Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Supreme Court Affirms that Gun Ownership is a Fundamental Civil Right

Supreme Court Affirms that Gun Ownership is a Fundamental Civil Right

In a ruling even more definitive than 2008's Heller vs. US case, the Supreme Court has struck down Chicago's long-time ban on private ownership of handguns in a wide-reaching decision which decisively settles the issue of whether the Second Amendment is a universal protection of individual rights against infringement by state and local governments.

The decision was made on the basis of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to all citizens and against infringement by all levels of government. There has been an ongoing push to treat the 2nd Amendment as different from the other parts of the Bill of Rights, as applying to states or militias rather than individuals. This ruling may finally put that skewed viewpoint to rest.

Once again, the justices made the constitutional position on this issue absolutely clear, writing:

"Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present…The need for defense of self, family and property is most acute in the home…this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to "keep" and use for protection of one's home and family."

Meanwhile, Chicago's government continues to labor under the delusion that taking away gun rights can magically make people safer and Mayor Daley announced that his administration is "working to rewrite our ordinance in a reasonable and responsible way to protect Second Amendment rights and protect Chicagoans from gun violence." They may move to restrict gun rights instead of an outright ban, falling back on draconian licensing rules and restrictions of the buying and selling of guns, guaranteeing more business for the Supreme Court in the future.

About Dave Nalle

  • Zedd

    #43

    Mean young man are not match to a police force that is well armed.

    There are thugs in every culture. Until the 80′s before guns were prevalent in inner city communities, the murder rate was no where near what it is now. The jails were not brimming. There were no drive by stabbings or strangulations. A fifth of an entire generation of young men are wiped out. No husbands for girls no families to build from.

    Let’s not be silly.

    Obsession: I’m guessing once young White kids start filling coffins you wont understand the seriousness of this issue. You will be more so consumed with it as a romantic NOTION that you are not ready to give up. Do continue to tip toe through the tulips of your bubble filled reality with ferries sprinkling gold dust along your way and boot straps pulling themselves up at the mere sense of your presence.

  • Clavos

    Mean young man are not match to a police force that is well armed.

    Except that the police, as any honest veteran cop will tell you, do not prevent crime.

    They merely clean up the mess afterward.

  • STM

    “They merely clean up the mess afterward.”

    And for precisely that reason, most honest veteran cops (and a few dishonest ones too) I’ve met over the years don’t agree with unfettered access to firearms.

  • Clavos

    True, but then most (American) politicians aren’t supporters of campaign reform, either…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Stan, your veteran cops must not be American, because here in the US cops strongly support private gun ownership.

    Dave

  • STM

    Of course the ones I know aren’t American Dave … but I bet if you did a straw poll of cops in major US cities, you’d get a similar result.

    And I did make a distinction. I did say UNFETTERED access to firearms, not access to firearms with controls.

    The truth is, most cops ARE in favour of firearms controls, even if they’re in favour of gun ownership. Nothing wrong with gun ownership, either; it’s just that you’ve got 300 million legal ones floating around over there, and God knows how many illegal ones, controls in some states and not in others, etc.

    Makes for a bit of a smash-up, I reckon.

    Or at least a giant shooting gallery with human targets (or cougars, or wild and feral dogs :).

  • Zedd

    Clav,

    Thats the idea. There is less to clean up if there are less guns on the street.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Just as the guns in a rural area are part of the culture, guns are a part of the culture in a place like DC. They are the thing that makes it dangerous. They are what kill people. The culture is fed by gun-down after gun-down. One retaliation after another until it gun warfare becomes a norm; a defining feature of the culture.

    Mean glances or bad attitudes or bad intentions are not what has impacted the murder rates. Its people with bad intentions with guns.

  • Zedd

    Stan,

    Dont believe Dave. Police organizations are strongly against liberal gun rights. It is they that have to encounter the guns that are sold to private citizens, that are then stolen and used against them.

  • Zedd

    In Texas alone there were about 1000 Murders last year. The entire nation went mad on 9/11 and all havoc has taken place to insure that freedom is sustatined for Americans. What about the freedom of those Americans who are less fortunate and live in poor neighborhoods in our cities.

  • Doug Hunter

    “What about the freedom of those Americans who are less fortunate and live in poor neighborhoods in our cities.”

    What about it? They have the same freedoms as everyone else, they simply choose to use their freedom to make their immediate vicinity a miserable hellhole. Why should I have to live in a nanny police state because a small percentage of the population is incapable of handling even the most basic of freedoms?

  • druxxx

    Zedd
    How is it a good thing if only the police
    have guns?

    That screams of potential corruption
    that leads to a police state.
    I think the founding fathers were very opposed to this.

    Yes we need gun controls that prevent felons from easily getting guns, and maybe the common citizen does not need a .5 caliber machine gun, but other then that americans have a right to a gun.

  • Zedd

    druxxx

    You think we need guns to protect us from the police?

  • druxxx

    Zedd

    Possibly.
    Do you realize the chaos that could happen during a natural disaster?
    How about a pandemic?
    The police may not always be able to protect us. If society breaks down due to any number of reasons, those with the guns will rule.
    Any law to restrict gun ownership will only take them from the law abiding. Criminals and thugs will not voluntarily turn in their guns.
    And there is no way to completely get guns out of our society. If police are allowed to have guns, citizens that have never broken the law must be allowed to have them as well.
    You know crooked cops exist. Societal structures keeps them from gaining much control, but take away that structure and who knows what could happen. Especially if they are the only ones with guns.

    These scenarios may seem farfetched, but they are possible.
    And you still have not spoken to the fact that gun violence is still a menace in Chicago with the current ban. What good has it done? What is going to change when the ban is lifted?

    I’ll give you my solution. Legalize many of the drugs these gangs make their money on, and you take away their need for their guns. Prohibitions on the things people want to do rarely work. We only need to look back on the 20’s to confirm that.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    They have the same freedoms as everyone else, they simply choose to use their freedom to make their immediate vicinity a miserable hellhole.

    Way to encourage folks to better themselves, Doug.

  • John Wilson

    #47 – so Heller ‘clarified’ the militia clause???? Seems to me it obfuscated it.

    Anyway, it cleared up any confusion about the Roberts court being ‘originalist’ or ‘strict constructionist’ by showing that they are really rightwing activists. So much for ‘just calling balls and strikes’.

    It does signal the return of the SCOTUS to the rightist policies it has usually pursued throughout it’s history, from those good-old days when it prodigiously enforced slave owner rights.

    The poor and miserable and oppressed will have to look elsewhere for relief from the burdens imposed on them by a rigged legal and political system.