crime and murder rate in the country? Isn't is odd that they probably have the tightest gun control laws as well? Maybe if law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry handguns and a few would-be murderers got popped instead, the murder rate would go down. Just my 2 cents. There are very few (if any) documented cases of licensed gun owners with semi-auto weapons going out and murdering people. 99.9% of these crimes are committed by repeat felons (who your judges continaually release back into society) who do not have - and do not want - a license or legal ownership of any kind. Gun control laws will do absolutely NOTHING except help these people as it will then be them against a disarmed society! I respect anyone's right (such as LDW) to choose not to own a weapon, but please don't infringe upon my right to own one!
Licensed Gun Owner
usa : 11/3/2009
Everything is taken such out of context to make whomever is wanting to twist it around into their favor. just as the 1st amendment, freedom of speech. this was written so the people could raise up and not be punished for speaking against the government. Not to justify someone being able to wear a F&%^ you shirt into a daycare or pblic school. yes the const. is read as a contract but how far is too far folks. yes they didnt forsee what has all come to bear in the recent years but why cant we use a little common sense with these laws?
humm
Law Abiding Citizen : 11/3/2009
I appreciate the tone of your response to my comment. Civil behavior and respect among people of differing opinion is not yet dead in this state, but it doesn’t seem to be as healthy everywhere else. I agree that all states and most municipalities have laws that attempt to control ownership and usage of firearms. But the points in my prior commentary were specifically related to the Second Amendment, and how the amendment impacts the legality of the current state and municipality gun laws. I know several individuals (I suspect you may know some as well), who believe that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of ALL people to own and carry weapons, without interference from any level of government. I do not believe that is the correct interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. And if you think through the consequences of such a belief, it means that no state or municipal government law that attempts any form of gun control (such as restricting gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill) is valid under the Second Amendment. Before the Heller vs. Washington D.C. USSC ruling, the Court has always maintained that the Second Amendment did not prevent municipalities from attempting (through local legislation) to resolve specific problems they were having with firearm injuries and fatalities. Now that is no longer the case. As I stated earlier, I believe the ruling was incorrect for legal reasons – but it also has practical real-world consequences, as Mr. Streeter has also suggested. The power to resolve local problems in Washington D.C. has essentially been taken out of local hands, and has been moved to the national arena. If a similar ruling occurs in the upcoming Chicago case, then it will become a nationalized problem for the federal courts to resolve with every troubled municipality in the nation. For then, every weapon action that needs to be taken by a City to improve the safety and livelihood of their local citizens will require federal court approval – to ensure compliance with whatever new standards the Federal Courts cook-up along the way for the “correct” interpretation of compliance with the Second Amendment. And that is a slippery slope indeed. I suspect we do not disagree as much as you may believe. I also believe in rights for individuals to own and carry certain weapons, but only under satisfactory licensed conditions that ensures as much safety as is reasonably possible for those who may inadvertently become exposed to the potential harm of the weapon. I am opposed to ownership of certain weapons by the general public– such as Stinger missiles, Bazookas, RPGs, and assault weapons. I do not keep a handgun at home for defense purposes – because it is not effective as a safety measure unless the weapon is loaded and located within arms reach of where I sleep. The resulting risk of death or injury to a family member is too much for me to bear. We would probably disagree on the motivation of the NRA. They represent first and foremost a thriving U.S. business interest – and like any other such organization their first priority is to the success of that business interest. I do not fault them for that. It is just a product of capitalism – probably the single most valuable force that has made this country as prosperous as we are. I once received in the US mail a solicitation from the NRA to join their membership. The message was that I was needed to make sure the liberals in congress did not find a way to up-end our Second Amendment Rights to have access to guns free of any government interference. I was not offended by the false premise that the Second Amendment conveyed such individual rights. As I said, it is a good and successful business strategy. They keep their base stirred up, which keeps the politicians nervous, and very reluctant to do anything that might be perceived as being against the NRA or gun ownership. As a result, the NRA is the most influential special interest lobby in government. I admire them for their business acuity, but this time they probably sent their message to the wrong chap. I did not join the group, but I do like their business savvy.
LDW
To: LDW : 11/2/2009
With all due respect, you need to do a little more studying. The NRA nor any other reputable group that I know of has ever believed in "federally guaranteed right to all people of government uncontrolled gun ownership and usage". This is the sad propoganda that the liberals like to spread around! Again, NO ONE thinks it is ok for "anyone" to own a gun. There is NO state out there now (that I know of) where a convicted felon or mentally ill person can legally obtain a license to carry or use a firearm! NONE!! We just believe that it is the right of every free, non-criminal, sane American to have the right to protect themselves - the law sure as h@!! can't do it!!!
