GUN RIGHTS NEED COURT PRO­TEC­TION

The Kansas City Star (Sunday) - - OPINION -

The Supreme Court has gunned down the Windy City’s at­tempt to un­der­mine the Sec­ond Amend­ment rights of its res­i­dents. In the closely di­vided McDon­ald v. Chicago de­ci­sion, the jus­tices ex­panded on 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller rul­ing by mak­ing it clear that the right of the peo­ple to keep and bear arms ap­plies in all 50 states, not just fed­eral en­claves like the District. Law-abid­ing gun own­ers can find a lot to cel­e­brate in this de­ci­sion.

Nonethe­less, the court left a num­ber of un­set­tled is­sues that will form the new bat­tle­ground for gun rights for years to come. The de­ci­sion rec­og­nized that cer­tain own­er­ship re­stric­tions might be per­mis­si­ble with­out spec­i­fy­ing ac­cept­able lim­its. With the First Amend­ment, an­other “in­cor­po­rated” right, the govern­ment de­cided that cer­tain types of po­lit­i­cal speech should be limited through cam­paign­fi­nance reg­u­la­tions. In the name of “pro­tect­ing safety,” we can ex­pect bu­reau­crats to like­wise con­coct schemes to evade the Sec­ond Amend­ment pro­tec­tions.

Law-abid­ing cit­i­zens are much more likely to obey gun-con­trol laws and be dis­armed than crim­i­nals. In­stead of mak­ing po­ten­tial vic­tims safer, gun con­trol makes the crim­i­nals safer. To the ex­tent that this rul­ing dis­cour­ages gov­ern­ments from in­fring­ing on the rights of Amer­i­cans, the coun­try will be safer as a re­sult. The Washington Times

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.