The decision on the Second Amendment was a typical example of Judicial Activism by the Conservatives.  The lying Conservatives and their double talk 1984 speak on their phoney strict construction! 

The disenting opinons nailed it an exposed ocmpletely how the Conservatives on the court made up their arguments out "of whole cloth."

The propsed versions of the Second Amendment had "to protect oneself" as the additional purpose of the right along with the purpose "to bear arms," but James Madison and the Congress did not accept the purpose of "self defense" when they adopted the 2nd Amendment. Instead the Congress adopted an amendment that said the "right to keep and bear arms" was for the purpose of havig a well regulated militia.  Thus any law that does not intervere with a well regulated milita is constitutional as it applies to the right to keep and bear arms. 

Scalia's opinon is phony as a two dollar bill when he says that without further modification the words "to bear arms" applies to hunting or self defense. 

Washington DC's law said that guns could not be kept loaded and the laws of urban areas such as New York and Philadelphia of 1791 when the amendment was created also required that people keep their gun powder in special containers on the top floor so if the gun was on the bottom floor it had to be kept unloaded. It that law was allowed in the 1790s then strict construction says that law would be allowable today.  So the Conservatives on the court today are not using strict construction in this decision.

Instead they are using judicial activism because they have essentiall ignored stare decisis and the Miller case and have created a new right that did not exist when the Constitution was written and amended.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/27/2008 03:48:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]