Firearms foes determined to restrict guns
July 05, 2010 4:26 PM
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week reconfirmed what gun rights advocates have long known, and that is that there is a fundamental right to possess firearms in America, a right protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The court had already affirmed that right in a case involving Washington, D.C. The justices overturned the District of Columbia city's ban on possession of handguns two years ago, However, there was a question as to whether the affirmation applied only to areas in federal jurisdiction or to other states and cities, too.
The decision last week overturning a Chicago handgun ban clarified that the gun right applies across the board to all jurisdictions,
While it is viewed as a significant victory by gun rights advocates, the reality is that foes of gun ownership are determined to continue to undermine the fundamental right provided in the Second Amendment.
The justices had hardly finished issuing their judgment when various city officials around the nation starting issuing pronouncements that even though they could no longer outlaw guns outright, they would find ways to severely limit and control ownership by individuals.
The justices provided an opening for these tactics by ruling there still could be room for reasonable regulations on gun ownership. But how does one define “reasonable”?
A right that is so restricted that it cannot be easily exercised is no right at all.
And that appears to be what gun foes in big cities like Chicago and New York are determined to do - observe Second Amendment rights in name only, not in reality.
There have no intention of truly following the obvious intention of the Supreme Court ruling, which is to let law-abiding Americans freely possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes.
That means we can look forward to more challenges of restrictive gun laws in the Supreme Court until there is full clarification on when a right is a right.
The court had already affirmed that right in a case involving Washington, D.C. The justices overturned the District of Columbia city's ban on possession of handguns two years ago, However, there was a question as to whether the affirmation applied only to areas in federal jurisdiction or to other states and cities, too.
The decision last week overturning a Chicago handgun ban clarified that the gun right applies across the board to all jurisdictions,
While it is viewed as a significant victory by gun rights advocates, the reality is that foes of gun ownership are determined to continue to undermine the fundamental right provided in the Second Amendment.
The justices had hardly finished issuing their judgment when various city officials around the nation starting issuing pronouncements that even though they could no longer outlaw guns outright, they would find ways to severely limit and control ownership by individuals.
The justices provided an opening for these tactics by ruling there still could be room for reasonable regulations on gun ownership. But how does one define “reasonable”?
A right that is so restricted that it cannot be easily exercised is no right at all.
And that appears to be what gun foes in big cities like Chicago and New York are determined to do - observe Second Amendment rights in name only, not in reality.
There have no intention of truly following the obvious intention of the Supreme Court ruling, which is to let law-abiding Americans freely possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes.
That means we can look forward to more challenges of restrictive gun laws in the Supreme Court until there is full clarification on when a right is a right.
