Justice Antonin Scalia says he is a passionate critic of those judicial decisions that he considers as to be "legislating from the bench.
" He further contends that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, which was established at the time of its drafting.
With this in mind, let's take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision to reject the Washington D.
C.
Ban on Handgun Ownership.
The 5-4 Ruling found that the 1976 Law was incompatible with the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Mr.
Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," Mr.
Scalia somehow concluded that the amendment's opening clause about the need for a ready militia was only one of the reasons that the Framers recognized as a preexisting right to bear arms.
I guess the Founding Fathers neglected to include the other reasons, figuring that Mr.
Antonin Scalia could add these later.
Mr.
Scalia also was able to read into the Second Amendment that no law could be written that could render a lawful firearm inoperable for immediate self-defense in the home.
Does this mean that a loaded Browning .
50 Caliber Machine Gun should be allowed in the home? If Mr.
Scalia would argue that this is not a lawful firearm, I would remind him that the Second Amendment does not distinguish between the various types of arms available.
My point is not that Mr.
Scalia erred in this decision, but that he should recognize that this decision is as much "legislating from the bench" as those decisions concerning the rights of privacy such as Roe v.
Wade that he rails so much against.