A recent entry in the blog kept by Tim and Marcus Penny, Our Two Cents: Walz and gun rights concludes
Good for Walz [for supporting the plaintiff in McDonald v. City of Chicago]. Any objective read of the Constitution's Second Amendment would conclude that American citizens retain the right to "keep and bear arms." Through the years, the court has allowed some limitations on gun ownership - just as they have ruled that there can be some limitation on other rights, such as free speech. But the Court is rightly cautious about approving any enactments that begin to infringe on our constitutional rights. An outright ban on gun ownership - as sought by Chicago and Washington, DC - needed to be struck down - both loudly and clearly. That is why it is disappointing that this ruling was secured by a narrow five to four Court majority. What Constitution were those other four justices reading? What other constitutional right would they allow a state or locality to repeal or ban?
That is my two cents.
The National Rifle Association political wing must have agreed; it contributed an additional $1000 to Walz's re-election committee in June.
Comments