The Second Amendment Means What It Says

Bravo to the Supreme Court majority that ruled in support of the Second Amendment.  This decision, along with Senator Obama's seeming inclination to support the FISA compromise, has Leftists shaking their fists in rage and indignation.

I'm no scholar of the Court, but it appears to me that the way the decision was rendered was in keeping with the practice by the Roberts Court of issuing rulings as narrowly as possible:

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns. In a footnote, Scalia said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying it to the states, was “a question not presented by this case.” But the footnote said decisions in 1886 and 1894 had reaffirmed that the Amendment “applies only to the Federal Government.” Whether the Court will reopen that issue thus will depend upon future cases.

There were a host of other related issues on which the majority might have opined, but chose not to.

Meanwhile, back home, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley issued a swift condemnation of the decision, which threatens Chicago's gun ban.  For good measure, Da Mayor threw in a bizarre class warfare reference that I can't say I completely understand:

Daley said the Supreme Court decision, by allowing guns in city streets but still banning them in the halls of federal power, further widens the gap between the country's elite and the common people.

"This decision really places those who are rich and those who are in power [to] always feel safe," Daley said. "Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying."

This was a case to determine the constitutionality of a prohibition against the possession of handguns within an individual's home.  This isn't a question of where one can conceal and carry.  And it's not like people in Chicago, particularly the criminal element, have been exactly obeying the current gun ordinance.  Furthermore, an individual is no more empowered to walk into a mall with a gun, based on this decision, then they are the U.S. Capitol Building.

Daley also suggested that the City might find a way to work around a potential reversal of the Chicago gun ban by drastically increasing insurance requirements on gun owners.

Comments

[TexasFred]

We now have a right to own guns?? Well, isn’t that special?!?!

It seems to me that right has been in effect ever since the 2nd amendment was written. Many anti-gun lobbies have tried their best to interpret it otherwise, and constitutional scholars have been trying to tell them that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution was exactly what is read, word for word, because when you get right down to it, we ARE a militia if this nation comes under attack.

In 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. Naval forces at Pearl Harbor, there was a serious reason they attacked where they did, and not on the west coast of this nation. They didn’t fear our military, they feared the ARMED U.S. citizen and the insurgency that they were certain they would face.

We, The People are the very reason that no foreign power has even tried to invade this nation, we always have been, we always will be, by God, lets keep it that way.

All I can tell you fine folks is this, if you have em, secure em, if you don’t have em, you’d be well advised to buy a few, become highly proficient in their use and invest in precious metals, brass, copper, lead, things of that nature...

You never know when they might change their minds...