The Supreme Court just released their much anticipated ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the lower courts decision which overturned D.C.’s ban on possession of handguns. The vote was 5-4 and as was rumored earlier in the week, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which I will post a link to here once it is available.

Update: Here is the Opinion, thanks to the Scotusblog who offers this quote:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. ”

I will post more after reading the opinion.

Update 2: When writing about this case last year, I argued:

First and foremost, the term “right of the people” is not exclusive to the Second Amendment, appearing also in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. In those three Amendments, the rights being protected belong to individual persons, not States. Furthermore it is important to remember the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for the expressed reason of preserving individual rights.

The court agreed with Scalia writing:

“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Update 3: Scalia’s closing remarks should make all Conservatives proud:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Apparently there were alot of briefs filed on behalf of the District, reminding the Justices that gun violence has been (and still remains) a problem in D.C. and that it why it is necessary to overturn the lower courts ruling. As correctly pointed out by Scalia, the Constitution does not change simply because the times change, i.e. it is not a “living document”. The founders built the Amendment process into the Constitution for the intent purpose of allowing it to keep up with the changing times, therefore if gun control advocates wish to remove the right to bear arms they must do so through the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Features, Second Amendment, Supreme Court