Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

“When I make a mistake, it’s a beaut.” — New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia

The Supreme Court had a La Guardia moment on Thursday. Its mistake was foreshadowed in 2017, when Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in a dissent by Neil M. Gorsuch, wrote this about the constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” (emphasis added): It is “extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”

Thomas was right about the framers. However, he and the five justices who joined his opinion (Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett) were wrong on Thursday in arguing that this improbability was essentially dispositive. The case involved a challenge to New York’s 109-year-old law that required individuals seeking a license to carry firearms outside the home to demonstrate a “proper cause” for doing so.

The Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a preamble: “A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment was 217 years old before the court held that it protected the gun rights of individuals, irrespective of membership in a m*****a.

The 2008 case affirmed the right of individuals to “keep” an operative firearm in the home for self-defense. What, however, about the right to “bear” firearms outside the home? The 2008 court insisted that this right is, like other constitutional rights, “not unlimited,” and is compatible with “longstanding regulatory measures,” such as forbidding firearms in sensitive places.

In November’s oral argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. not unreasonably expressed uneasiness about “the idea that you need a license to exercise” a fundamental right. Justice Elena Kagan, who on Thursday sided with New York, in November also was conflicted: It was “completely intuitive” that there should be different gun regimes in New York and Wyoming, but it is difficult to match this “with our notion of constitutional rights.”

Thomas, in his 63-page opinion, was characteristically meticulous and exhaustive in marshaling evidence of an enduring American tradition of permitting public carry of firearms by people with “ordinary” self-defense needs. And he found no “American tradition” that could justify New York’s “proper-cause requirement.”

But in an amicus brief supporting New York, former federal appellate judge (on the 4th Circuit) J. Michael Luttig demonstrated that, regarding the public carrying of loaded guns, there is an American tradition even older than the nation of striking a “delicate balance between the Second Amendment’s twin concerns for self-defense and public safety.”
The court’s ruling, however, does not treat those as “twin,” meaning equal, concerns.
Indeed, it treats the second, public safety, as irrelevant to the framers: This concern was unnecessary to consider because the first concern, self-defense, was sufficient justification for the amendment. On Thursday, the court effectively removed from public debate the essentially legislative choice of balancing the competing values of self-defense and public safety.

Luttig noted that “democratic judgments and decisions” embodied in founding-era restrictions on public carrying of concealed weapons anticipated something the court acknowledged in its 2008 ruling: “The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”

In 1897, the Supreme Court had said it was “well-recognized” that the right to “bear” arms “is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Today, most states, including almost all that filed briefs supporting New York, have multiple restrictions forbidding concealed carry at schools, government buildings, bars, amusement parks, churches, athletic events, polling places, etc. On Thursday, the court perhaps did not invalidate most such restrictions, but it condemned itself to years of judicial hairsplitting in search of a principle about balancing judgments.

Finally, Luttig wrote: “Many [J*** 6, 2021] r**t defendants” have said they knew the District of Columbia’s restrictions on concealed carry “and accordingly left their guns at home.” This “may well have prevented a massacre that day.”

America the beautiful is today America the irritable, where road rage, unruly airline passengers and political violence — a protective fence surrounds the court — reveal a nation of short fuses and long-simmering resentments. Intelligent people disagree about how, or even whether, the facts of contemporary civic culture should influence how the Constitution, including the first 10 amendments, should be construed. But as a founder (John Adams) insisted, facts are stubborn things."

George F. Will

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

No one wants to argue with George Will?

pendennis

Will is wrong on several counts.

When the Bill of Rights was considered, it was during the debate over adoption of the Constitution. The Founders were concerned, and rightly so, that unenumerated rights would likely be violated depending on the whims of an overreaching central government. The Bill of Rights was carefully drafted, and concentrated on the rights of the individual in the first eight, and then the states and people in Nine and Ten. Why would the Founders swerve into some collective right in the Second? The second clause is abundantly clear. And the amendment makes it plain that the m*****a is not the "National Guard", and that "well-regulated" had a different meaning at the time.

The 1897 Supreme Court decision has not been negated. A number of states with concealed carry laws, do not allow such carry in churches, bars, schools, court houses, etc. And it's recognized that states do have the right to enact certain restrictions on concealed carry, just as there are states which do allow concealed carry within those venues. The point is that it's up to the states, not the Federal government to enact those laws and limitations.

Further, airplanes which are common conveyances, are not public accommodations, and airlines have the right to set limits on what passengers can bring on planes. Further, FAA and DHS also have rules which apply to airlines.

Will has spent so much time in the morass of the swamp, that his wingtips are completely sodden, and it has migrated to his head.

Amicus briefs supporting a losing argument have no weight. His later rant, is only speculative.

There is no conundrum in regards to public safety. The individual's right to self-defense is the highest form individual right, and always trumps "public safety". "Public safety" is some nebulous concept that varies with the whims of the body politic. The body politic is a fickle animal, and the Bill of Rights was enacted to ensure that changing social norms did not change the basic construct of the Constitution and protecting the rights of the individual.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

Court right. Will wrong. Reader's Digest version.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Have you EVER created your own post here? Everything is a repost of someone else's drivel. Apparently you cannot formulate an opinion on any subject you approach. Every thought you post is someone else's??? Typical democrap.

Joy Behar's Skin Tags Loc: Maryland

See, this is the problem with libs like you. You are so out of touch in your own little bubble, that you think people on the right give a flying fart about what people like George Will, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Bill Barr say. We've moved on from those Rinos.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The writing of the decision was absolutely brilliant.
It cannot be refuted in any way conceivable with any intelligent thought.
Only mealy mouthed libs and Harvard r****ds talking of nuances and crap will try to twist the fact filled and black and white decision based on the actual Constitution and the founders writings and the all important natural law of self preservation.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

SCOTUS is correct! George Will is VERY wrong! End of story!

FrumCA

My only comment is that George Will is a smart guy, but he's wrong on this. I'm sure there are others on the UHH who will have a more elegant response to share with us.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Opinion-piece from a noted l*****t. His interpretation of events crafted to sway opinion.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Macho men, and women, walking around with guns in anticipation of shooting someone in self-defense, are a threat to public safety.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Close.
They are a threat to predator criminals let loose upon society by liberals.
And yes, these armed citizens do not wander the streets in condition white like sheeple do as they take the responsibility of being armed very seriously.
There are millions of these armed citizens on the streets every day and so far NO threat to public safety. In fact their mere presence enhances public safety. 90% of the time or more the firearm is only presented to a criminal to stop the crime and the gun is never fired.
Of course libs are oblivious to this fact of the millions of already armed people on the streets because they only listen to CNN and the DNC talking points which brought us the Russia h**x for 5 years.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I get it. It s ironic, but more guns on the street, more street safety.