GUN RIGHTS NEED COURT PROTECTION
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