|
|
|
The liberals are trying to spin the Supreme Court's dramatic decision in the gun case as creating a "new" constitutional right. They couldn't be more wrong; the Supreme Court simply restated the individual right that the Founding Fathers wrote in the Second Amendment, which has been part of the Constitution since December 15, 1791. The 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was a victory for the view (often expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia) that the Constitution means what it says. The liberals, who believe that the Supreme Court can invent new rights, seem to think that a right stated in the Constitution doesn't exist until the Supreme Court ratifies it. The Heller decision was a victory for our written Constitution over the blathering by activist judges who pretend that the Constitution is a "living" document which they can reinterpret according to their personal biases about "evolving standards." It was also a victory for the active advocacy of private citizens who effectively refute judicial heresies. For the first century and a half of our country's existence, the right of individuals to own firearms was generally accepted. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment consisted of all ablebodied men, and they were expected to possess and use their own firearms. James Madison wrote in Federalist 46: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" - unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." During Virginia's Convention to ratify the Constitution, Patrick Henry said: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." In the middle of the 20th century, when the liberals began to restrict our liberties and propagate the notion that government knows better than individuals how to run our lives and spend our money, proposals for gun control became politically correct. From about 1950 to about 1990, law professors and judges who wanted to be P.C. adopted the erroneous view that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun and that the "militia" refers only to government-appointed law enforcement groups. By 2001, the United Nations tried to demonize the private ownership of guns and get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns. Fortunately, the United States not only enjoys widespread gun ownership, we also have large numbers of citizens who understand the Constitution and are willing to speak out for their rights. Gun rights advocates actively promoted the commonsense truth about the plain meaning and historical context of the Second Amendment by publishing articles in gun magazines, law reviews and other journals. At first, the legal community scoffed at these people as ignorant "gun nuts," but eventually, the weight of their logic and historical evidence became overwhelming. On May 17, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued this statement: "The text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms. . . . This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers." In 2008, the Supreme Court agreed. |
