It was predictable. It was predicted. The Roberts court has struck down handgun restrictions that have been in place in Chicago for some years, using the completely insupportable argument that "bearing arms" is a fundamental right, and ignoring the context in which the framers asserted that right, to wit, the "well-regulated militia." Note that this qualification of the right to bear arms was apparently so important to the framers that they stated it up front, even before specifying the "bearing arms" bit they were talking about.
Such blatant and purposeful disregard for the letter of the Constitution is to my mind, malfeasance by at least five justices of the supreme Court. At the very least, as I said in February, it should dispel any claims that Roberts and his benchmen don't want to "make law," and just want to get back to the basic texts of the Constitution. But then, we already knew that, didn't we?
Comments