A Heller good time to be had by all

Amendment II

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.

Something most interesting happened yesterday. I'm quite sure what it portends will take some time to sink in, perhaps generations. But it struck me as monumental nonetheless. The Supreme Court of the United States of America officially declared that "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Predictably, the horribly biased mainstream media has its collective panties in a twist over it. I was so elated, I actually watched Katie Couric to see CBS' take on it. Their mature, reasoned, moderate opinion on the subject was a montage of people shooting pistols. That's right liberals, the Supreme Court has just ordered every one in the country to arm themselves to the teeth and begin vigilante justice on their neighbor's loitering.

The HuffPo is just as morally outraged. I managed to get all the way through one paragraph of a piece where the author declared Dick Cheney wants to turn DC into the Triangle of Death in Iraq. Moderate, contemplative, tolerant, thoughtful analysis need not apply.

The ruling itself isn't all that grand. It basically says that governments can not outright ban firearms. Justice Scalia went to great lengths in instructing lower federal courts that this does not mean there can be no reasonable regulation of guns - thank God. I believe the thought of Charlie Manson getting paroled and stopping by Walt's World of Guns on his way home is enough to rankle even the most fervent gun rights supporter.

What it does do is tell local and state governments that they cannot simply ignore the constitution. And for that I'm ready to set off fireworks. Of course, as a resident of New York, that would be illegal. Interesting enough, Founding Father John Adams preached that the Fourth of July should be celebrated with cannons, firearms, bonfires, and all manners of loud, boisterous hoopla. But what the heck does he know? He was only there.

I see two important issues in this ruling. One good, one not so much. Let's start with the bad news.

Re-read my second paragraph above. The Supreme Court had to actually rule that the meaning of one sentence, 27 words in all, simply means nothing more than what it actually says. Is it just me, or does it seem absolutely ludicrous that this question rises to the level of anything more than a kindergarten recess argument? "Does too! Does not!" How on earth did our society sink to the level where the Supreme Court of the land has to specifically rule on the meaning of a clear, concise sentence? That is nothing but sad in my opinion.

On to the good news! The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that yes, a clear concise sentence means exactly what it says. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! I may not have a flintlock or a blunderbuss, but I do have a pitchfork somewhere in the basement!

Here is what I find so optimistic in this ruling. I've read the analysis of Roe v Wade in the past, and I'm not going to surf the web for specifics now, its late Friday afternoon, but as I understand it, the Supreme Court basically took 2 or 3 or 4 Amendments from the Bill of Rights and created a kind of realm, where 'rights' can be created out of thin air, based upon nothing more than a majority of Justices. Even though the Constitution specifically states that is not to happen (it's all through the document, just read it and see).

[Editor's note: Here's where I have a slight disagreement with the author. The Constitution outlines specific powers that the federal government has; everything else is reserved for the States (to regulate) and/or the People (to enjoy in freedom). So in my mind it's not so much that there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as that the federal government has no legitimate authority to ban abortion (or prevent States from banning it), since that is an act not under their specified umbrella of powers. Likewise, there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to alcohol, it's just that they do not have the power to ban it (without an amendment). Same for marijuana (although somehow they forgot the need for an amendment...sorry, different topic).]

[Author's response: While I agree with the editor's thoughts on aspects of federalism involved with this issue, I must admit, I don't have a solid or satisfying response to this proposition. From what I've learned about the Revolutionary times and the Founding Fathers, the lines between the states and the federal government were left blurry on purpose. As I understand the concept, the idea was to keep the boundaries fluid and murky, allowing for future generations to of American politicians at the various levels to basically argue it out during the issues of their times. They understood power would change hands back and forth, some generations having stronger state rights, and others having stronger federal rights. The idea being that times change, issues change, generations change, and so the relationship between state and federal authority would be flexible to change with them, and most importantly, change back as the issues and the people change. What I see in this ruling is, that ebb and flow of power heading back towards the states and the people, and away from the federal government. Some states will agree that strict gun regulation is appropriate, while others will agree otherwise. In other words, just the way it's supposed to. ]

This Supreme Court ruling says "no" to that. It says no, what the document says it what it says. I know there will be future rulings that will infuriate the hell out of me, I have no doubt of that. And I know governments at every level will do whatever they can to legislate around this ruling. That's the way politics work. But still, the Supreme Court firmly, beyond any doubt, no exceptions (thank God for reasonable restrictions), the Constitution of the United States of America, in this case, means exactly what it says!

Happy Fourth of July America!