Chi-Town Trib: “Repeal The 2nd Amendment”
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
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.
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words “keep and bear arms.”
But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.
They have claimed, Stevens wrote, “a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries.”
•••
It’s a relief that the majority didn’t go further in its policymaking on gun control.
The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago’s 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.
The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment “is not unlimited.” So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It did not stipulate what weapons are not “dangerous.”
Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.
We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city.
But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.
•••
Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.
We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.
Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, “forget about it.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Go to the article and check the comments, that writer is just getting clobbered with the almighty clue bat of logic and critical thinking - -the sworn enemy of liberalism, in other words.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pmhow does one wake up in the morning and decide they are high and mighty enough to repeal an amendment to the US constitution?
I will never, and i repeat never give up my guns. i refuse to become part of a society where the government feels they can run rough-shot over me with zero consequences. sorry, but we were given the right to bear arms for protection from criminals, hunting and to be part of the ultimate checks and balances that are government never becomes too powerful.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pmMy pursuit of happiness is getting tougher and tougher.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pmThey’re just afraid a criminal, maybe even one of their preferred repeat offender or early release class, might be killed by a “people”.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pmDon’t worry Chicago. They can still vote.
My buddy in Maywood (who just reported to SD MCRD, on June 9), told me who shitty gun laws are under Daley’s iron fist.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pmThat Mateba .357 Magnum looks similar to Deckard’s hand gun in the movie Blade Runner.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pmThe Second Amendment is not just a RIGHT, it is also a responsibility. The amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that the other rights in the Bill of Rights were not repealed.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pmOur founders had just succeeded from an over bearing form of government that gave the citizens very little freedom or rights if they were not wealthy. Understanding this, our founders were bright enough to understand that even the best form of government can become corrupted; and the only way that the citizenry would be able to take back their country they would have to be armed.
All of the powers of government were given to the individual states. The only things that they states cannot do is violate our God given Constitutional Rights.
To many people are scared of the responsibility of being armed.
“It is easy to say what could I do?” when you hear your neighbors door get kicked in and screams as shots are fired when you have no firearm.
It is hard to do the right thing, grab your equalizer and go across the street to sort out whatever the fuck is going on. These people would not risk it were there own asses on the line, having the courage to put themselves in harms way for there community and neighbors… Not going to happen.
Instead of being called out as the cowards that they are they would seek to deprive everyone of the right to be self-reliant and good neighbors, simply because they dont have it in them. Selfishness of the highest order.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pmNearly all of the people I hear discussing this topic agree with the individual right and some are even BHO supporters. Those that are truely against it are coughing up the ‘fact’ that the 2nd Admendment is ‘Widely’ accepted (in who’s fucking circle) as a ‘Collective Right’.
I really don’t know where these so-called HIGHLY Educated individuals get their intel…..let alone where they have the gall to suggest repealing the 2nd Admendment. If they can repeal the 2nd Admendment then why not the 1st Admendment so we don’t have to look at Male on Male bonding, Gay Parades, Artist whom use shit as an expression of art? Hell why not the entire Bill of Rights?
Let them try…..the result will be a Civil War
June 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pmThis is an example of unbridled arrogance that is so common among main stream media pundits. This silly pathetic little reporter seems to think that he is so brilliant to have correctly read the minds and intents of the founders. The founders feared governments that disarmed societies and the citizenry as England attempted to do during colonial times. His complete unwillingness to accept factual history is breathtaking. He in all likelihood is nothing more than a closet socialist who would like to the state supreme power, we should even skip these silly things called elections. Who needs em, the populace is to stupid anyway.
In my life experiences with rare exception reporters are some of the most ill-educated uninformed stupid people around and all the while masquerading as experts of everything.
Thank God for the internet and talk radio.
June 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pmMy pursuit of happiness included taking the wife and kids out shooting yesterday: archery, shotgun, handgun and rifle.
It was a beautiful day, and I know that my daughter and wife will make an intruder’s day short and unpleasant if one attempts to invade my house the next time I’m deployed.
Liberalites can kiss my Army-issued ass.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pmClearly stated, any successful attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would result in a new civil war. I would be part of it (on the well-armed side I might add)…
June 30th, 2008 at 4:11 amand then they wonder why thier circulation is crippling them.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:26 am