If you heard extra fireworks yesterday, it may have been gun owners celebrating.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense and hunting.
Of course, the big problem was trying to interpret the 1791 to today’s laws. The amendment reads: “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.”
Historically the argument was that you must be part of an “organized militia” to bear guns. This ruling removes that question.
And for the bonus round…Look out D.C!
The court’s 5-4 ruling also struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns.
Fine, I suppose this is where you look for some witty insights to my mind. A "bio" of sorts. Here is the deal... I ride motorcycles, smoke cigars, golf, kayak, fly, race my car through the mountains, write (a lot), and travel extensively. I am almost old enough not to care what other people think about me...almost. ~Godfadr
The one thing that those who believe in the “militia-only” aspect fail to remember is that while the government was of the people, by the people and for the people, the word “people” is not synonymous with “government”, and to consider that even the founding fathers, many of their workers all carried firearms in a “non-regulated” militia-like fashion. They used them for hunting, they had them at side often, in order to defend themselves. They did not leave all their weapons at armies until their particular militia was called up to fight…
The intention of the common person to keep and bear arms was also found in and by writings of founding fathers prior to and after the creatin of the U.S. Constitution.
Have you also heard that the State of Oklahoma is petitioning for sovereignity under the 10th Amendment?
I can’t support this with any fact, however, I believe that a part of the decision for this amendment to allow the people to keep and bear arms was an allowance for guerilla warfare in case the U.S. was ever invaded.
There has always been the theory that allowing guns also keeps your own government in check. At first it seems odd, but if you look at dictatorships around the world, they would have had a hard time taking over if the citizens had the right to bear arms.
After re-reading this comment section, I realize my fingers used their right to express to show me as a horrible typist!
I think that this argument about whether or not the people have the right to bear arms would have remained completely absurd had we not made the move toward complete “professionalism” of the law enforcement/local defense structure. When it was openly recognized that every able-bodied man in a community had a duty to stand up for the defense of his community (in a militia, possie, or other designation), it was clear that a gun was necessary. Each man had to know how and when to use a weapon and when not to. Criminals knew that there was a higher risk to taking advantage of other people because the number of people that could stop them were much greater.
Somewhere along the line we bought the lie that we are better off trusting the maitenance of our safety and freedom to agents of the government, not realizing that by doing so, we are neither safe nor free.
It was refreshing to see that five of the justices on the Court affirmed that the Constitution says what it says. It is disheartening to know that our right of self-protection, in the form of owning a firearm no matter where we live within the bounds of the United States, came only 1 vote away from being stripped away.