The Supreme Court is hearing a “gun” case for the first time since the 30s. I find this very interesting since I have been studying the Supreme Court and especially how it deals with our Bill of Rights which was added to our Constitution to protect “our rights”.
The case involves the ban on handguns Washington, DC has imposed for the last 30 years. Some lady filed suit claiming it is her right under the Second Amendment to own a handgun to protect herself in her own home. OK?
We have a number of issues here but an important one, I think, is that Washington, DC does NOT ban rifles, shotguns or any guns other than handguns so all these non-handguns could ostensibly be used to protect your home if you so desired. I will admit that handguns are smaller and easier to keep around the house and I suppose, for a woman, much easier to handle when aiming at an intruder although a shotgun would be the weapon of choice for a shaky female.
My point in this blog is NOT whether a person has a right to own a gun(s); it is about whether the Second Amendment gives him that right which has been claimed by the NRA, etc. for many years.
The Supreme Court has judges that believe the Constitution should be interpreted and read just like the writers intended (strict constructionists) and judges that believe the Constitution is a “living” document and should be “liberally” interpreted with current conditions in mind and not how things were when the document was written.
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” – that’s it folks!
Historians agree that the original intent was to give each state a means to protect themselves since the central / federal government may not have been, at that time, able to provide adequate security. Some historians say that this amendment could have been added to the Constitution as a means of Free States to protect themselves from an overzealous federal government?
A state militia, in those days, consisted of residents of the state that were usually required to have a weapon (gun) at home and to bring said weapon when an alarm went out from the state to muster and defend the state.
Now this is what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote it; every state has a right to defend itself through a “well regulated militia” not a bunch of yahoos with guns – kapish?
As time went on, state militias evolved into national guards like the Michigan National Guard, which were usually used when the governor of a state deemed necessary to protect the citizens of the state. The National Guard is well regulated by the state and uses weapons just like the federal military does – in essence, the citizen militia envisioned by the Second Amendment no longer exists; it is now a national guard made up of state citizens.
People who see the Second Amendment as a guarantee for Americans to own guns only read the part of the Second Amendment that they want “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. You may say that is “taking words out of context” which people have done with the Bible as well as other books throughout history and obviously, to this very day – BUT is that right?
Usually, if the Constitution does not address a specific issue, that issue is given over to the individual states to decide how to handle that specific issue. Since the Second Amendment obviously does NOT give individuals a right to bear arms but only “well regulated militias” – our National Guard – then the Supreme Court should say that they, as the interpreters of the Constitution, do not have a right to judge / decide whether individuals have a right to bear arms and send the issue to the states to decide.
The individual states may amend their constitutions to allow individuals to bear arms based on whatever rationale they want to use – protect the home is a good one.
I think the current Supreme Court members are too full of themselves to do the right and Constitutional thing to do – no – they want to be in the history books. The ironic thing about all this is that the conservative judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia, who usually are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution, now will liberally interpret the Constitution just to suite their personal preferences – what a bunch of horseshit if you ask me.
Do I think people should be allowed to own guns, even handguns? Well, I think the citizens of each state should decide that. I know other countries have a strict ban on handguns (because they can be easily concealed) and, they say, they have less armed crime than the U.S. does, well OK but Americans are different and that may not work here.
I do believe that guns that are not suitable for home protection or hunting but more suited for the commission of crimes, should be banned.
I hope you understand my Constitutional point – many in this country, obviously don’t.
The case involves the ban on handguns Washington, DC has imposed for the last 30 years. Some lady filed suit claiming it is her right under the Second Amendment to own a handgun to protect herself in her own home. OK?
We have a number of issues here but an important one, I think, is that Washington, DC does NOT ban rifles, shotguns or any guns other than handguns so all these non-handguns could ostensibly be used to protect your home if you so desired. I will admit that handguns are smaller and easier to keep around the house and I suppose, for a woman, much easier to handle when aiming at an intruder although a shotgun would be the weapon of choice for a shaky female.
My point in this blog is NOT whether a person has a right to own a gun(s); it is about whether the Second Amendment gives him that right which has been claimed by the NRA, etc. for many years.
The Supreme Court has judges that believe the Constitution should be interpreted and read just like the writers intended (strict constructionists) and judges that believe the Constitution is a “living” document and should be “liberally” interpreted with current conditions in mind and not how things were when the document was written.
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” – that’s it folks!
Historians agree that the original intent was to give each state a means to protect themselves since the central / federal government may not have been, at that time, able to provide adequate security. Some historians say that this amendment could have been added to the Constitution as a means of Free States to protect themselves from an overzealous federal government?
A state militia, in those days, consisted of residents of the state that were usually required to have a weapon (gun) at home and to bring said weapon when an alarm went out from the state to muster and defend the state.
Now this is what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote it; every state has a right to defend itself through a “well regulated militia” not a bunch of yahoos with guns – kapish?
As time went on, state militias evolved into national guards like the Michigan National Guard, which were usually used when the governor of a state deemed necessary to protect the citizens of the state. The National Guard is well regulated by the state and uses weapons just like the federal military does – in essence, the citizen militia envisioned by the Second Amendment no longer exists; it is now a national guard made up of state citizens.
People who see the Second Amendment as a guarantee for Americans to own guns only read the part of the Second Amendment that they want “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. You may say that is “taking words out of context” which people have done with the Bible as well as other books throughout history and obviously, to this very day – BUT is that right?
Usually, if the Constitution does not address a specific issue, that issue is given over to the individual states to decide how to handle that specific issue. Since the Second Amendment obviously does NOT give individuals a right to bear arms but only “well regulated militias” – our National Guard – then the Supreme Court should say that they, as the interpreters of the Constitution, do not have a right to judge / decide whether individuals have a right to bear arms and send the issue to the states to decide.
The individual states may amend their constitutions to allow individuals to bear arms based on whatever rationale they want to use – protect the home is a good one.
I think the current Supreme Court members are too full of themselves to do the right and Constitutional thing to do – no – they want to be in the history books. The ironic thing about all this is that the conservative judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia, who usually are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution, now will liberally interpret the Constitution just to suite their personal preferences – what a bunch of horseshit if you ask me.
Do I think people should be allowed to own guns, even handguns? Well, I think the citizens of each state should decide that. I know other countries have a strict ban on handguns (because they can be easily concealed) and, they say, they have less armed crime than the U.S. does, well OK but Americans are different and that may not work here.
I do believe that guns that are not suitable for home protection or hunting but more suited for the commission of crimes, should be banned.
I hope you understand my Constitutional point – many in this country, obviously don’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment