The Activist Supreme Court Justice

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