USA:n KKO: Perustuslaissa taattu oikeus kantaa aseita koskee myös kaupunkeja ja osavaltioita

Yhdysvaltain korkein oikeus antoi eilen merkittävän ennakkoratkaisun aseenkanto-oikeudesta, joka ratkaisu varsin yllätyksettömästi annettiin konservatiivituomareiden äänin 5-4. Ratkaisussa vahvistettiin kaksi vuotta sitten annetun Heller-päätöksen oikeusohjeen koskevan liittovaltion lisäksi myös kaupunkeja ja osavaltiota.

"Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause,it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit dis-crimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavor-able—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated inan evenhanded manner."

Tällä hetkellä pisimpään virassa ollut tuomari Stevens jakoi kritiikkiä enemmistölle:

"The Court’s flight from Palko leaves its analysis, carefuland scholarly though it is, much too narrow to provide a satisfying answer to this case. The Court hinges its entiredecision on one mode of intellectual history, culling selected pronouncements and enactments from the 18th and19th centuries to ascertain what Americans thought aboutfirearms. Relying on Duncan and Glucksberg, the plurality suggests that only interests that have proved “fundamental from an American perspective,” ante, at 37, 44, or “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’” ante, at 19 (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721), to theCourt’s satisfaction, may qualify for incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment. To the extent the Court’s opinion could be read to imply that the historical pedigree of a right is the exclusive or dispositive determinant of its status under the Due Process Clause, the opinion is seriously mistaken."

Koko tuomio: McDonald v. Chicago

Palaa otsikoihin