Chicago Tribune: Repeal the Second Amendment

[legion]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,2350076.story

I wonder if they would feel the same if the right to practice the First Amendment was suddenly limited?

Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.

•••

Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it's an anachronism.

Sometimes, I wish that the First Amendment said:

"A free press, being necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed."

I doubt we'd see arguments that only the press has the right to freedom of speech...

[pwd72s]

OREGONIAN lead editorial this morn:

Locked and loaded
The Supreme Court is right to affirm individual gun rights, but be prepared for endless court challengesFriday, June 27, 2008 The Oregonian
W ithin moments of the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gun rights, bullets flew. The National Rifle Association promised to fire away at gun regulations by filing lawsuits in cities nationwide. Then John McCain attacked Barack Obama as an anti-gun, unpatriotic elitist.

All this before high noon on the West Coast.

The court is right to affirm individual gun rights. But make no mistake: The court's majority of conservative activists deliberately thrust itself into the legislative arena and guaranteed a protracted constitutional fight over every kind of gun regulation, including assault-weapons bans.

Also, the court's ruling triggers a fierce and potentially explosive fight in the presidential race over gun rights and Supreme Court appointments. Based on McCain's early swipe at his Democratic opponent, this will get ugly fast.

The court ruled 5-4 Thursday that a longstanding ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., is overly broad and unconstitutional. The court also struck down the District of Columbia's storage laws for shotguns and rifles, saying that citizens shouldn't be required to use trigger locks or disassemble their weapons.

This was the Supreme Court's first major ruling on gun rights in nearly 70 years. It was also the court's most aggressive foray into Second Amendment politics in the nation's history.

The court was correct to define gun ownership as an individual right, rather than merely as a collective right to form militias. For one thing, the right of citizens to arm themselves against tyranny is firmly rooted in American history and cultural identity. For another, the United States is a rare country where citizens grant power to the government -- not the other way around.

The court was also correct to point out that these gun rights aren't absolute. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, the court didn't overrule "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."

On the surface, this ruling sounds like a mainstream affirmation of the status quo.

In the fine print, the court raises as many questions as it answers.

Does this ruling apply to state laws? What is the standard for a constitutional gun law? What kinds of mental illness? The Supreme Court has signaled its desire to legislate these issues from the bench, rather than leave them to elected officials.

Obama and McCain both say they believe in individual gun rights. Both have supported reasonable gun laws in the past. This ruling is an opportunity for them to discuss the root issues here: high crime rates, bolstered by illegal firearms, ineffective policing, inadequate schools and intergenerational poverty.

This would be a much more interesting conversation than the one we're about to get sucked into -- the one about the Pro-Gun Patriot versus the Anti-Gun Elitist.

[alf]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

The court was correct to define gun ownership as an individual right, rather than merely as a collective right to form militias. For one thing, the right of citizens to arm themselves against tyranny is firmly rooted in American history and cultural identity. For another, the United States is a rare country where citizens grant power to the government -- not the other way around.

That is why the 2nd Amendment is important to me...and I also enjoy IDPA matches

[Joeaksa]

Guess Chicago would really like to repeal the Constitution as well?

Daily wants to be the King of America next?

Jerk, after what he did to the airport South of town in the middle of the night. Hope that Karma bites him on the a$$ someday.

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Guess Chicago would really like to repeal the Constitution as well?

Daily wants to be the King of America next?

Jerk, after what he did to the airport South of town in the middle of the night. Hope that Karma bites him on the a$$ someday.

You are correct sir!! he's a *********, when I lived in WI I loved that airport..
That being said, I'm off to Chicago in the am, my sons have never seen it, plan on getting a big steak at Ditka's ( hope the coach will be there) and watching great cars in front of Gibsons ( and some scantily clad sweet young things as well),, great father/son bonding evening out!!

[red-beard]

I refuse to step foot in that city as long as I cannot carry a firearm.