Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew

The fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right is indisputable except to lefties who have trouble understanding what the words “The People” and “shall not be infringed” mean. These are the same folks who refuse to believe in individual rights even though the Founders clearly stated such in their writings.

The issue changed to one of applicability to the states once the left lost its battle against individual rights. Then the issue became, well sure it applied in DC but that is not a state. It does not apply to the states.

The SCOTUS cleared that all up today with a decision that overturned a lower court ruling and remanded the issue back. The SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states and that is because of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a long time the Fourteenth was not considered to apply to the states but that changed a half century or so ago and decisions have been reached that made the Bill of Rights (with exceptions to some portions) apply to the states. This idea is what allowed abortion to become legal and forced the states to comply. If the rights spelled out in the Constitution did not apply to the states then the Court could not have ruled that abortion was legal because it would be a federal, and only a federal, issue. This ignore the fact that abortion is not a right and is indicated only because it is “settled” law where the right was somehow found.

The Second was never considered though thinking people knew that it was included in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Which, as an aside, means the Arizona cannot violate Due Process since illegals are NOT citizens of the United States. But that is an issue for another time.

Interestingly but not surprising, gun grabbers are vowing to basically ignore the ruling issued today. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed that his city will enact a new law soon that will prevent people from getting guns. This amounts to ignoring the law and is typical for Alinsky progressives. If the courts don’t rule your way then just ignore them. After all, this is what the Obama regime is doing with the drilling moratorium. They have vowed to ignore the court and issue a new moratorium.

How long will they do this before WE THE PEOPLE, decide to ignore the rules they come up with?

As for Daley, he is a first class slug and a hypocrite. While Daley does not believe that the people should be allowed to have guns, his aldermen are allowed to carry them. Richard Daley has about a dozen body guards on his detail and all of them are armed. Why is it that a person who works for the people of Chicago can have armed guards to protect him but will not allow the people to be armed to protect themselves.

No politician is any more important than the lowest in our society because even that person is the employer of the politician. I have little problem with presidents having armed security. Our enemies would love to attack a president and kill him. Other politicians are not that important and their demise would not cause turmoil in this country.

Think about it. If Richard Daley was killed by a would be criminal, would Chicago be in turmoil? No, they would replace him with another corrupt politician and keep on going. But Daley does not have to worry about that because he deems himself more important than the people who pay his salary. He is so against the people for whom he works that he will enact a law to keep people from getting guns because he knows better than our Founders, our Supreme Court and YOU.

Daley has no worries because his armed guards go with him even when he travels out of state. One of Daley’s armed guards caught an escaped criminal near the family vacation spot in Michigan while Hizzoner and the family were there. If you or I had been there we might well have been victims of the criminal.

I have a real problem with people like Daley, politicians who feel they are more important than the average folks and who deserve more protection. And the people are not even asking for taxpayer funded security. All we want is the ability to defend ourselves. This goes for people like Barack Obama who would love to ban guns and put more people in danger because average citizens are much more likely to be victims of crime than most politicians, particularly a president.

The Supreme Court put an end to the idea that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states today and it should be as sacrosanct to liberals as the issue of abortion. If it is settled law then let it be settled and let the people have their guns.

The opinion is a good read and in it Justice Scalia excoriates Justice Stevens as well he should. Stevens (and Breyer) ignore US history and the words of the Founders in their opinion and rely on the actions of other nations as well as their liberal views. Even though the facts are completely spelled out with historical references as to what keeping and bearing arms meant (and still means), these two ignored the facts and presented the progressive view. Justices should provide a legal view, not a political one.

How nice for the dress down of Stevens to be in the record for all time and to be issued on his last day on the Court. As Scalia put it (after destroying Stevens’ arguments):

In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

While today marks a victory for Americans and for freedom one thing is overshadowed. There are four Justices who voted against the Constitution and against the long history of this matter. They voted with the legacy of the Democrats in the south who made gun control laws that applied to blacks in order to control them.

These progressive liberals perpetuate that desire to enslave the citizenry in this nation. And this time they want to enslave all of us, regardless of color.

One last note. Any politician who is in favor of gun control and/or denies people the right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to own or carry a gun and should NOT receive armed guards.

If you believe that there should be NO guns then there can be none for you. That goes for Obama, Daley and all the other hypocrites who think they are more important than we who employ them.

UPDATE: After the Heller decision Mayor Daley predicted all hell would break loose. That has not happened and gun crime in DC has dropped to pre gun ban levels.

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

18 Responses to “Supreme Court Decides What We Already Knew”

  1. Adam says:

    I’m fine with the ruling. Just remember this part:

    We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carryingof firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” … We repeat those assurances here.

    This ruling is still no friend to those who see any restriction or limit to gun ownership as an “infringement” on the 2nd.

    Chicago calling for re-writing it’s law to adjust for this ruling is not ignoring it in any way and that’s a silly thing to suggest. The article you link says the same thing for Washington DC after the ban was struck down.