Law Abiding Citizen
Strict Constructionist : 11/2/2009
I personally agree with the philosophy of judicial reasoning termed as “strict constructionist”. It is a term that refers to evaluating a written law in its historical context. In other words, what was intended by the authors of the legislation - in terms of the law’s effect on the people of that era? And how should the Court rule to ensure that the same intent applies to the people of the current era? But for those of us who try to interpret the law in this manner it does not preclude that personal bias can nevertheless sometimes color judgment on judicial rulings. For calling a jurist a “strict constructionist” does not always mean that a specific judicial ruling ended up based on that judicial philosophy. Jurists of both liberal and conservative ideological leanings can be guilty of unknowingly letting personal bias influence their rulings – though most try their best, I believe. A case in point is Roe vs. Wade. I have a difficult time agreeing with the judicial reasoning – in its most legal sense. It is difficult not to envision that a significant stretch was needed to have the legal reasoning end up supporting the ultimate Court ruling. On the other hand, I personally have a strong libertarian ideological leaning - and I deplore government assuming the power to intervene in what I consider to be strictly a family matter (with females having the ultimate decision responsibility). Of course, I realize that there are individuals of strong religious persuasion, and whose religious beliefs may trump their feelings for personal freedoms. It is the right of every American to rank order the beliefs and values that are the most important to them - and I will use my libertarian leanings to forever uphold an individual’s right to do so. But freedom means we do not all have to believe exactly the same on how we prioritize our values. So while I cannot agree with the legal reasoning of Roe vs. Wade, I do not personally disagree with the ultimate Court ruling. But I cannot say that I believe strict constructionist reasoning resulted in the Court ruling, and I would instead say that I believe judicial activism played a role in achieving the ruling. Conversely, I agree with Mr. Streeter that judicial activism played a role in the Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs. Washington D.C. I have studied the decision in detail, and I have concluded there is more evidence of judicial activism in this decision than there was in the Roe vs. Wade decision. I can think of no way that the Second Amendment can be used to justify overthrowing the right of the City to attempt to control the carnage occurring there (highest death-rate in the nation caused by semi-automatic weapons). Such weapons were not even invented until many years after the writing of the Second Amendment. It is indeed a huge stretch to envision that the legislators of the time could have had such lethal weapons in mind.
LDW
Who is this "Streeter" person?? : 11/2/2009
This article in multiple locations made reference to something a person named "Streeter" was offering, yet I seem to be overlooking any introduction as to who this person is? There was a mention of a Kenneth Street, former Austin College professor. Is this "Streeter"? ......This "Streeter" person kept pointing to the course of "judicial activism" being tacked by the current USSC Justices. ........ This causes me to wonder.... What kind of "judicial activism" might "Streeter" have seen in the ROE v. WADE case? .... You know, back when the USSC was in fact able to discover wording and intent within the Constitution which had previously gone completely undetected for almost two hundred years?? ............ Or, reckon "Streeter" might consider a USSC Justice who claims to bring a tremendous amount of "empathy" with her to the bench, to be a potential "judicial activist"?
A strict constructionist
It's Going Downhill : 11/2/2009
It's very sad where things have gone - and are going - in this once great country. The vocal minority has taken over. There has been ONE case in this nations history of a licensed handgun carrier committing murder, yet they want to ban guns. Crosses which have stood for years in courthouses, etc, are being forcefully removed because "it might offend" someone. Who cares? If I go into YOUR house and am offended by something, I will either leave or learn to live with it because I am in YOUR house. As far as the life in prison without parole constituting cruel and unusual punishment, PLEASE! Isn't first degree murder (normally required for a life sentence with no parole) a cruel and unusual way to die? Where's it going? How about the Iraqi guy who ran over his daughter because she was too westernized? Wow! If it's a problem for him, WHY IS HE OVER HERE??? My only comments are 1) there is simply NO way to accomodate everyone's personal beliefs and 2) all attempts to do so have failed miserably! We are deteriorating as a society and our increasing crime and poverty show it! God PLEASE Bless The USA!!
A Patriot
The Right of the People : 11/2/2009
The Second Amendment: "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." This one-sentence amendment, written shortly after the formation of the United States of America, is simply a constitutional promise to the individual states that the federal government shall not disarm the people as a means to suppress state militias. But the amendment certainly does not prevent the governments of states (or their “political subdivisions”) from exercising control of weapon usage and ownership rights. And to-date there has never been a US Supreme Court ruling that concludes otherwise. Thank goodness, for I suspect most of us would prefer there be some restrictions against ownership and usage by those with certain criminal records, mental disturbances, and the very young and immature. But some citizens and special interest groups would interpret the Second Amendment as a federally guaranteed right to all people of government uncontrolled gun ownership and usage. However, the Second Amendment does not confer those individual rights, and I personally am pleased to know there are currently some legally enforceable rules that prevent people from bringing firearms into certain locations – such as Courtrooms, Airports, or the Friday night football stadium. Further, Mr. Streeter is correct about a "slippery slope" with regard to broad interpretations of the Second Amendment. Using today's use of the word “arms” would now include weapons that are considerably technically advanced and much more lethal. Instead of just referring to the flintlock rifles and pistols of the era, the language of the Second Amendment would (as a minimum) now include shoulder-fired missiles, rifle-propelled grenade firearms, fully automatic rifles, and semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Certainly laws relating to rights of ownership and control of usage of these weapons seem prudent.
LDW
: 11/1/2009
Thanks for this information.
Sara Jackson
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of the authors. Heralddemocrat.com does not guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Comments do not display immediately due to manual review. Comments are reviewed periodically throughout the day. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
|
|
|
| 
LOCAL AND WIRE 
RSS Feeds 
