As soon as the ruling was released, I got a copy of it and started reading. For those of you that have never read a Supreme Court item, I’d recommend reading Heller and McDonald to start with…
The Heller decision (by a vote of 5 to 4) verified that the 2nd Amendment (Right To Keep And Bear Arms) is an INDIVIDUAL right. Just like the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The McDonald decision (also by a vote of 5 to 4) verified that the 2nd Amendment applies to all levels of government (just like the rest of the Bill of Rights) via the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It is very interesting to note that Clarence Thomas sided with the majority, but felt that they should have invoked the “privileges or immunities” clause. I agree that would have been an even stronger statement, and I am very impressed with his reasoning. I want to quote a few sections here…
The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only process before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. Moreover, this fiction is a particularly dangerous one. The one theme that links the Courts substantive due process precedents together ist heir lack of a guiding principle to distinguish fundamental rights that warrant protection from nonfundamental rights that do not. Todays decision illustrates the point. Replaying a debate that has endured from the inception ofthe Courts substantive due process jurisprudence, the dissents laud the flexibility in this Courts substantive due process doctrine, post, at 14 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); see post, at 68 (BREYER, J., dissenting), while the plural-ity makes yet another effort to impose principled restraints on its exercise, see ante, at 3341. But neither side argues that the meaning they attribute to the Due Process Clause was consistent with public understanding at the time of its ratification.
…
I cannot accept a theory of constitutional interpretation that rests on such tenuous footing. This Courts substantive due process framework fails to account for both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the history that led to its adoption, filling that gap with a jurisprudence devoid of a guiding principle. I believe the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment offers a superior alternative, and that a return to that meaning would allow this Court to enforce the rights the Fourteenth Amendment is designed to protect with greater clarity and predictability than the substantive due process framework has so far managed.
I acknowledge the volume of precedents that have been built upon the substantive due process framework, and I further acknowledge the importance of stare decisis to the stability of our Nations legal system. But stare decisis is only an adjunct of our duty as judges to decide by ourbest lights what the Constitution means. Planned Par-enthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 963 (1992) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). It is not an inexorable command. Lawrence, supra, at 577. Moreover, as judges, we interpret the Constitution one case or controversy at a time. The question presented in this case is not whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised, but only whether, and to what extent, a particular clause in the Constitution protects the particular right at issue here. With the inquiry appropriately narrowed, I believe this case presents an opportunity to reexamine, and begin the process of restoring, the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment agreed upon by those who ratified it.
I would encourage you to read his entire statement. I gained a new respect for Justice Thomas in reading his insights into this.
I am – however – once again dismayed that 4 of the Justices refused to simply do what was clearly and honestly the right thing and true to the meaning and intent of The Constitution. One of them used the term “insurrectionists” is his disertation against the ruling. If they persist in pushing an agenda that is clearly contrary to the intent and meaning of The Constitution, they may just create said “insurrectionists”.
With this decision, even as it stands with the Due Process clause invoked – The Constitution is stronger with this decision than it was the night before it was released.
For those of us in Utah, little will change. We have no weapons bans here. We have the State preemption clause forbidding local jurisdictions from making gun laws. We are in pretty good shape here, and things seem to improve with each legislative session.
For those in California, New York, Maryland, and other states with restrictive laws, there may now be the possibility of hope. I’m sure that we will see many lawsuits to change them, because those that are opposed to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t use the “common sense” that they have long spoken about. Common Sense would dictate a quick change of heart to them. Since they don’t listen to it, the courts of this nation will have to dictate these changes to them, at great cost and expense of time.
So let it begin.