iCitizenForum by Colonial Williamsburg

Supreme Court Makes Correct Decision on Handguns

Guest blogger Richard B. Stemmer, Jr.

While William Standring is obviously smarting from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, I, on the other hand, am enjoying a guarded optimism about it.The awful level of gun violence in DC and elsewhere, as well as the KY shooting June 25, however, has zero bearing on what is constitutionally legal. Inserting these issues here plays on heartstrings, when we ought rather appeal to reason and intellect. His use of "pistol packing" for “armed” and "artillery" for “handgun” adds drama, but not clarity. In fact, Standring seems to fall into a common anti-gunner trap here—he’s obsessed with his own fears of what might happen if he had a loaded gun and he projects his own nightmare scenarios onto the psyche of the generality of the American public. Thank you, no. It is clear he probably should not have a gun himself, and no one is suggesting he should. I fail to see why others should not own a gun because Standing is afraid of what might happen if he had one. Where's the logic there--"show me the beef?"

The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution states that “the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court’s Miranda v Arizona decision states: "Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them."

In case anyone thinks that’s unclear or the court can’t say that, the Supreme Court tells us: “When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.”
See www.supremecourtus.gov

Since our Constitution says “the Right of the People...shall not be infringed,” and the Supreme Court said clearly, pertaining to Constitutional Rights, “there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them;” the Supreme Court’s decisions/determinations cannot be altered except by “constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court,” the states of the Union, their communities, cities, towns, and in fact our Congress should refrain from making new laws, restrictions or taxes on something that’s a constitutional right. This should be simple enough, even for politicians.

I give you the following Supreme Court decisions to ponder. Consider them Holy Writ when you view your local gun laws:

• Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."
• Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
• Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

Now, according to the Supreme Court—the same justices BTW who used false data in their recent Habeas Corpus ruling, but nobody's infallible—the Second Amendment does convey an individual right. Prior Supreme Court rulings make it clear that gun registration and limits to the kinds of weapons an individual may own are unconstitutional. See law.shu.edu

It's an individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

End of discussion.

Guest blogger Richard B. Stemmer, Jr.