The Supreme Court of the United States "ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership." (Source: The Washington Post; via: Memeorandum)
What the Supreme Court has done today is "incorporate" the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to restrict states from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Some libertarians are thrilled while others view the ruling as just another instance of Federal encroachment on state sovereignty.
The decision has broader ramifications as the GOP gears up for a public duel over Elena Kagan's confirmation the U.S. Supreme Court.
Libertarian perspectives for and against:
Jack Hunter, The Southern Avenger, recently argued that "the Supreme Court overturning Chicago's gun ban would damage the Constitution and increase the power of the federal government."
Allison Bricker of The Smoking Argus disagrees:
"While it is indeed true that, the 10th Amendment prohibits federal interference on state matters, the issue before the Supreme Court is a matter which is not simply confined to the realm of “community standards” or daily operations, instead it is a restriction upon the natural right of an individual to defend themselves against an attack upon their person.
As such, the usual mantra that the states existed prior to the Central Authority is in this case utterly immaterial, as the Natural Rights of the People existed prior to the several states, the federal government, and the Constitution itself in perpetuum."
Who's right? You decide.
W. E. Messamore, Editor in Chief
Articles | Author's Page