A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
All Posts Information June 29 2010
— By CJ
While the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment in striking down the ban on handguns in Chicago, it would be an understatement to say that I’m disappointed at the narrow margin in which it was done.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think it really goes to show that the Supreme Court has become more a political entity, upholding partisan beliefs and placing them before the language of the Constitution. This goes for both sides. Effectively, the four justices that ruled in the minority believe that the Second Amendment should just be abolished.



Bob The American
CJ, first of all, I agree with you on the disappointment.
Second, SCOTUS has been political for the last 70 years ago. Ok, maybe that’s a bit too far back. But the 1960′s anyways. So it won’t change.
NY-David
I’m disappointed as well and agree with Bob’s claim that it has been and will be some amount of political entity.
Its my understanding that if existing laws were enforced, there would be less need to make a literal federal case out of it. Unformtunately, that requires work and chutzpah.
NY-David
Bob The American
Having been involved in a case that very nearly went to SCOTUS, let me tell you, you prepare for the politics. We were ready for it. But fortunately, we also had science on our side.
Our case was a government agency making a ruling based on science. The science was faulty, and we proved that conclusively. They could always come back with the “because we can” card, but they haven’t yet, and its been over a year now.
I’m just happy it didn’t go to SCOTUS. That’s a hard fight to win.
California Repossession Attorney
There is no need to explain the meaning. The Bill of Rights was clearly and precisely written