Journal pudge's Journal: Gun Rights 10
Not to criticize any justices in particular -- because I understand the culture and processes of the Supreme Court -- but it is shameful of our system that we could only get a single Supreme Court Justice to agree that "the Second Amendment is
As I guessed, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but through "due process" instead of "privileges or immunities."
Of course, what's even more amazing is that a fundamental right of the people of the United States was found not to be a fundamental right by four of the nine justices. This position is only possible to hold -- if you understand the law -- by denying the Heller decision, or by denying the selective incorporation precedent through which rights are "incoporated" to the states by due process.
Either way, it amounts to the same old song: the liberals on the Court hate the rule of law. They care only about their chosen outcomes. The caselaw is absolutely, utterly, undeniably, clear: we have a fundamental federal right to keep and bear arms (Heller), and such fundamental rights, through due process, are applied to the states. There's nothing more to it. You have to deny those settled principles of law to dissent in this case. You have to be a consequentialist who hates the rule of law, setting it aside whenever you don't like its outcome.
That's what these four justices are. Sotomayor has proven herself now, as Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer did before her. To wit, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, actually argued against the Second Amendment itself, calling it an "injustice," comparing it to slavery and the subjugation of women: we can't just willy-nilly grant historical rights through the 14th Amendment, because look at these other EVIL historical rights we used to have (implying, of course, that gun rights are also evil).
I don't think more needs to be said than this. On the one side we have people standing up for what the Constitution actually says and means, and on the other, we have people denying our fundamental constitutional rights just because they don't like them.
Thankfully, liberty prevailed and the Second Amendment has taken its proper role as applying to the states, even though it's nearly a century-and-a-half since the 14th Amendment was ratified with that explicit intent.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
And this is why elections matter (Score:2)
Holy Christ Jesus in Heaven, do they matter. 5 to 4. The barest of majorities on something that the Constitution very clearly spells out: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That means nearly half the court thinks the Constitution is a set of guidelines, not rules, and that the law is basically whatever they think is best for us. If that doesn't motivate you, I don't know what else could.
Re: (Score:1)
Four justices ought to be tried for treason.
Re: (Score:1)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Sorry, it had to be said.
Re: (Score:1)
Okey... hello foot, meet mister bullet. Well, it is finally recognized as a Constitutional right!
Good point.
poll taxes (Score:1)
With any luck the next round of litigation will strike down the policies of areas like NYC or Washington DC to make handgun ownership unaffordable. NYC charges $400+ to apply for or renew (they expire every two years) a pistol license. Can't legally own a pistol without a license. In effect they do the same thing with the licensing process that the southern states used to do with poll taxes. There is no reason that it should cost $200+/yr to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason that it should cost $200+/yr to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
I don't think there's an issue with it costing that much. The problem is that portion of the cost being a fee to the government in order to exercise it. It's alright for it to cost money to own a gun, it's not alright for government fees to make it cost-prohibitive.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe I should have been clearer. It's obviously 'alright' that guns cost money. It's not 'alright' that certain jurisdictions charge inflated fees for licenses in an attempt to artificially raise the cost of gun ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed that was the case, just figured I'd clarify the point.
Re: (Score:1)
Not that living in Michigan has that many advantages, but here long guns don't require anything other than that paying the shop keeper. Pistols require a 5 dollar notarized permit to purchase, but that is while you wait at the sheriff office. I probably spend more on gas than the notarization. And while it didn't go anywhere as far as I have heard, there was a piece of legislation in Lansing which was talking about getting rid of the permit to purchase last week.
Re: (Score:2)
In WA, to buy a handgun, if you have your (shall-issue) concealed carry permit, there's no waiting. Instant background check at point of purchase. Can take a few minutes for the paperwork (sometimes 10-20), but it's not a big deal.