26
Jun
08

Supremes affirm second amendment, still manage to get it wrong

Chris Manion reports on the lewrockwell.com blog that the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment (gee, thanks!) with the majority and minority from the Boumadiene decision on habeus corpus exactly reversed. Yet as unsettling as that is, what is really a worrying prospect is that both the majority and the minority have fundamentally flawed ideas about the scope (it is designed to constrain the feds only), the nature of the right, and the plain wording of the amendment;

“Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

You’re damn right it doesn’t, but it also doesn’t permit the prohibition of any weapon used for any non-criminal purpose, by any person, you ignorant jerk.

“In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Um, Justice Stevens, have you actually READ the document in question? What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

Thanks in part to the heroic efforts of Ron Paul and others, the average garbage collector has a better grasp of the constitution than these nine enshrined eminences.
Will someone please save us from this court?!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Guns.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

UPDATE: Our friend Stephan Kinsella disagrees; according to his reading, the thugs in the government of DC have plenary power, so the Second Amendment does not apply;

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html#more

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Supremes affirm second amendment, still manage to get it wrong”


  1. June 26, 2008 at 11:47 am

    They also can’t get their heads around the fact that the Constitution need not make a list of prohibitions to which the State must adhere. EVERYTHING is prohibited to it UNLESS the power is stated. These bastards always try to leave themselves a backdoor.

  2. 2 libertyvini
    June 26, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    What could (deliberately, in my view) confuse many people is the fact that DC, while having a local government, is still under the direct rule of the feds. Everywhere else still has state laws to contend with, unless they go on to misapply the 14th amendment. The best we could hope for is a renewed respect for the right in the state constitutions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: