S.C.O.T.U.S. upholds 2nd Amendment and extends to States

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. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

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.”

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. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.

The Second Amendment stands firm with no meddling or changes. So important is the right to keep and bear arms to ensure the First Amendment remains intact. The Founding Fathers of the US were sensible, great men.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. “I don’t see how you can read — I don’t see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment…was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant.”

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.

Oh that we could have such a document here. Or even the same rights.

To celebrate such a victory here is a little video for my readers to enjoy.

Tagged:
  • peterwn

    This is a big problem with written constitutions. This ‘right’ to arms was appropriate in the days of Davy Crockett, the Wild West, etc, but is out of place in a modern civilized society. This sort of culture forces people to keep firearms in the house or when camping etc when some would feel extremely uncomfortable about this. The chances of accidents or misuse by mentally unstable people would also be a problem especially as I understand that the chances of accidential shootings is far greater than the firearm being used for genuine defence.

    Interestingly, NZ banks were allowed to keep pistols but gave this up in the 1960′s when a young bank officer decided to play Russian Roulette with obvious consequences.

    • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

      What a lot of crap you talk. Society is far more violent today in New Zealand than when the banks were allowed to have handguns. In fact the inability of the Police to protect the citizenry is probably going to lead, in short order, to people asking for the right to protect themselves be given back. There is one shop keeper in South Auckland at least who would be alive today had the citizenry been able to protect themselves rather than wait for the the police to timidly come out from behind their vehicles 20 minutes after he died.

      Go camping anywhere in the Kaimanawas and you will be less than 200m from firearms and guess what, there is no trouble. There is no such thing as a modern civilized society, if you believe that then come spend a day with me in South Auckland.

  • spiker

    A win for the good guys. I run a couple mags through my AR15 this afternoon just to help the Yanks celebrate. :-)

  • sideoiler

    Cant agree with you at all peterwn.
    The problem in this country is the lack of a written constitution.
    How long do you think it will be before freedom of speech is out of place in a modern civilized society, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, or freedom of travel
    The right to keep firearms does not force any one to keep fire arms at all, but enables those who wish to, to do it.

    Do you have a reference for your statement, “NZ banks were allowed to keep pistols but gave this up in the 1960’s “this is not so it was considerably latter than that.

  • belinda

    Great news for the people of the USA.. what a shame we don’t have similar rights here in New Zealand.

    When you’re a woman and you live by yourself with two small children, having the security of a gun next to the bed is a huge asset for peace of mind. I would be the first person to buy a Glock to defend my home and family.

    Back to reality I have to live at risk every day because although I’m allowed to defend myself, I am not allowed to have more firepower for my defence than the criminals have.

    Welcome to New Zealand.. the free buffett for criminals, burglars and rapists

  • belinda

    “There is one shop keeper in South Auck­land at least who would be alive today had the cit­i­zenry been able to pro­tect them­selves rather than wait for the the police to timidly come out from behind their vehi­cles 20 min­utes after he died.”

    and there is another shop keeper in Auckland who is alive today because he was able to protect himself … Greg Carvell..

    Get your head out of the sand peterwn

  • peterwn

    Whale. I have to agree. South Auckland unfortunately does not seem to be a civilized society, especially where phone numbers begin with 2.

  • grantman

    Good to see that good people can now defend themselves. All the handgun ban did was run the population through a ‘filter’ leaving the criminals with guns and the law abiding people without. And they thought that would make the city safer? Good grief. With that sort of clueless regulation you have to worry.

    We in NZ should have the same ability to defend ourselves. Why should criminals be allowed the advantage over the victim? Unacceptable.

  • peterwn

    Does NZ want a situation like that occurred in USA some years age. A believed B to be acting suspiciously and ordered B to ‘freeze.’ B did not (my response to A would have been to tell him to go forth and multiply). A pulled out a pistol and shot B who died. As far as I remember A got off on the basis of ‘self defence’ (the rule in USA would be essentially the same as in NZ).

    Was far as Whale’s comment “Go camp­ing any­where in the Kaimanawas and you will be less than 200m from firearms and guess what, there is no trou­ble” is concerned, there is unfortunately lots of trouble. Each year central North Island courts hear cases where hunters have accidentally shot their best mates and they have to spend big money on lawyers to get the violins out in the hope of a ‘wet bus ticket’ sentence.

  • sideoiler

    But peterwn your’e happy enough to drive a vehicle, and the road toll averages nearly 1 a day, if the govt was to restrict cars as they do firearms I have no doubt you’d be pissing and moaning, Whilst I’m not advocating a free for all, once you have satisfied the fit and proper person test that should be the end of the matter issue a liscense.

    “Each year central North Island courts hear cases where hunters have accidentally shot their best mates and they have to spend big money on lawyers”, each year more home owners die in accidents at home.

    “have to spend big money on lawyers”. I assume by that comment then you are happy that Greg Carvell had to pay a lawyer to represent him in a case that clearly didn’t need to go to court.
    While I don’t wish to be rude I suspect you are either a cop or a Lawyer. Still I would like to see a reference supporting your claim regarding guns in the banks

  • titanuranus

    Peter , what a magnificent example of the “strawman argument” you have posted .

    You don`t appear to understand that the certain types of firearms that are banned to the honest law abiding citizens of this country are freely available to the criminal element amongst us.
    While you are obviously in favour of the ,bringing a stick to a gunfight brigade I would prefer to have a wider choice of self defense weaponry available.
    In regards to hunting accidents,fuckwits will always have accidents ,no amount of legislation will alter that fact.
    Why is it in NZ,a large percentage of the population don`t understand the concept of freedom of choice?
    If you don`t feel comfortable owning a firearm don`t buy one ,simple really ,just don`t tell others that they can`t.

  • getreel

    “But peterwn your’e happy enough to drive a vehi­cle, and the road toll aver­ages nearly 1 a day, if the govt was to restrict cars as they do firearms I have no doubt you’d be piss­ing and moan­ing”
    Slight difference really Sideoiler. Cars are made for transport as a main function. Guns are made for Killin.

  • sideoiler

    @ getreel so guns are made for killin and they kill fewer people than something made for transport, then surely we should be looking to ban cars if your argument is logical.

  • titanuranus
  • peterwn

    Sideoiler – The ‘Russian Roulette’ incident (bank officer played it with bank revolver with foreseeable consequences) occurred in the 1960′s – it was reported in the Herald. AFAIK this precipitated the banks and / or police reviewing the practice of banks having pistols. I have not seen any reference to banks having pistols in recent times. The actual date when banks stopped having pistols is immaterial, it could be that each bank changed its policy at a different time.

    I know it all sounds so romantic – dashing young bank officer grabs pistol from vault and shoots bandits – but this is far removed from modern bank security practice.

  • buggert

    the romantic options sound soooo good, but man with gun says you go away. a idiot says why. god bless america