Blogs » Touch of Grey » Supreme Court on Threshold of Landmark Interpretation of 2nd Amendment

Subscribe


2
 
Supreme Court on Threshold of Landmark Interpretation of 2nd Amendment
By SugarMagnolia in Touch of Grey
March 18, 2008

So why isn't the Victoria Advocate reporting on this? Today, in a spirited discussion, the Supreme Court seemed divided 5 to 4 along the usual ideological lines while debating the meaning and application of the second amendment to our Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms.

Have 27 words ever endured such debate and divisiveness as these:

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.

The second amendment to our Constitution is at this moment undergoing scrutiny by the highest court in the land, and stands to have its very meaning either upheld or skewed by the actions the Supreme Court will take.

At issue is "whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia" (source and story here).  How did this issue finally make it to the Supreme Court after having been relatively untouched by the Federal government for the past 216 years? 

Washington D.C. has had a ban on handguns for many years now. The case that has now come before the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v Heller No. 07-290) is an appeal from Parker v District of Columbia 478F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In Parker, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit became the first Federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban is an unconstitutional infringement of the second amendment. The Supreme Court may take one of three actions: they may uphold the appeal, reverse the appeal, or remand the appeal back to the lower court. Whatever action taken will surely be historic and will be debated across the nation for many years to come.

How do you feel about this case now being heard by nine of our most highly respected Supreme Court justices in years? Do you think that without Sandra Day O'Connor to "swing" the vote, the outcome will be more predictable than it might have been if this had come before the Rehnquist court a decade ago? How do you feel about gun control?

I realize this is a lengthy blog, and my hats are off to those who have meandered through it. I believe this case, and so many others before our Supreme Court, is of great importance to the citizens of this country; this is why each and every individual vote counts so much. The Supreme Court and its justices are rarely spotlighted and emulated, yet their job of interpreting the very document that spells out the nation's laws affects the lives of every single citizen of the United States. What are your views on our Supreme Court, and the decisions they will make regarding the second amendment?

Comments


  • SugarMagnolia SugarMagnolia Report a ViolationReport a Violation
    permalink

    Thanks for your input, Kimi. You make some very valid points. The interesting thing about the very few amendments to the Constitution is that every one of them, except for one, expand the power of the people, reinforcing rights. The one that limits, or takes away a right or power is the 18th amendment, or Prohibition. We all know how that went, eventually requiring another amendment to repeal it. I am a pretty strict constitutionalist, and believe it is the Supreme Court's job to narrowly interpret it in the spirit in which it was intended. The Supreme Court over the decades has swayed between activist (Warren court comes to mind), and hands-off. Time will tell which model the Roberts court will follow. I think that if the second amendment is handled with great care, and as narrow an interpretation as possible is made, without violating the spirit of our Constitution and the rights handed down to us by our founding fathers, then the heavy hand of government will have been tempered somewhat.
    As far as "who to contact" to voice concerns, start with your local representative, and work your way up to the senators if necessary. This applies only to the legislative branch, however, and is really only useful with lawmakers and bill writers. The judicial branch takes outside arguments on cases, but the Supreme Court is the final and highest court, and only major players in those cases put before the Supreme Court have access. Then the decision belongs to the 9 justices alone, and is the final word. This is why I cannot stress enough the importance of a single vote. The President of the United States chooses the Supreme Court justices, subject of course to approval by the Senate, members of which are also elected. Bottom line, the law of the land and the way it is applied is ultimately up to you.

    March 20, 2008 at 12:48 a.m.

  • kimi kimi Report a ViolationReport a Violation
    permalink

    THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND COULD BE VERY DANGEROUS IF IT GOES THE WRONG WAY. I THINK HOWEVER IT'S GOOD THAT THIS WOMEN CHALENGED THIS LAW IN WASHINGTON. SINCE THEY TOOK THE GUNS AWAY FROM THE HONEST PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON CRIME HAS RISEN. BECAUSE WHEN YOU CRIMINILIZE OUR RITE TO PROTECT OURSELF THEN ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE THEM. AND THEN THEY HAVE FREE REIGHN. IF YOU AT LEAST PUT A QUESTION IN THEIR MIND THAT THEY MIGHT SHOULDN'T TRY ANYTHING BECAUSE THAT HOUSE MIGHT HAVE A GUN THEN IT MAKES THE BAD GUY THINK TWICEABOUT BREAKING IN OR WORSE. I KNOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE HURT THEMSELVES BY ACCIDENT WITH GUNS BUT MANY PEOPLE GET IN WRECKS TOO. THAT DOESN'T MEEN WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL OUR CARS TOO.WHEN YOU CONSIDER AS WELL IN RURAL COMMUNITIES MOST PROBUBLY MOST PEOPLE HAVE AT LEAST ONE GUN.AND THE PEOPLE ARE OFF TO THEMSELVES ON THE FARM. THIS WOULD IN MOST PEOPLES THINKING.BECAUSE THEY CAN'T CALL FOR HELP MAKE THEM MORE VULNRABLE TO CRIME THAN IF YOU HAD NEIGHBORS. BUT BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE A GUN UNLIKE IN WASHINGTON WHERE ITS AGAINST THE LAW. THE BAD GUY ISN'T GOING TO MESS WITH THE FARMER AS FAST AS SOMEONE THERE.
    BUT THE MAIN THING IS WHEN WE LOOK THE OTHER WAY AND DON'T QUESTION OUR BASIC RITES BEING TAKEN AWAY.AND START MESSING WITH THE CONSTITUTION THAN WE LOSE MORE AND MORE AND INSTEAD OF THIS BEING A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE IT BECOMES GOVERNMENT CONTROLED AND WHEN JUST A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE CAN SIT BACK AND THROW OUT OR ADD IN WHATEVER THEY DECIDE TO DICTATE TO US EVEN THROWING OUT THE CONSTITUTION YOU MIGHT AS WELL BRING HITLER BACK IN. REMEMBER HOW GOOD HIS IDEAS WERE ON LETTING THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. HE WAS A BIG PROMOTER OF TAKING THE GUNS OUT OF THE PEOPLES HANDS AND LETTING THE GOVERNMENT WHO KNOWS BEST MAKW ALL THE DECITIONS FOR YOU. REMEMBER HOW HE WAS GOING TO RELOCATE ALL THE JEWS AND TAKE CARE OF THEM. THEY HAD TO TURN IN THEIR GUNS AND BELONGINGS AND CHILDREN. THEY EVEN WELLCOMED THEM WITH MUSIC AND REFRESHMENTS AND A NICE SHOWER.
    BEWARE WHEN THE GOVENMENT STARTS TO TAKE OUT BITS AND PIECES OF OUR CONSTITUTION  IN REASONING THEY ARE PROTECTING THE PEOPLE. YOU MAY BE SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT BY ALLOWING THIS. EVEN IN THIS AND THEN LAST WEEK IN CALIFORNIA WITH THE HOME SCHOOLING PUT INTO QUESTION. THESE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. AND IF WE FALL ASLEEP THINKING THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ME YOU NEED TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MORE YOU TURN OVER TO SOMEONE ELSE THE MORE RITES YOU HAVE WILL BE TAKEN AWAY.
    I'M NOT VERY GOOD AT KNOWING WHO TO CALL ABOUT WHAT. DOES ANYONE OUT THERE KNOW WHO WE CAN CALL TO HAVE A VOICE ON THESE ISSUES?

    March 19, 2008 at 10:51 a.m.