    After SCOTUS eliminated the D.C. ban, the city put in place dozens of regulations surrounding handgun ownership. Prospective gun owners in D.C. now are required to take training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range and several hours in a classroom learning about gun safety. They also must pass a 20-question test based on D.C.’s firearm laws.

    All of those things are in line with the SCOTUS and they are not simply ignoring it in any sense of the word.

    • Big Dog says:

      Of course you are incorrect. No one suggests that the mentally ill or criminals should be allowed to own or carry weapons and private businesses as well as government buildings can be made off limits for guns. This is the case already. It is a federal crime to carry a weapon on an aircraft, and into federal buildings as well as into schools and state government buildings.

      The ruling does not allow infringement as in saying that you can only have agun on Wednesday and other things designed to impede people. Daley said that his law will keep people from getting guns and that is against the ruling.

      As for the DC restrictions, one will be subject to court action (at least one) and that is the $500 fee to register a firearm. If we had to pay a fee to exercise any other right the liberals would go nuts. Making people take a class or take a test on the laws is not a problem. In my state there is such a requirement (waived for military and veterans) and people can do it on line. Where my state screws up is it will only allow people to carry if they can demonstrate a need (assaults, threats, carry valuables) and this is an infringement. There are no such infringements on other rights.

      Imagine how people would feel if, as an individual, you had to pay $500 to peacefully assemble…

      The ruling, once and for all, indicates that the Second is applicable to the states. More guns, less crime as the linked article shows about DC.

      But like I said Adam, ANY politician who is opposed to average citizens having guns or carrying them MUST be denied the ability to carry and cannot have armed security. Which California lib has a permit to carry and is opposed to others in California (and the nation) doing the same? Is it Boxer or Feinstein?

      Like I sadi, the DC things you list might be OK but the $500 to register a gun is NOT. Also, Chicago (which is what we are discussing) is intent on keeping ANYONE from getting a gun. Daley said as much in the article. You should read it.

      How is his gun control working BTW? 50 people shot last weekends by the guns that do not exist and that people are not allowed to have.

      • Adam says:

        “Also, Chicago (which is what we are discussing) is intent on keeping ANYONE from getting a gun. Daley said as much in the article. You should read it.”

        Feel free to find me the quote backing that up in the article.

        • Big Dog says:

          Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago.

          “We’ll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon,” Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

          “As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops,” Daley said. “We are a country of laws not a nation of guns.”

          Laws to make it difficult are infringement and this is what his original statements were, making it difficult which turned into a ban because even though there is not a technical ban on fiorearms in Chicago the laws are so restrictive as to make it all but impossible (Daley’s definition of difficult) to get one.

          He has stated what he wants and he is intent on doing it. progressives do not follow the law when it disagrees with what they want.

    • Big Dog says:

      Commercial sales is regulated under commerce, not the Second. The other things listed are not a problem with law abiding citizens. Most places you buy a gun offer classes. There are plenty of NRA instructors out there to teach.

      • Adam says:

        “Of course you are incorrect.”

        Am I? So we’re all in total agreement then than gun control as a whole is not an infringement of the 2nd? Good.

        • Big Dog says:

          It is not gun control for government and private industry to say you may or may not take a gun in their building. Gun control is saying I can’t have a gun in my own home or that I can’t carry one if I have no disqualifying items.

          Do you think a criminal should be allowed to vote? If so should he also be allowed to own a gun?

          You seem to call it control to regulate and this is not the case unless the regulations becaome an infringement. Keeping guns away from schools, courhouses, and away from the mentally ill or criminals is not gun control. Keeping them away from law abiding citizens is.

          You obviously do not understand the difference between a regulation and gun control.

          Is it speech control to say you can’t yell fire in a movie theatre?

        • Adam says:

          “You obviously do not understand the difference between a regulation and gun control.”

          No, I understand the difference. I just find it funny how your side often blurs that line to attack my side. But I digress…

  2. Adam says:

    Also, I love in the last article you link:

    Yet, if over 70,000 armed citizens can produce 26 fewer murders and 375 violent crimes, imagine what can be accomplished if even more citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

    Notice this whole argument relies on a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. No evidence is presented or even cited as to how the drop in crime relates to the Heller ruling. It is as likely that the different restrictions following the ruling lead to the decrease in gun violence as it is that it was the Heller ruling alone. In the absence of evidence we can conclude neither…not that Lott cares though.

    • Big Dog says:

      No, it is not AS likely since the restrictions before the ruling were much more strict. The restrictions you cite are less restrictive than what was in place before so this is pure pablum on your part.

      However, I like how you say that this is not shown but you and your ilk would make this very claim in reverse. If Chicago had an extremely low gun crime rate you would claim it is because of gun control. This is what Brady does when it twists information to meet its agenda. There is no absolute way to show that the ruling made the difference but the ancedotal evidence is there. In places where there is less strict gun control there are fewer gun crimes. We can absolutely show gun control does not work. If people use guns to commit crimes in places where they are not allowed to own guns then the control did not work.

