Today the Supreme Court affirmed the Constitution by deciding 5-4 that the Second Amendment extends to all States and local governments. This is a victory for freedom and Constitutional history.
The decision almost guarantees that local government gun-control laws, such as Chicago’s 28-year ban on handguns, will be eliminated soon. In fact, some groups already anticipating today’s decision immediately filed lawsuits against the windy city as the decision was delivered.
Justice Alito authored the majority decision. Read the full decision and dissents here. In his first paragraph Alito refers to the Chicago law and bases his decision on the parallel case of Washington, DC’s handgun ban which the Court struck down two years ago (see page 1 of the decision, page 7 of the PDF).
This, of course, should have been a no-brainer for all. The Bill of Rights delegates certain powers to the Federal Government and prohibits certain powers to the States. This is the flip-side of the Tenth Amendment so much talked about today. Yes, nothing explicitly delegated to the Federal Government (such as Health Care) should legally be enforced uniformly on all States by the Feds. BUT, what the Constitution does delegate to the Feds (enforcement of the right to bear arms) the State and local municipalities should have no right to infringe. This lesson is so simple and yet so powerful, and so essential to our freedom. And no feminist, tyrant, or wacko can take these rights away.
The great irony therefore is why four of the justices dissented. I say “irony” not “mystery,” for we know why they dissented—their radical leftism. Does anything illustrate their activism more than a dissent on this decision, which should be so obviously clear to everyone?
While the dissent is more complex than the small amount that has surfaced, the general objection is pitiful and quite honestly fallacious. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority ruling misinterpreted history. “[N]othing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense…is ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history or tradition’ or is otherwise ‘fundamental,’ ” Justice Breyer wrote.
Aside from the blind idiocity of this comment (see my DVD God, Guns, and Gold: Foundations of Christian Freedom), history and tradition of gun use is not at issue here. The issue is not about interpreting history, it is about interpreting law. The issue is the nature of the Bill of Rights and how it applies to State and local governments. The logic here is like shooting red herring in a barrel. Too bad the liberal justices don’t care about logic.