“The Supreme Court has made it
impossible to cure America’s gun violence epidemic” this sentence leads
into an excellent article and analysis of gun violence in the U.S. from VOX with this article headline:
“America’s unique, enduring gun problem, explained”
In 2008, the Supreme Court effectively wrote NRA CEO Wayne
LaPierre’s “good guy with a gun” theory into the Constitution.
The Court’s 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
was the first Supreme Court decision in American history to hold that the
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. But it also went much further than that.
Heller held that one of the
primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of individuals
— good guys with a gun, in LaPierre’s framework — to use firearms to stop bad
guys with guns. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller,
“it’s an inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment
right.”
As a matter of textual interpretation, this holding makes no
sense. The Second Amendment provides that “a well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
My insert: What does a “well-regulated militia” mean? These scenes across America and on our streets I ask: What are they “defending” or “protecting” and who officially authorized that form of terror for surely it is. Seems to me it’s more of a macho stunt to prove and show who can draw and shoot the quickest due to arrogance and not much else.
Great related article is here FYI.
We don’t need to guess why
the Second Amendment protects a right to firearms because it is right there in
the Constitution. The Second Amendment’s purpose is to preserve “a
well-regulated Militia,” not to allow individuals to use their weapons for
personal self-defense.
For many years, the Supreme Court took the first 13 words of
the Second Amendment seriously. As the Court said in United States v. Miller (1939),
the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “render possible the
effectiveness” of militias. And thus the amendment must be “interpreted and applied
with that end in view.” Heller abandoned that approach.
Heller also
reached another important policy conclusion. Handguns, according to Scalia, are
“overwhelmingly chosen” by gun owners who wish to carry a firearm for
self-defense. For this reason, he wrote, handguns enjoy a kind of super-legal
status. Lawmakers are not allowed to ban
what Scalia described as “The most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.”
This declaration regarding handguns matters because this
easily concealed weapon is responsible for far more deaths than any other
weapon in the United States — and it isn’t close. In 2019, for example, a total
of 13,927 people were murdered in the U.S, according to
the FBI. Of these murder victims, at least 6,368 — just over 45 percent — were
killed by handguns.
The High Court made it
even harder for federal and state lawmakers to combat gun violence. In NY State
Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it expanded
the scope of the Second Amendment, abandoned more than a decade of case law
governing which gun laws are permitted by the Constitution, and replaced this
case law with a new framework that former Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent:
“Imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.” The impact
of Bruen is that handguns — responsible for the overwhelming
majority of gun murders in the U.S. — could
proliferate on many American streets because Bruen strikes
the laws that limit who can legally carry handguns in public, holding that “the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a
handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
One small silver lining for proponents of gun regulation is that the majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, embraces language that first appeared in Heller, which permits some gun laws such as prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Nevertheless, it placed an emphasis on historical analogies
that could endanger many laws that enjoy broad bipartisan support. The future
of firearm regulation looks grim for anyone who believes that the government
should help protect us from gun violence.
My 2 Cents: Great articles above and as I say over again “open
carry is simply insane” who or what are they protecting, or just simply
protesting against? Simple, anti-liberal/Democratic government and not
GOP//Conservative dislike, hate, or anti-everything else. I truly
believe that.
Mass killing are out of
control for reasons that make no sense except revenge, anger, and an easy
method for both like this story clearly states from Texas with this article headline:
“After a Texas family asked a neighbor to
stop shooting a gun in his yard because their baby was trying to sleep, he came
over and killed 5 people with an AR-15 style rifle, police say.”
Side note on Texas and guns: Texas has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country. Most adults are allowed to carry a handgun in a holster both openly and concealed, without a permit. Also, gun dealers in Texas are not required to conduct background checks before selling a gun to anyone despite 75% of Texans supporting such measures.
Open carry laws are simply
utter madness run amok.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment