History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
LP Press Release signed by Bill Redpath, National Chairman:
"Last week, we had a great victory in the battle to protect liberty in this country. The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Heller v. District of Columbia, which established an individual right to gun ownership in America!"
Note the word "established"? Craven and sad. And anyway, they did not even recognize the right--only a denuded, conditional, limited version of it--subject to tons of state regulation! And a 5 to 4 one at that. Let's all cheer. Give me a break.
It's not pathetic: I agree that we don't "get" rights from The State in the moral sense, but this supreme court case is about _constitutional_ rights. I'm a natural-rights kind of guy, but we only have those _LEGAL_ rights that they say we do. In other words, you and I might agree that we have a right to own weapons independent of what the govt says - but unless the govt agrees too, we'll still go to jail. The supremes are here _agreeing_ with us, that we do indeed have this right, so that's good news. If that example doesn't work, try this: you and I might agree that people are naturally entitled to own and trade property, but that didn't stop the Bolsheviks from seizing people's property. If the govt says there's no right to private property, then for LEGAL purposes, there isn't one - our philosophical demonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your position is mistaken with respect to the powers of Congress and Washington D.C. I should note that I heartily believe in true federalism and oppose consolidation. I am thus supportive of “state’s rights.” Additionally, I think the principle of universal rights locally enforced is sound. Nonetheless, the touchstone of constitutionality is not whether we like something. It is the constitution itself.
In citing Article I, Section 8, you recognize that the Constitution allows for the creation of D.C. More specifically, D.C. was created pursuant to clause 17 of Article I, Section 8. The language of that clause belies your position. It grants the Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the] District.” This is one of Congress’s enumerated, delegated powers. In other words, the Constitution granted the Congress a plenary power over D.C. It was only in 1973 that Congress provided for the election of a mayor and the city council. Yet Congress still retains the power to legislate for the District “on any subject.” The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, restrains that power. The same applies to Congress’s power under Article IV, Section 3, clause 2. That clause grants the Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting” U.S. territory. The Bill of Rights obviously restrains that power as well. This is why Justice Taney in Dred Scott wrote: “No one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.”
As Tom DiLorenzo notes, <http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021703.html>;, it's pathetic we cheer at the vindication of our rights by a bunch of ederal employees. Who the hell are they to tell us that we do or do not have rights? It's no cause to cheer when our self-appointed masters slacken our leashes by an inch or two, temporarily.
Second, I've noted here some problems with the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to the States or DC. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html