Another Step Back

We got where we were on the 2A by by allowing one small step at a time. Our first step back was the now wide spread concealed carry laws. Now the Big Court has taken us another step back toward the constitution.

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.

You can read the whole thing here.

Unfortunately they left the door open for very strict regulation that may be a defacto ban on firearms.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

It's upsetting to me that a couple of the so-called justices choose to twist this portion of the constitution to match how they wish it was, instead of how it is. If they had their way the entire constitution would just go away. That's what I've come to expect from the left.

Two or maybe three (I don't remember for sure) of the majority opinion are Bush appointees. That's one very big reason to choose a President wisely.