Whenever I read an editorial that uses the Second Amendment as a basis for rejecting the administration's recommendations for changes in gun regulations, I know immediately that the writer has very little knowledge of the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of that amendment.
In the Court's opinion in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the conservative justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, provided for "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, and on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Justice Scalia called such laws "presumptively legal."
According to the majority opinion of the Court, such restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, as that amendment calls in its prefatory clause for arms to be "well-regulated."
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, at a recent event (Lawyers for a Safer America), suggested that the Heller opinion "provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, Arizona and Connecticut in recent years."
Those who claim that the Second Amendment restricts gun laws reveal their limited awareness of the opinion given by the U.S. Supreme Court. NRA lobbyists such as Wayne LaPierre are undoubtedly aware of the opinion, but simply choose to ignore it.
Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2013
Article comment by:
Way to go Donald, if I may quote one of your favorite speakers (just guessing, but pretty sure). "To conquer a nation first disarm its citizens” Hitler. Again congrats on your point of view.
Posted: Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Article comment by:
The 2nd amendment doesn't call for the weapons to be well-regulated. Please stop spreading lies. The second amendment says this:
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.
It does not say that the arms (weapons) themselves must be well-regulated. Just because you want it to say that doesn't make it so and no amount of contortionist twisting of dictionary meanings will ever make it mean that.
Go back to California or New York - wherever you're from. You'll fit right in.