Chicago’s Mayor – You can now defend yourself…. until we can further prevent it

Calendar June 30, 2010 | Posted by Michael S. Langston

In a close, but what I believe is an ultimately correct decision, the Supreme Court upheld every citizens’ right to defend their homes (via Yahoo News here):

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court found Monday a Chicago handgun ban to be unconstitutional in a far-reaching ruling that makes it much harder for states and city governments to limit gun ownership.

In a major victory for gun rights activists, but a bitter blow for those seeking to maintain gun controls in the United States, Justice Samuel Alito said the constitution was clear on the right to bear arms for self-defense.

The 5-4 majority ruling extended to all cities and states the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark affirmation that Americans have theconstitutional right – as enshrined in the Second Amendment – to own weapons, including handguns….

This is not only a landmark decision as it marks the first SCOTUS decision that wasn’t limited in scope to the municipality the lawsuit was brought against, but for those who believe in freedom – it’s another step forward in a world where we seem to be giving up more and more freedoms.

However, like any freedom, when people think you might use that freedom for things they don’t agree with, they don’t think it’s a freedom anymore. And like any other petty tyrant, Mayor Daley is just going to make other arrangements to ensure Chicago residents don’t enjoy this freedom for long (via CSMonitor here):

…Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence….

I guess he forgot to finish his statement – “we want to protect residents from gun violence so long as they aren’t able to protect themselves”…

But either way – for now.  Chicago residents have the right they should have from birth – the right to defend themselves.

Category Categories: Legislation, SCOTUS  |  Tag Tags: , , , , , ,  |  Comments No Comments

SCOTUS Hearings

Calendar July 15, 2009 | Posted by Michael S. Langston

Wow… for a nominee to the Supreme Court, you would figure that ability to communicate ideas effectively would be a strong suit, but for Sotomayor it might be harder than most.

First – let’s give her some benefit of the doubt.  If someone followed any one of us around all day long asking questions, recording the answers, checking those answers against speeches and legal papers written in the last decade… well, let’s just say most of us are not consistent enough thinkers to handle this level of scrutiny.

Having said that, I still found one part of the recent political maneuvering interesting.  During some questioning in reference to the 2nd Amendment, Ms. Sotomayor said something funny (here):

The judge also stressed that she understood “how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans” and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.

It’s probably my sense of humor more than anything else, but anytime someone states to me, “But some of my best friends are X” it usually means they don’t really like X all that much.

& when a SCOTUS nominee does so – then it’s just pure gold.

On the serious side, for those who think the second amendment is as sacrosancct as the first amendment, this wasn’t the only disconcerting thing (even if amusing) that was said.  She went on to add that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the 2nd as it does to the rest of them.

During the exchange, which bounced back and forth for a few minutes, Sotomayor said: “Well, the government can remedy a social problem that it is identifying or a difficulty it’s identifying (as long as the law) reasonably seeks to achieve that result. In the end, it can’t be arbitrary and capricious.” (In other words, many anti-gun laws enacted by states might end up being perfectly constitutional, as long as they weren’t “arbitrary and capricious.”)

Of course the real gist of this statement will depend upon how she and others will judge the phrase “arbitrary and capricious”, but it seems on the face of it she seems to believe less highly in the 2nd amendment than the 1st.

Always wondered how some people could argue that the 1st amendment is the most important amendment , but the 2nd amendment was written by old guys who had no idea what things would look like today.

Either way you happen believe, most of what is going on is nothing more than political posturing of each side.  One is attempting to increase her credibility, the other side attempting to decrease her credibility, all the while both knowing it’s unlikely to change the eventual outcome.

So from that point of view – might as well pick out little quotes here and there and laugh.  It’s more rational than worrying about the future.

Category Categories: SCOTUS  |  Tag Tags: , , , ,  |  Comments No Comments