Guns

"This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights."

|

In an editorial this week, The Los Angeles Times argues that even gun control advocates should favor the Supreme Court applying the Second Amendment to the states:

If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.

Landmark civil liberties decisions spanning eight decades were possible only because the justices concluded that key protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states, because those rights were "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment….

This is no time for the court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Of course, the Supreme Court had already spent quite a few decades "picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights." It was only last year in Heller that the Court definitively recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. But still, it's nice to see so many folks now coming around to the whole Bill of Rights.

For more on why the Court should strike down Chicago's gun ban, see here, here, and here.

NEXT: "Criminal Alien Program" Capturing Mostly Non-Criminals

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can the ACLU quit their wussery and take note of this, please?

  2. For the record, in reference to Heller:

    “The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.”

    Come awwwnnn.

    1. Wow, that is probably the most lame copout on civil liberties in the history of statist apologia.

    2. What a bunch of cunts. ‘It’s not civil liberties because we say it isn’t.’

      Fuck them.

    3. Aw yes, the ASCLU (American Some Civil Liberties Union). A constant example of cognitive dissonance in action.

    4. I keep asking how the ACLU ignores laws, like the NYC licensing process, that are clearly discriminatory. Regardless of how they feel about the possession of firearms, limiting it to the political elite should have any real civil liberties organization up in arms. 😉

  3. As far as I know, the only justice to oppose “picking and choosing” is Clarence Thomas who suggested ditching the whole “incorporation through the due process” clause idea in favor of restoring the original meaning of hte “privileges and immunities” clause.

    1. Do you mean the “privileges OR immunities” clause in the 14th? Or the “privileges AND immunities” clause from Article IV?

  4. Abdul, I believe that means that, in the new Post-Racial Age, the rest of the Justices are racists.

    1. You know you can reply directly to his response and not add another thread, right? And that it makes things easier to follow and understand, right? Or are you doing it at as way of voicing your displeasure with change?

  5. “But still, it’s nice to see so many folks now coming around to the whole Bill of Rights.”

    They only care about the “whole” BoR because the 2nd is the issue. If this were a 1st issue, the protection of the 2nd wouldn’t be on anybodies mind (except ours).

  6. So the media are starting to come around to the idea that the entire Bill of Rights is worth respecting? Will they stop making fun of Tenthers then?

    1. Who makes fun of the 10th?

      1. Who makes fun of the 10th?

        Progressives who find limited government pass?. And Janet Napolitano, who believes tenthers are domestic terrorists.

  7. If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does…

    Which measures are those? The kind they have in Chicago, for instance? How well have they reduced gun violence?

    And how can a page support anything?

  8. I agree that the L.A. Times should have phrased it, “the court should stop picking and choosing” rather than implying they haven’t yet started.

    But I’m with Black. There is no room in jurisprudence for some glorified lawyer to determine which transgressions “shock the conscience”. The 14th incorporated all. Any lesser interpretation is a chickenshit utilitarian retreat.

  9. Wow, well cheers to the LA Times for not being complete and total fucktards.

    You get a carrot. Though you need to be beaten with a tree on so many other issues.

  10. But still, it’s nice to see so many folks now coming around to the whole Bill of Rights.

    Fucking tenthers…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.