      Lott does a great deal of research and his book has a lot of well documented information. But I ask you, if DC started the gun ban and gun crimes went up then it is obvious gun control did not work and after all those years the ruling is made and gun crime goes down then it is easy to see that people being allowed to own guns (and the increased legal ownership) caused the decrease. Especially since the “restrictions” are less strict than what was in place. You see, and here is where you might have a problem, The people who were required to follow the new rules were the ones obeying the laws to begin with. The criminals committing the crimes will not follow them. They now know though that there are more law abiding armed people out there.

      • Adam says:

        “If Chicago had an extremely low gun crime rate you would claim it is because of gun control.”

        I would say that only if I had evidence to suggest that was the cause.

        “…but the anecdotal evidence is there.”

        Finally you admit to the weakness of your argument though you still haven’t quite come to terms with how useless anecdotal evidence is in drawing firm conclusions.

        “But I ask you, if DC started the gun ban and gun crimes went up then it is obvious gun control did not work and after all those years the ruling is made and gun crime goes down then it is easy to see that people being allowed to own guns (and the increased legal ownership) caused the decrease.””

        Still wrong and still a logical fallacy no matter how your rephrase it. We live in a complex society and crime rates are determined by a number of variables. Gun control is just one of them. You need evidence to back up that conclusion.

        As a side note, that is similar to your attack on the stimulus. You said that since unemployment went up under the stimulus then clearly the stimulus did not work. I believe you have even at one time concluded the stimulus made it worse. Yet, in the case of the stimulus that idea is not supported by the conclusions of many major economic research groups…all of which you refuse to accept the legitimacy of, of course.

        • Big Dog says:

          The only time you need evidence is when it is someone else’s point. You are content on holding absolute things like blood for oil or the DSM. Lott’s book has the data and it includes the “complex” crime numbers.

          Obviously, having 50 shootings in one weekend when guns are banned is evidence that the gun ban does not work.

          There are plenty of people who say the stimulus did not work. You use your same logical fallacy (and cooked saved jobs) as your justification.

          More guns, less crime. It has always been true. Remember, Democrats imposed gun bans on blacks and then killed them just as Hitler did with the Jews. That is fact and there is no ancedotal or logical fallacy there.

        • Adam says:

          “The only time you need evidence is when it is someone else’s point.”

          Maybe sometime in the past and sometime in the future I’ll argue without factual basis. Feel free to call me on it when iot happens but don’t use excuse that today to avoid presenting evidence to back up your opinion.

          “There are plenty of people who say the stimulus did not work.”

          Sure, people like yourself. Informed people who actually know the goals of the stimulus understand that the stimulus was successful in some ways and a fell short in others but in no way was it a failure.

          “Obviously, having 50 shootings in one weekend when guns are banned is evidence that the gun ban does not work.”

          The stimulus is a good example here still since apparently to be successful in your mind gun laws and stimulus packages have to not only meet your unrealistic expectations but in no way fall short or else they’re dismal failures.

          “You use your same logical fallacy (and cooked saved jobs) as your justification.”

          Sorry, but you’d need to point out an example of me using post hoc for justification of the stimulus.

          “Remember, Democrats imposed gun bans on blacks and then killed them just as Hitler did with the Jews.”

          Why am I not surprised? Conservatives always end up on the wrong side of history.

  3. There is no need to explain the meaning. The Bill of Rights was clearly and precisely written

  4. Big Dog says:

    Excellent article on the fallacy of gun control.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Neither Hitler not the Democrats who did this were conservatives.

    Liberals are the racists. You would have to see the history of liberal(and its variations) and conservative to see this.

    There is no post hoc here. The reality is there.

    And many economists do not think the stimulus did what it was sold to do and think it was a waste of money.

    Adam, please do not try to play Darrel. He is good at pretending to be superior. You, not so much. You are part of a failed ideology that looks to have government run lives. You do not understand gun ownership or the Second Amendment but would scream bloody murder if a state put a limit on your free speech, like say not allowing you to burn a Flag.

    There is a question, can a state impose Flag control by not allowing someone to burn a Flag? Could they say that criminals can’t burn a Flag and neither can a mentally ill person?

    • Adam says:

      “Neither Hitler not the Democrats who did this were conservatives.”

      Still re-writing history, I see.

      “And many economists do not think the stimulus did what it was sold to do and think it was a waste of money.”

      Sure. Some folks believe evolution is bunk as well. Some folks believe we faked the moon landing. Some folks believe bombs blew up the WTC. All are equally silly and without factual basis.

      “Adam, please do not try to play Darrel.”

      Sorry. I can only be me. If calling into question your facts makes me like Darrel then I can’t help that.

      “There is a question, can a state impose Flag control by not allowing someone to burn a Flag?”

      That’s a silly question. There are many restrictions on how, when and where one can burn a flag. I don’t see your point.

      • Blake says:

        No, it is NOT re-writing history, it is correcting the lies all the liberal idiot teachers tried to teach us in the past- and that is a full time job, because you progressives have been more entrenched than a tick. It’s gonna take a real hot cigarette to burn the progressive “ticks” off, but that is something we must do.