From a release by U.S. Rep Rodney Alexander (R-Quitman):
“Today the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago was a victory for upholding the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution,” said Alexander, a life member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). “Essentially, this decision reaffirms what most of us have always believed – that our freedoms explicitly granted by the U.S. Constitution, such as the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, should not vary throughout the 50 states.
“The Second Amendment has always been a clear-cut issue for those who stand behind the U.S. Constitution as it was written by our forefathers. I firmly believe that the U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties it bestows are sacred and should be handled as such. The Supreme Court’s job is to uphold these words, and I am glad today’s ruling reflected this duty.
“Being a life-long Louisianian, I have grown up enjoying the ‘Sportsman’s Paradise’ as my home. Federal, state and local governments should not impose any law that restricts the liberties of citizens to purchase, own and legally use firearms. Rest assured, I have consistently voted to defend these constitutional rights, and I will continue to support legislation that will keep them protected.”
More reaction to the McDonald case, which held that 2nd Amendment protections apply to state and local action as well as that of the federal government and thus invalidates state and local gun bans:
– Cato Institute legal policy analyst David Rittgers, writing in National Review today:
Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.
Fast forward to the 1960s, when a century of institutionalized racism began to come to an end. While racism was no longer the driving force, social change, the drug trade, and the assassination of several national figures turned gun control into an article of faith among progressive politicians. They saw the elimination of guns as the only way to counter the rapid increase of crime in inner cities.
Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.
Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago’s streets.
A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.
House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-OH):
“The Supreme Court’s decision today that every American has Second Amendment rights is a triumph for common sense, our Constitution, and the proper role of the Supreme Court in our Republic. It should remind us that the job of the Supreme Court is enforcing and protecting our rights and the clear meaning of our Constitution – not inventing new ways to advance liberal public policy goals by legislating from the bench and straining to discern previously undiscovered partisan advantage in the ‘penumbras’ of our laws.”
This should not have been a difficult case to decide, as the Court has previously held that constitutional restraints on the federal government also apply to states and localities when other civil rights are in question. Nonetheless, the four liberal justices found reason to make exceptions for the civil right they personally disagree with.