So the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the 2nd amendment applies by “incorporation” – that states and local governments cannot prevent their citizens from owning guns – a right enumerated in the 2nd amendment in the Federal Constitution.
So how did various newspapers choose to frame this decision?
LA Times: Supreme Court extends rights of gun owners
(oh, it didn’t just affirm that they exist?)
Philadelphia Inquirer: High Court Limits Gun Ban
Chicago Sun Times: Plaintiff: Ruling will make dangerous city blocks safer
AP: Chicago gun ban on way out, but mayor vows fight
(Predicting the future… advocacy journalism)
San Fran Chronicle: High court: Cities can’t block gun ownership
(most accurate / neutral one so far)
NY Times: The Court: Ignoring the Reality of Guns
(The NY Times is smarter than the Supreme Court)
CBS: 2nd Amendment Supreme Court Case: Polls Show Public Split on Gun Rights
(what the public thinks doesn’t matter – it’s about the Constitution, stupid)
London’s Guardian: Has the Supreme Court made the right decision on gun rights?
(it’s none of your f*ing business – we aren’t your colony)
Detroit Free Press: Supreme Court leaves room for sensible gun control efforts
(how can we create a slippery slope?)
Winston Salem Journal: Everyone entitled to own guns, court rules
(factually wrong – the court affirmed that felons, the mentally ill, etc… can be excluded from gun ownership)
Ottawa Citizen: U.S. ruling puts gun bans at risk
(that’s understating by a lot what the ruling does)
Clovis (NM) News Journal: Court recognizes self-defense is basic right
(That’s not remotely what they ruled – it’s about the right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of motive)
Your comment on the Clovis, NM headline is the closest to what the Founding Fathers intended, and I know this because I can read. ;)
In fact, one of the reasons stated for owning guns in the Constitution is the formation of militias, which today has a VERY different meaning than what it meant back then. Militias were the way the colonists defeated the Brits; today, militias are packed full of people who want to overthrow the govt.
What a minute, maybe the meanings AREN’T that far apart, since the Founding Fathers overthrew THEIR govt.?
Agreed – but newspapers should report what the Court said, not what we wish they had said. It’s clear the 4 liberal judges are ruling based on desired outcome, not what the Constitution says and the concept of “incorporation” that has been used through most of it’s history. “Congess shall make no law [rest of the 1st amendment] is broader than literally “Congress” and extends to every level of government.
But I don’t doubt for a second that with a 5th judge some day they’ll “screw the precedent rule”. Since Heller already decided the issue for DC (which is a Federal run territory), that should have been settled law now for the 4 dissenters. They’re still ignoring their own ruling in Heller that gun ownership is a right and arguing gun control on what they perceive as its social merits. If there is a public will that the world has changed and the 2nd amendment is a bad idea, the Constitution can be amended, like the repeal of Prohibition – not by a Supreme Court ruling. Of course, that will never happen. You’ll never get 3/4 the of the States agreeing to it.
I think the NRA is imploding. They’ve tried to frame the 2nd amendment as protecting hunting and target shooting, which was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment nor what most people want. It’s time for reverse incorporation. A large number of states have passed conceal carry laws – someone should start pushing that as a Constitutional Amendment to clarify and expand narrow interpretations of gun rights. It might not go anywhere, but it will identify the opponents and help focus the arguments.