DC vs Heller

The supreme court recently ruled in the case of DC vs Heller. The case is considered a victory for gun rights. Was it? It is certainly a mixed bag.

First is the fact that is was a 5-4 decision. This means we are only 1 Supreme Court appointment away from a 4-5 decision. We have a Presidential election coming this year and the chances that the next president will appoint judges who can read and understand the Constitution is virtually zero.

Second, the facts were very narrow. Basically the court required DC to issue Heller a permit to keep a gun in his home. Anything more than that will require additional court cases.

Third, Justice Scalia writing for the majority was very clear in stating that the second amendment applies to individuals whether or not they are part of the organized militia. He and Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined in the most clear defense of the second amendment you can read. Check out this quote from page 34 of the Opinion of the Court.

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any
blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint
on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

Fourth, while clearly agreeing that the 2nd was an individual right, the court suggested that limits on that right could be constitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.

This ruling was a positive for gun rights and maybe more positives will follow.

Under the Constitution the Federal Government was absolutely prohibited from barring the keeping and bearing of arms. This would mean ownership and carrying of ANY type of weapons. Yes, that would include F-35s with Tomahawk missiles if you can afford it. Here is a quote from page 47 of the Courts Opinion.

The second amendment . . .
means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
92 U. S., at 553. States, we said, were free to
restrict or protect the right under their police powers. The
limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank
supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation.

On the other hand under the Constitution the Sovereign States could limit keeping and bearing of arms. So the 2nd is not a real protection. But remember Courts and laws are not the basis of our rights. According to the Declaration of Independence rights are given by GOD and therefore can only be taken away by GOD. For Government to attempt to take away a GOD given right is a usurpation of power that should never be allowed by anyone. Here is another quote from page 33 of the Opinion of the Court

Tucker elaborated on the Second Amendment:“This may be considered as the true palladium ofliberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible.