Supreme Court defined 2nd Amendment; only due process can change it

Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Text Size: A | A

Supreme Court defined 2nd Amendment; only due process can change it

The Constitution and the Supreme Court are being ignored. With all the media hype, pictures of scary-looking guns, [British journalist and television host] Piers Morgan’s rants and Gov. Cuomo’s Safe Act, what is being ignored here is the Constitution itself and the Supreme Court’s definition of the Second Amendment.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution are subject to change only through due process, that is the courts. Not through legislation, the Congress, the president or the governor. Like it or not, that’s how the system works, whether it’s the First, Second or 14th Amendment.

Until the Supreme Court heard D.C. v. Heller, there was no clear definition as to what the Second Amendment protected. The court ruled that individuals do in fact have the right own arms for lawful purposes including personal protection. It also held, citing U.S. v. Miller, that those arms protected are those in common use at the time. They didn’t say it couldn’t look scary or have a barrel shroud. It also said that these rights are not dependent on the individual being a member of a militia.

Pretty simple and easy to understand. It clarified for the first time that, yes, individuals do have the right to arm themselves and they can do it with anything they choose that is in common use at the time!

The big sticking point for the gun-control folks with this, is that modern sporting rifles, or assault weapons as they refer to them, with 20- or 30-round magazines, have been far and away the most popular-selling weapons for the last several years. There are literally millions of them out there. Accept the fact that it is in common use, as are 20- and 30-round magazines. And the argument that only the military or police should have them doesn’t jibe with the exclusion of an individual having to be in a militia.

If elected officials truly swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, then they need to stand up and do it. Until the Supreme Court hears and rules on a case and throws out D.C. v. Heller or U.S. v. Miller, then banning assault weapons through legislation won’t get off the ground, and it shouldn’t.

Congress should take a lesson from the anti-DWI folks here. They were smart enough to know you can’t ban cars or beer. What you can do is toughen up on existing laws and enforcement. Make people accountable and punish them when they are not. They made a real difference.

Neil Hasbrouck


Share story: print print email email facebook facebook reddit reddit


February 26, 2013
6:24 a.m.
Phils2008 says...

Neil, sad to say but facts are both a foreign concept and unacceptable to liberals. They have a fundamental belief that their rights and what they believe are rights supersede any that you have or assume you have. They will pick the parts of the Constitution they think takes care of them and trash the rest. That's why this President can swear to uphold the Constitution and yet completely ignore it. Liberals and most politicians have no remorse about placing their hand on a bible when sworn in and lying. The founding fathers thought enough about the right to keep and bear arms to make it the number two amendment. Interesting how the liberal elite (who do nothing) profess to know more then the people who bled to build a country.

February 26, 2013
8:51 a.m.
SnowGrinch says...

Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court in his Majority Opinion in the 2008 Heller case:
"LIKE MOST RIGHTS, THE RIGHT SECURED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UNLIMITED". From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
Scalia continued: "...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

February 27, 2013
6:31 a.m.
Phils2008 says...

SnowGrinch, your point is not lost in this conversation. Common sense says shoulder launched rockets, Bazookas, hand grenades, tanks etc are not the type of specialized weaponry that the ave citizen should possess. Im fairly certain that Scalia would argue that point. That does not mean he's leaving it up to weak kneed liberals to decide what we should defend ourselves with. If we're going to attack the 2nd amendment with a left wing meat clever then we should allow the right to do the same to the first. I would argue the first does not mean the left can own the press and they should be forced to print the truth. They should not be allowed to parrot the DNC talking points. They should not be allowed to trash George Bush and fawn over a President who is totally incompetent. The left abuses the 1st amendment daily to harm this country. Maybe we should look at number one before we dissect number two.

February 27, 2013
8:25 a.m.
SnowGrinch says...

Liberals, liberals liberals... what would you do with out LIBERALS to blame for every problem? The topic is the 2nd amendment, not the 1st... but if you want to include the 1st amendment and our countries "free press", then I suggest you aim your rant at Rupert Murdoch's 'Fox News' when you suggest (in your words)"the press should be forced to print the truth".
Back to the 2nd amendment, a large majority of Americans, including a majority of NRA members are in favor of 'Background Checks' for All Gun Sales. Keeping guns from terrorists, convicted felons and the mentally ill should be a priority for all Americans.

February 27, 2013
6:36 p.m.
Phils2008 says...

What would I do without liberals? Rejoice!

Log-in to post a comment.

columnists & blogs

Log into

Forgot Password?