U.S. Supreme Court Loosens Firearm Restrictions
As Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw more than two hundred years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to actively shape American society. However, this is not always done with wisdom, contrary to the hopes of this famous French observer. So at the end of January, after destroying all the safeguards that for a hundred years limited campaign finance contributions — thereby reducing the risk of political corruption — the nine "sages" are preparing to liberalize the possession of firearms across America, all in the name of the Second Amendment.
On Tuesday, during the first session dedicated to this hot issue, the five conservative judges that rule the highest American court indicated that to them, this involves a fundamental right as important as the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression and religion. The final decision — highly anticipated in this country where the possession and carrying of arms have been the object of fierce debate for decades — will be made in June. Many, however, doubt that the four liberal judges will be in a position to overcome the opinion of their peers in the majority. "It's about to get easier to shoot people in Chicago…and in the rest of the country," commented journalist Dana Milbank yesterday in The Washington Post, denouncing the "judicial activism" of the conservative judges.
Era of the Founding Fathers
The Second Amendment, to which the NRA and other firearm proponents always refer, asserts that "[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." At the time of the writing of the Constitution in the 18th century, this article was judged essential by the Founding Fathers in order to prevent the federal state from seeking to take control of the individual states. This had not prevented many of them from legislating on the subject, by limiting and supervising the carrying of arms at the local level.
In 2008, the Supreme Court already interpreted the Second Amendment as establishing the right of each citizen to possess a firearm in his or her home for self-defense. Although considered historic, the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling applied only to the federal state, as it involved the city of Washington alone. A group of Chicago residents — where guns have been outlawed in any form for twenty-eight years — has just appealed to the Supreme Court to extend this interpretation to all states, so that they can defend themselves against drug dealers and gangs. This idea of protecting oneself as one would during the Wild West era remains anchored in national consciousness.
On Tuesday, the five conservative judges affirmed their intention to agree with the complainants of Chicago. The progressive wing of the Supreme Court tried in vain to remind them that the right to bear arms ought not be placed on the same level as other individual rights. The liberal Justice Stephen Breyer notably mentioned that the Chicago Police Department estimated that 700 lives are saved each year thanks to the firearm prohibition. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," added James Feldman, attorney in the city where Al Capone lived.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush, conceded that all local regulation should not be forbidden. He failed to specify, however, the nature of the limitations that will remain possible. The experts conclude from this that the decision will be a true victory for those in favor of firearms, but that this decision will not put an end to the judicial battles over potential future restrictions. On Tuesday, outside the large, white-columned Supreme Court building, NRA activists claimed to be convinced the battle has already been won.
On Tuesday, during the first session dedicated to this hot issue, the five conservative judges that rule the highest American court indicated that to them, this involves a fundamental right as important as the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression and religion. The final decision — highly anticipated in this country where the possession and carrying of arms have been the object of fierce debate for decades — will be made in June. Many, however, doubt that the four liberal judges will be in a position to overcome the opinion of their peers in the majority. "It's about to get easier to shoot people in Chicago…and in the rest of the country," commented journalist Dana Milbank yesterday in The Washington Post, denouncing the "judicial activism" of the conservative judges.
Era of the Founding Fathers
The Second Amendment, to which the NRA and other firearm proponents always refer, asserts that "[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." At the time of the writing of the Constitution in the 18th century, this article was judged essential by the Founding Fathers in order to prevent the federal state from seeking to take control of the individual states. This had not prevented many of them from legislating on the subject, by limiting and supervising the carrying of arms at the local level.
In 2008, the Supreme Court already interpreted the Second Amendment as establishing the right of each citizen to possess a firearm in his or her home for self-defense. Although considered historic, the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling applied only to the federal state, as it involved the city of Washington alone. A group of Chicago residents — where guns have been outlawed in any form for twenty-eight years — has just appealed to the Supreme Court to extend this interpretation to all states, so that they can defend themselves against drug dealers and gangs. This idea of protecting oneself as one would during the Wild West era remains anchored in national consciousness.
On Tuesday, the five conservative judges affirmed their intention to agree with the complainants of Chicago. The progressive wing of the Supreme Court tried in vain to remind them that the right to bear arms ought not be placed on the same level as other individual rights. The liberal Justice Stephen Breyer notably mentioned that the Chicago Police Department estimated that 700 lives are saved each year thanks to the firearm prohibition. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," added James Feldman, attorney in the city where Al Capone lived.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush, conceded that all local regulation should not be forbidden. He failed to specify, however, the nature of the limitations that will remain possible. The experts conclude from this that the decision will be a true victory for those in favor of firearms, but that this decision will not put an end to the judicial battles over potential future restrictions. On Tuesday, outside the large, white-columned Supreme Court building, NRA activists claimed to be convinced the battle has already been won.