Gun Rights Preserved at Local Level

by Ryan on June 28, 2010

in Culture,History,Law,Politics

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment also applies to state and local guns laws.  The 5-4 decision in McDonald v. Chicago reiterated that you have the right to own a gun for use in protection of your home and/or property.  This decision was not intended to limit any bans on felons or the mentally ill which some states impose on their citizens.

However, four Supreme Court justices believed that one’s constitutional right to bear arms should not necessarily extend to the states, nor that an earlier decision, DC v. Heller (2008), should have prohibited localities from outright banning guns.  That’s very disturbing.  The Constitution is very clear on guns and the justice’s job is to merely interpret that meaning.  If they really don’t like guns, the Constitution has a way to deal with that:  Congress should pass, then the states should ratify, an amendment to change it.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz June 28, 2010 at 8:44 pm

Hi Ryan,

I ahve to disagree with you on the constitution (as d many inthe US).

The ammendment is poorly written and punctuated and, without any of the Founding Fathers to clarify, it’s only possible to interpret the ammendment accurding to one’s political position.

As an outsider, I would interpret it to mean that militia’s formed for the defence of the country have the right to bear arms. At a stretch, that all homeowners have the right to arms to defend themselve (stupid as most are killed or wounded with their own weapon).

One could argue that there is noting in the ammendment that gives the right to carry in public if there is a local ban..

Let’s face it, it’s all semantics and depends on the political position of the reader. While a right wing person, trained in, and with a licence to have firearms, I shudder at the though of the general population having the right to have them and the right to shoot to kill if they feel threatened.


Mike June 29, 2010 at 11:48 am

@rightonoz – Hi Oz:

Obviously I disagree with your thoughts for reasons stated over the years. But it’s important to point out that yesterday’s decision had nothing to do with the scope of the amendment’s substantive protections. The issue was whether the amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: