Applause for the Supreme Court Gun Possession Ruling

Within the past hour, the Supreme Court issued a clear constitutional interpretation of the second amendment, ruling that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense and for hunting.

This was a historical ruling, being in U. S. history the first major pronouncement from the Supremes on gun rights. In a 5-4 ruling, the District of Columbia’s 32 year-old-ban was judged incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Yahoo News

While I personally dislike guns and am very uncomfortable with them, I believe one of American’s basic rights is to possess guns and to protect our homes and families by force if necessary. I sincerely pray to God that will never happen, but we must have the ability to be so prepared.

I applaud this Supreme Court ruling.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

My devotional blog is here.

.

10 thoughts on “Applause for the Supreme Court Gun Possession Ruling

  1. Mervi-

    Thanks for the article link. I read it, and in typical NY Times editorial fashion, it seems they want to brandish how the right thinks as evil, the left, as good sound judgement. And it isn’t really this article or this subject specifically, but pretty much across the board. If they would look at the overall statistics, they would find that those communities that encouraged gun ownership within the home for self defense, coupled with castle-doctrie laws, have seen a drop in crime not only for murder, but home invasion, robbery and the like.
    the NRA website can provide multiple links for these statistics, which have yet to be substantially disputed.

    Like

  2. renaissanceguy

    The point is not really whether we approve or disapprove of guns. It’s not about our wish to stop gun-related murders. It’s about the Constitution–and not just any part of the Constitution but the Bill of Rights.

    What the 5 justices decided was that the Bill of Rights is binding, and no matter what they or anyone else think about guns and gun ownership, they do not have the authority to dismantle the Bill of Rights. We should be glad. next it could be our right to attend church or to hold meetings or to write our opinions on this blog.

    Helen, if you think guns should be more restricted, or even banned, then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. That is the way that we as Americans agreed to decide things–not by nine justices throwing it out if they feel like it.

    Like

  3. I honestly don’t have a strong opinion on this subject… wrong, right, or indifferent… however, the simple (or not so simple) fact that we are becoming a police state scares me. What scares me more is that we are and have slowly allowed the government to watch us… monitor us… and track us. Scary. The Bible talks about a time when all people will be numbered… well people, the capability to number all people is here. I know this is off subject, but when we allow our goventment to become a police state it won’t be too hard to accept them numbering us.

    Like

  4. Oh absolutely I have to agree with your last statement. I believe people who have guns should go through a gun safety class, and with kids in the house, I think it is criminal not to teach them about gun safety and responsibility. While I did not grow up with guns in my household, my mother’s father was an avid target shooter, an occasional hunter, as well as being a collector and former member of the military back in WWII and Korea. All the children were taught proper respect and responsibility that comes with having firearms in the house. I personally, because my apartment is too small, and I have no way to secure them, keep my firearms at my parents’ house 2 hours away. This summer, I will begin teaching my 9 year old about firearm safety, and will show him how to shoot some targets. With a 4 1/2 yr old boy with me as well of course, the guns stay with my folks.

    Like

  5. I’m not trying to say abortion is moral; it isn’t. And it isn’t any more moral, if the child is deformed or a product of rape. I’m just saying I don’t see having guns in the home is moral either. I know guns don’t kill people; people kill people. And that automobiles are involved sometimes just as guns are involved sometimes. And I think people ought to have cars. So why not guns? It’s like question to myself?

    My main problem is that just as people have irresponsible sex, they also store guns in irresponsible ways, so that children sneak them out of the house and take them to school, which is an incredibly big deal that sometimes results in a lot of folks dead, which is even sadder than abortion.

    I have no problem with hunting or range practice. I have a problem with Columbine.

    Like

  6. I believe, if I remember my history correctly, it was one of the later ammendments that gave constitutional rights to women to have abortions on demand.
    However, proclaiming the right to pursue happiness I do know was not the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade, nor should it be.
    I believe the woman already practiced her right to pursue happiness within the very act that led to the pregnancy to begin with. The pregnancy is the natural consequence of sexual activity.
    And by using such an argument that the right to pursue happiness as valid, then we would in effect further eliminate consequence and responsibility for literally every decision we made. Prison would be reserved only for those who felt that they should go to prison, be it they felt a personal obligation to “pay their debt to society”, or that they merely thrived happily within the confines of such an environment.

    Like you Helen, I am against abortion, but I do not go out and protest it. However, it is my personal opinion that anyone who engages in consensual sexual relations that result in pregnancy should bear the responsibility for her actions. And the man involved as well should be held accountable. Adoption is always an option.
    The issue of a baby brought into the world because of rape, I would look first to the option of adoption, but I am still out on the abortion issue in said case.
    As for aborting the baby for medical purposes that not doing so will surely result in the mother’s and/or child-to-be’s death, I can see that one.
    But abortion as birth control…I can’t find valid reasoning behind it, morally, spiritualy or legally.

    Like

  7. Okay.

    “While I personally dislike abortion and am very uncomfortable with killing babies and would never have an abortion myself, I believe one of American’s basic rights is to pursue happiness, including the right to choose when and if we have children. I sincerely pray to God that will abortions will never happen, but we must have the ability to be so prepared, if the need arises.”

    You choose freedom over no guns, no abortion over freedom. Now what’s the difference? Is freedom important or not?

    No need to answer.

    Hi, Helen. I’m not sure if I am exactly understanding your question, but I’ll tackle the last one: “is freedom important or not?”

    Of course freedom is important. It’s important that as a country we maintain our second amendment rights and it’s important that babies not be killed in their mother’s womb or outside the womb.

    Like

  8. I am so glad you put this up. I wondered how the Heller case was proceeding. As a new member of the NRA, and a lifelong gun enthusiast, and belief of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms as
    an individual, this decision makes me very happy. Do you by chance know what the minority dissent reading has as reasoning for voting against Heller?

    Yes, Fox reports the dissent in this way:

    In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

    He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

    Rather weak arguments, I think. I am relieved that the court ruled in this way, for I fear there are many Americans who would not have taken well should they have judged otherwise. Many eyes were on the court this morning.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s