Second Amendment Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that American citizens have a right to own firearms for self-defense and hunting, in a the first major pronouncement on the Second Amendment in the court’s history.

The ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns as incompatible with the rights of the Second Amendment, striking a blow to the 32 year old law.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, stating that an individual right to bear arms is supported by ”the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

Justice Stephen Breyer, however, showed that he cannot understand plain English, when he replied in decent, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

As a service to Justice Breyer, I’ll dissect the language of the Second Amendment for him.

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.

First off, we need to find the subject of the sentence. This is easy enough. Change the comma separating the two clauses into a period. Whichever is a full sentence on it’s own is the subject of the sentence, whichever is not a full sentence is a supportive clause.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

Is this a full sentence? No. Let’s try the second part.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Is this a full sentence? Yes. It is therefor the subject of the sentence. A pretty strong statement at that.

It’s not surprising in any way that Justice Breyer would have issue with this simple Amendment - it doesn’t support his statist desires. Justice Breyer has a long history of ignoring the literal reading of the Constitution, instead he looks to the “purpose and consequences” of the text. In short, he makes up whatever meaning he wants it to have and states that the text really meant that. Prof. Peter Berkowitz, in “Democratizing the Constitution”, argues that Justice Breyer’s position, “demonstrates not fidelity to the Constitution, but rather a determination to rewrite the Constitution’s priorities.”

Typical liberal bullshit.