Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released their ruling on the on the McDonald v. Chicago case that had been heard in Feb. If you have not been paying attention, this has turned into surprisingly big news making the front page of most of the papers today.
The short version. The 2nd Amendment means what it says, and the States and Cities have limited say in the matter.
While I have not had time to delve deeply into the opinion surrounding the decision, what I have read is a bit disturbing. We see a court that is deeply divided, along “ideological” lines which is in many ways reflective of the populace of the country. But the disturbing part of the equation is that the split in this decision illustrates the distinction between judicial restraint and
judicial activism. On one hand, the majority read the Second Amendment
as it was written and intended. The minority appears to prefer that the people not have the right to keep and
bear arms. The most alarming portion is the perception that the minority is willing to go against the explicit will of the
Framers – outside the Constitution’s internal revision process – to
elevate their personal preference, above our Republic’s capstone document.
The other thing that I find interesting is the use of “sound bytes” that are of questionable legitimacy. From today’s USA Today article this quote struck me as strange:
Kristen Rand, legislative director of the
Violence Policy Center, which supports strict gun-control laws,
predicted more than a new tide of lawsuits.“People will die because of this decision,” she
said. “It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading
firearms industry.”
“…fading firearms industry..”, not so much. I am still looking for the graphic I saw recently but, it looks to me like any industry that shows a growth trend over the last 10 years, and looks to be about a $10 billion dollar a year industry isn’t fading.