New York Times: Supreme Court “Misread” The Second Amendment

 The New York Times hates guns. And the causes of guns. Like the Second Amendment, whose assertion of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms strikes them as a typo of some sort. Their latest editorial on the topic takes Florida voters and their duly elected representatives to task for passing and enforcing a law that removes local gun control regulations which, by the way, violate the Second Amendment. “In 1987, the Legislature passed a law that allowed the state to pre-empt the whole field of gun and ammunition controls, but it had very little effect on real life. ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs and other notices were kept up in appropriate places as communities continued to enforce gun ordinances already on their books.” Illegally. You know: in contravention of the law. Which was a good thing, apparently . . .

That is about to change under a new law, passed in June by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Local governments could face penalties of $100,000 for not dropping their gun control laws. Local officials could face a $5,000 fine and possible removal from office. And court costs are explicitly denied for local officials if they are sued by gun owners under the new law.

Cities like St. Petersburg are rushing to repeal sensible ordinances against firing guns in the city limits. Other communities are busy spiking bans on carrying guns into public parks. They must also repeal their authority to suspend gun and ammunition sales during public emergencies. “We’re not allowed to have bows and arrows or slingshots in a park, but we can have a gun,” a town council member in Oldsmar said to The St. Petersburg Times.

Sensible, schmensible. As I said before, under Sunshine State law, these ordinances are illegal. If voters want to make them legal again, they can do so through something called the democratic process. Reading their copy carefully, I reckon the Times just about understands that (as galling as it might be). But I’m not sure.

Even the Supreme Court, in its ruling that misread the Second Amendment as a personal right to bear arms, stressed that it was not casting doubt on a wide range of gun control laws passed to protect communities from gun violence. Florida’s voters will have to ask themselves: Did we send legislators to Tallahassee to protect the gun lobby or to represent all Floridians?

As far as the U.S. Supreme Court “misreading” the Second Amendment as a personal right, Dudes, it’s time to let that one go. The Court has ruled not once but twice in recent history–Heller and McDonald—that the 2A is an individual right like, oh, all the other rights in the so-called Bill of Rights. And they did so clearly.

The Gray Lady should get with the program. And the next time someone second guesses the Supremes, I don’t want to hear them lecturing us (in that condescending tone of yours) about “established case law.” But you know they will . . .

comments

  1. avatar JTB says:

    You have to have an epic sense of self-importance to write an article like that….

  2. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    The Times also ignores that crime in Florida has declined dramatically since Florida passes it’s preemption law in 1987. This ignorance is willful, however, because preemption of local gun bans is exactly what NYC officials fear most: that some gap-toothed Appalatchian inbreeds In Albany will gang up on them and strip the Big Apple of its uniquely Draconian gun laws.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Liberals love crime, it keeps the masses begging for big government intervention and hand-holding.

  3. avatar Kerry says:

    Who knew that the ‘gun lobby’ had so many members among the common citizenry of Florida?

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    No Guns Allowed signs are helpful to criminals. And apparently Times readers as well.

  5. avatar stateisevil says:

    As a native Floridian, I’m impressed at how far the state has beat back the tyrants and the retirees from the fascist states of NY and NJ. Fl’s only serious (and it is grievous) flaw is that it is one of 8 states that doesn’t have open carry. The neocons in the FL senate are afraid of the Fl retail federation, which apparently doesn’t care that stores can set whatever policy they want on their properties.

    1. avatar boomenshutzen says:

      Texas doesn’t have open carry either. It bothers me more on principal than anything else. I don’t think I’d open carry even if it were legal, but I’d like the option. With concealed carry here in Texas printing is a big no-no, but if we had “discreet carry” then I would feel a lot more comfortable.

      1. avatar William says:

        It is nice to have the option. I usually carry concealed, but it’s nice to just strap one on and go for a walk or hike or a trip to the range.

        The problem is during tourist season. The tourists’ sensibilities are tweaked by an openly carried gun. And buddy and I were once asked to conceal because of it. We pulled our t-shirts out of our jeans and draped it mostly over the guns, but the outline was clearly printing. To give credit to the store, we were not forced to conceal, nor were we rushed out of the store. After that, I don’t open carry often and I try to steer clear of tourists.

