The Pesky 2nd

“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.”

There’s the amendment.

Here’s the NYTImes:

This began two years ago, when the Supreme Court disregarded the plain words of the Second Amendment and overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, deciding that the amendment gave individuals in the district, not just militias, the right to bear arms. Proceeding from that flawed logic, the court has now said the amendment applies to all states and cities, rendering Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership unenforceable.

Ok – “plain words”? This has been argued for years whether the 2nd means individuals have the right or just militia. How can you call it “flawed logic” with 0 explanation for how your own logic runs? Especially when it’s contrary to the court and that’s what you’re writing about?

Then:

Once again, the court’s conservative majority imposed its selective reading of American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.

Isn’t that the court’s job? Ignore the specifics but go to the bottom line. Who cares how many people have been killed if you’re on the court. Your job is to interpret the constitution. If Congress has a problem with people being killed then there is a remedy. (change the constitution)

BUT until then – I’m pretty pleased that the Supreme Court is looking beyond the specifics of present day Chicago when it determines what the constitution means. I’m not from Chicago see.

I could write a more analytic column than the NYTimes editorialist AND appear to disagree with the court.

Advertisement