Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at June 26, 2008 04:49 PM

Today’s Supreme Court decision that we have individual rights to arm ourselves highlights more than any other recent decision the absurdity of allowing the federal government, through its courts, to determine the limits of its own powers. This came about in the post-1865 era, once states’ rights/federalism was destroyed. (Yes, judicial review existed for a long time before that, but presidents, state legislatures, and citizens viewed it as merely the Supreme Court’s opinion, not THE FINAL WORD, ONCE AND FOR ALL on constitutional issues).

The shocking thing about today’s decision is that if one man — Anthony Kennedy — voted the other way, then what — we would all be forcefully disarmed?

A judicial dictatorship is what nationalists like Alexander Hamilton and his disciple, Justice John Marshall, wanted, and that of course is what we’ve ended up with. But imagine if the Court declared in 1805 that Americans do not have individual rights to own firearms. Do you think Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Washington would have given up their firearms and genuflected to the black-robed deities of the Court? Hell no; they would have reached for them and commenced another revolution.

Posted by Butler Shaffer at June 26, 2008 10:33 AM

At first blush, today’s Supreme Court decision recognizing the right to own handguns sounds good. Bear in mind, however, that it is a familiar practice for courts to announce a seemingly far-reaching opinion, only to begin back-tracking in subsequent cases. It would not surprise me to see a case come up involving a ban on assault weapons, with the court upholding the prohibition by distinguishing today’s decision from the later one. When complaints are leveled against the court, the response would be made that the the 2nd Amendment was upheld in the D.C. case - as to handguns - thus creating the impression that the right to gun ownership was being respected, thus defusing the opposition to gun-control laws.

One sees this tactic in free speech cases. Flag-burning is a protected 1st Amendment right - largely because burning a flag represents no significant threat to the state - but picketing a munitions plant, in wartime, urging workers to not work, is not a form of protected speech. The same pattern emerges: liberty is always given a narrow interpretation by the state, while governmental powers are always given an expansive definition.