D.C. Gun Ban: And the winner is.....

...the Constitution! Score one for our forefathers. A landmark decision was made today by the Supreme Court in favor of our Second Amendment right to bear arms in District of Columbia vs. Heller. In an age (er, month?) where our court system seems to be making more laws than interpreting them, I'm extremely happy that the U.S. Supreme Court got one right today.

Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito voted to overturn the unlawful D.C. Gun Ban...count 'em: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...it was a 5-4 vote! So, if Justice Anthony "flip-a-coin" Kennedy would have decided to swing the other way, one of the core amendments within this nation's Bill of Rights would now be defunct. Does this scare anyone else? How we have gotten to this point, I do not know, but aside from a few marginal victories such as this, it seems this slope is only getting more and more slippery.

How ironic that Alexander Hamilton actually wrote a Federalist Paper (number 84) disagreeing with the idea of creating the Bill of Rights in the first place. Why? Because he felt the Constitution should be able to stand on its own, and that it was unnecessary (read: "dangerous") to grant specific rights to the people since the government had no power to take any of them in the first place. At the time, he was more worried that the Amendments may mistakenly omit some rights of the people and therefore leave them open to restriction by a future, corrupt government (hence the inclusion of the 9th Amendment). Here's what he had to say:

"...For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

Sound familiar to anyone? I'm guessing that he's rolling in his grave today ... usurping is what our politicians seem to live for.

Anyway, enough ranting. I actually read Justice Scalia's majority opinion this evening, and it is masterful. He does a fantastic job of breaking down the 2nd Amendment phrase by phrase in order to remove any doubt of the intentions of this nation's founders. I highly recommend reading it. He also writes a fantastic closing wherein he addresses the emotional opposition to the 2nd Amendment, but reminds us all that it is not within the power of the Supreme Court to repeal explicit rights granted to the people by the Constitution.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. 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.

Here, here! Well put Sir!