If there was any doubt in your mind about why the 2016 presidential election is a do or die moment for the Second Amendment, you ought to consider what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said recently about the high court’s landmark Heller decision, which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects one’s individual right to keep and bear arms.
In an interview with “The New York Times” Ginsburg said that Heller was “a very bad decision,” adding that the court may reconsider it’s ruling whenever there is a challenge to a gun control law.
So, what does that mean exactly? Well, as I’ve said in the past, gun-grabbers have long argued (and continue to argue) that the 2A is a right that was conferred only within the context of militia service, ergo if you or I did not belong to a civilian militia, we did not have a guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
This ass-backward reading of the Second Amendment is very troublesome, but it prevailed for years, until Heller, and it allowed certain big cities and federal enclaves, e.g. D.C., to enact various draconian gun laws, including bans on handguns and concealed carry.
But after Heller, after it was made clear that the Second Amendment was, indeed, an individual right, everything changed. It was a watershed moment. Gun prohibitions began to fall like dominos. State and municipal governments who wished to limit one’s right had to reckon with the gravity of Heller (and McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the Heller decision to all the states in 2010). It didn’t take long for anti-gunners to realize that they were now fighting a losing battle. The 2A was here to stay — at least as long as the complexion of the court remained 5-4 in favor of gun rights.
Now that justice Scalia is gone, it’s 4-4. Four liberals, four conservatives. Four anti-gunners, four pro-gunners. And this is why this year’s election is so important, if Hillary Clinton takes office in 2016, she will undoubtedly appoint Scalia’s replacement and maybe one or two other justices (Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80 and Breyer is 77). Clinton has gone on record saying that the Supreme Court “got it wrong,” on the 2A, presumably with respect to Heller.
“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton at a private New York fundraiser back in the fall of 2015.
“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
If the court flips to a 5-4 or 6-3 anti-gun majority, the Heller decision is as good as gone. One’s individual right to keep and bear arms is gone. All the pro-gun laws that Heller paved the way for are gone. For anti-gunners, Heller is the key thread that could unravel the pro-gun movement and all the progress that’s been made over the years.
Ginsburg is no fool. She knows that if a Hillary-appointed court gets another whack at Heller, they’ll change it to reflect an anti-gunners interpretation of the Second Amendment.
In a 2013 interview with PRI, Ginsburg explained how she interprets the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia … Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias,” she said. “The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”
She goes on to say that since there is no need for militia service, there is no need for the Second Amendment.
“Its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own,” she said. “I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So … the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”
In the video below you’ll see how Hillary tacitly endorses the Ginsburg perspective by refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Bottom line: We’re in big trouble if Hillary gets elected.
(H/T: Daniel Terrill)