        1. avatar Carl says:

          Just figure out a way to keep out liberal tourists? Or use the quick disconnect fittings on their brains to change their minds?

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Florida doesn’t have open carry because that was the deal made with Janet Reno for her to support concealed carry. Eighteen years after Waco and the bitch is still killing us.

  6. avatar boomenshutzen says:

    The gun grabbers are grasping at straws. They don’t have facts or logic on their side so they have to make stuff up. Still, we shouldn’t get complacent. Remember, just because a lie is outrageous, doesn’t mean people wont believe it.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    in its ruling that misread the Second Amendment as a personal right to bear arms

    This from Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

    The personal v. collective right debate is well-settled. The Justices agreed by two votes of 9-0 that the right to carry is an individual right. They disagreed strongly on the scope of that right. Methinks that either the Gray Lady is senile or the author failed reading comprehension in grade school. Or maybe the Times just lies like a rug?

  8. avatar tdiinva says:

    A few weeks ago I asked one of our gun control advocates to explain in simple words what the “collective” right to bear arms is. Never happened and all I got was an instruction to read some convuluted losing legal opinion. If you can’t explain it in simple language then it does it exist.

  9. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    The ny slimes is a worthless rag run by a bunch of no good COMMIES. If I buy another puppy, I’ll buy this rag just to potty train my puppy.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Don’t do it, JOE. A puppy deserves better. I suggest the Providence Journal.

      1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

        I trained my first puppy on the Projo. I came home one day and dropped my unread paper on the ground so that I could pet her, and she ran up to the paper and pissed on it. This is a true story, and we still laugh about it today.

  10. avatar Charles5 says:

    Local governments should not be able to set gun related ordinances that conflict with state or federal law, so I agree with the new bill in that respect.

    However, the core of the constitution is the protection of rights, specifically property rights (i.e. the right to control the use of your property). I have no problem with businesses putting up “No Guns Allowed” signs. It is their property and they have the right to manage it as they see fit. Of course, I won’t visit that store anymore, and that is an opportunity cost that they have to weigh. Still, it is their right to regulate and control the who, what, when, where, and how of their property. It is the same thing as requiring customers to wear shoes if they want to come in. I don’t have a problem with it, because I believe in individual property rights and not collective ones.

    1. avatar BHirsh says:

      Normally, I would agree.

      BUT… your property rights end where my right to life begins.

      Just sayin’.

  11. avatar Tom says:

    Wasn’t this the gun banners’ story du jour a couple of months ago? Subscriptions to the NYT pay site must be down and they’re saving money by recycling op-ed material.

  12. avatar Silver says:

    “Progressives” don’t care about laws or the Constitution, they only care about whatever furthers their sick agenda. In true lib fashion, they only care about laws that protect their own concerns, no matter how unjust or un-American they are.

    Personally, I think they hate the First Amendment more than the second. They do everything they can to suppress dissenters’ speech, no matter what the topic.

    1. avatar BHirsh says:

      “Progressives” don’t care about laws or the Constitution –

      Au contraire. Indeed, they DO. They care that the Constitution obstructs their worldview.

      Hence, they ignore the Constitution.

      But, they DO “care”.

  13. avatar SilverWings says:

    The Bill of Rights where the 2nd Amendment was written are all Rights written for the protection of the liberty of the individual person or citizen. None of the Rights are group, state, or collective Rights. The word that I’m getting through the grapevine is that increasing numbers of left of center liberals/progressives are buying guns yet are doing so quietly and are refraining from wanting their gun-buying treason to get out among their liberal friends. Some urban (and rural) liberals are openly calling themselves ‘preppers’ to hopefully politically keep their liberal friends from calling them ‘survivalists’ which is more a word associated with the right-wing. People are funny. They make me laugh.

  14. avatar Bpaul says:

    It Wasn’t an op-ed. It was an Editorial on the editorial page, Not the page opposite of the editorial page. When you make mistakes Mr. Farago, it looks bad for your criticism of the NY Times. Often times the Op-ed page is contrary to the views of the publication. That was NOT the case here.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      You know, I never really thought about the difference. In forty years. Whoa. Anyway, text amended. Thanks.

  15. The 2008 Heller Decision was reaffirmed in 2010 in the McDonald decision. Both of theses being based on the 1939 Miller decision.

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons”. American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email