Posted 3/02/2010 07:13:00 PM by Douglas

The New York Times and the second amendment. Yep, they're against it. While the First Amendment is universally unquestionable, the second is something needing to be fiercely regulated, less duly elected representatives allow citizens to exercise the rights guaranteed by the same Constitution that guarantees abortion on demand.

We disagreed strongly with the 2008 decision, which took an expansive and aggressive view of the right to bear arms. But there is an even broader issue at stake in the new case: The Supreme Court’s muddled history in applying the Constitution to states and cities. It should make clear that all of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply everywhere.

That's right. That's what the bill of rights is for, right?

A group of respected constitutional scholars and advocates is asking the court to switch to the privileges or immunities clause as the basis for applying the Bill of Rights to states and cities. That would be truer to the intent of the founders, and it could open the door to a more robust constitutional jurisprudence that would be more protective of individual rights.

Or, as they really mean, individual rights The New York Times happens to agrees with.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns.

There's also another group. Law-abiding gun owners that choose to protect themselves from those that aren't deterred from gun ownership by a stupid law from a local municipality.