People have a right to bear arms in Chicago, too.
The Second Amendment: it’s not just for “wingnuts” any more. It even applies to Richard Daley.
Though I have to say that I am disappointed that we have a court with four justices who oppose this.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A nice excerpts of Alito’s smackdown of the clueless minority in this comment:
First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental.
Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights.
Somehow, this piece by Michael Barone seems relevant:
…we still live in an America like the America of the Founders, and unlike the America of the Progressives and the New Dealers, in which a majority of citizens are or have every prospect of becoming property owners.
And a desire for the right to defend that property, and their lives.
Since she’s unlikely to have to rule on it now, I wonder if someone will ask Kagan her opinion on the ruling this morning, and if she’ll answer. And if so, if she’ll do so honestly?
[Update a while later]
More thoughts from (law professor) Instapundit:
…it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?
I can’t imagine it hasn’t been done, but if not, someone should put together an essay on the racist roots of most of the “progressive” project (recall that Woodrow Wilson was one of the most racist presidents in history, at least in the twentieth century), from gun control, to minimum wage, to Davis-Bacon and birth control and legalized abortion, and “affirmative action.” I’ve seen essays on each one of them, but no comprehensive one.
Though I have to say that I am disappointed that we have a court with four justices who oppose this.
I completely agree. I would support a change in SCOTUS appointments such that an appointment lasts only ten years, and that a justice could be reappointed at the end of a term if the sitting president chose to send them back. Since 1970 the average length of service has increased to about 26 years.
Looks like the ‘wise’ Latina is a first-rate dumbass.
Let’s hope they grill Kagan hard.
I’m still a little surprised that the NRA spends all its time working from the top-down lobbyist angle (or, at least, appearing to), instead of working to spread at the individual level.
Countering “gun buybacks” with free firearms safety and usage training for local crime victims. Or whatever group is most “oppressed” in an area (say: minority females). Even if you only pick a couple of cities to really evangelize in, it would be interesting to see how crime statistics might shift.
The scariest thing about this ruling is, as you say, that the decision was 5-4. Imagine a headline “Supreme Court Rules 5-4 that First Amendment Applies to Newspapers”…. It seems we are only one heart attack or aneurysm away from complete tyranny….
BBB
Bbbeard, it is easy to imagine Supreme Court rules 4-5 against the 1st amendment.
“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.”
Each of those clauses has been restricted in some way (or multiple ways). That isn’t good at all, but we’re not a complete tyranny either.
Stealth justice Sotomayor has let the mask slip. Repubicans should not let Obama get away with it again, as he is trying with Kagan. If the Democrats are intent on packing the court with anti-gun justices, then let them do so openly and suffer the consequences in November.
Speaking of which, did the Elephants (really, it should be Rhinos, no?) grill Kagan on the issue of whether the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate Interstate Non-Commerce? Ha. Ha. Ha.