After Heller, almost inevitable. Sure. All the usual governmental caveats apply. But it’s lovely to imagine Mayor Daley throwing himself on the floor screaming and threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue. And knowing that it won’t do the poor, spoiled bully boy one itty-bitty bit of good.
While I certainly agree with you that this decision is better than one that allows States and local governments to completely nullify the Bill of Rights, it appears they have decided, as in Heller, that it is a privilege rather than a right. A privilege that can be controlled by both State and local laws for the benefit of communal safety as long as they are not completely outlawed. They also affirmed that while it is a “right” to keep arms, it is most certainly not a “right” to bear them in specific places a community or State decides to keep the Bill of Rights from applying.
I guess it is now a “Bill of Privileges”. Still better than it could have been if the Court had had one more “progressive” Judge.
I rec’d this from a WGEN reader and it state the situation very clearly, at least I think so. His comment to me about ‘not being infringed’ prompted me to respond we are dealing with folks who are UNHINGED and that is why we get all this anti-RKBA Pelosi (bullsh**)
I have one thing to say, which is out of both our Constitution’s Bill of Rights and from Webster’s Dictionary:
Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in- frinj
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break more at break
transitive verb 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrateintransitive verb : encroach used with on or upon
synonyms see trespass
In my opinion….
As a transitive verb:, and 2. obsolete: – Anything [ANYTHING]that obstructs, or violates ones acquisition and possession of said arms in way such way , should be considered an INFRINGEMENT.
Ordinances, regulations and such be damned! It is what it is and what it says!
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 more I read about the McDonald and Heller decisions the more upset I get. Jackie Hilly, the Executive Director of New Yorkers against Gun Violence, is quoted saying this:
All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put the Second Amendment in the context of all the other amendments… people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun. That’s clearly not true; your right can be restricted.
This decision also makes it clear that our rights are not natural and absolute. They are subject to the whims of the current members of the Supreme Court.
We might rephrase the Second Amendment this way:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the state governments, except by state laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.
Get ready for broad anti-gun measures requiring training courses, gun and/or ammunition registration, liability insurance, fingerprinting, guns to be kept unloaded, trigger locks, gun registries, waiting periods, background checks, the banning of “assault” weapons, high-capacity magazines and limitations on the type and amount of ammunition.
I guess if they got away restricting the first amendment (Free speech zones) why should we expect the rest of our unalienable rights not to be transformed into privileges by a politician’s pen.