Skip to content

SCOTUS on the second amendment

As you know, the Supremes have now said that the second amendment to the Constitution applies to Chicago.  Liberals are anguished.  Frankly, it amazes me that such cases ever make it to court.  Gun bans such as those enacted by Washington, D.C., and the city of Chicago should have been settled as summary judgments.  Judges should have said that the Constitution says “shall not be infringed,” and gun ban laws infringe, ergo, they violate the Constitution.  The end.

And, yes, it really is that obvious.  Even the most casual reading of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the “Bill of Rights,” shows that it’s mostly a list of things government is forbidden to do.  This makes sense as laws are usually written to describe what must not be done.  The Bill of Rights therefore describes what the government must not do.

In the first amendment, for example, the government must not abridge freedoms of the press and speech and is forbidden to pass a law that establishes an official religion.  Other amendments forbid the government from trying somebody twice for the same crime, or compelling a defendant to testify against himself, or searching people without a warrant, or quartering soldiers in private homes without compensation.  The government may not interfere with people who want to assemble peaceably, may not indict anyone for a serious crime unless a grand jury agrees to it first, may not impose cruel and unusual punishments.  On and on it goes like this.  The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from taking certain actions.

The second amendment in the bill of rights specifically forbids the government from “infringing” on the “right of the people to keep and to bear arms.”  Please get this straight: This amendment does not establish a right to keep and bear arms.  That is a right which you have by virtue of being a citizen of this country.  You don’t get this right from the government; therefore, the government has no authority to infringe upon it.

The city of Chicago infringed on that right.  Therefore, the law was struck down.  What’s disappointing is that it took anyone higher than the guy next door to see that.

When I dream, sometimes I fantasize that there are liberals who can distinguish between what the Constitution says and what they wish it says.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *