Read It and Weep for Joy
By Erick Posted in Law — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of ex- tremely unpopular and wrongheaded views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | All hail the steadfastness of the Constitutional Law Scholar! [Updated. Bumped.] — Comments (18) »
Read It and Weep for Joy 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...the riots of 1967, in places like Watts, Detroit, and Newark, after trying to wend one's way home at 3:00 AM through the smoke, through the roving bands of thugs randomly crossing the highways, at least this year, the events following the November election may be different, at least for those living in DC.
For those in DC at least, the opportunity will be there for the good guys to be armed, for the good guys to be waiting, for the good guys to be prepared.
I'm completely alarmed that a decision which does nothing more than confirm the right to have a gun IN OUR HOMES for the defense of our own families and property was only upheld by a 5-4 vote.
To my mind, this demonstrates the extreme precariousness of our gun rights with the court, and bodes badly for what might happen if and when Obama starts making appointments. The decision seems to leave the door completely open to making it illegal to have/carry a gun outside of your house, for instance. Which is undoubtedly how DC will interpret it.