One For The Good Guys

From GunReports.com : Supreme Court Ruling Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five-justice majority, saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner." 

Yes, this is a win for the Constitution and individual liberties, but it's important - and scary - to note that the vote was 5-4. That means four count 'em four sitting Supreme Court justices believe that the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Bill of Rights are applicable only at the federal level, and can be overridden by the states.  

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states.

...

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

In a previous post I pointed out Ginsburg's belief that interpretation of U.S. law should be guided by laws of other countries (that post referred to this article). Well, here's a news flash for her: the notion is not that we should be in compliance with other "free societies," but rather that this is a right guaranteed to We the People by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Whatever other countries do is irrelevant. I don't know why Ginsberg has this compulsion to be in lockstep with other nations, but that's a dangerous and erroneous perspective for a United States repeat United States Supreme Court justice to have. If she believes that strongly in the rule of international law then she should resign and go to work for the Hague or the U.N. 

Here's a thought exercise. Go through the arguments and ruling in this case and substitute "First Amendment" for "Second Amendment." Is there anyone who seriously thinks the justices' votes and opinions would remain unchanged?

Bottom line - one in the win column for We the People, accompanied by a reminder why it is so critical to elect a president who understands and supports the Constitution. After all, the four commie pinko liberals who opposed this ruling were appointed by mistakes from our past (and one from the present).