Supreme Court Decision Victory for NBA, Loss for NRA
By Jeff Feazell
Nov 27, 2006, 18:31
Let's get 'em boys!
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the National Basketball Association in the controversial NFL v. NBA case Tuesday. The National Football League had sued the NBA on charges of obscenity due to the exhibitionist nature of the player jerseys, sources said. NBA chief attorney Melvin Rowan cited the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to "keep and bare arms" as the cornerstone of his 7-month battle. The decision set a precedent for future Second Amendment interpretations.
Critics of the ruling say that the Second Amendment was intended not only to protect Americans' right to wear tank tops, but also their right to protect themselves with firearms. "Yesterday's ruling is a great victory for anti-constitutional forces within our borders," said National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston in a press conference. "The NRA believes in the right to bare arms, but we also fight for the constitutionally protected right to bear arms."
Many people believe that yesterday's decision will redefine the way Americans see the Second Amendment. Currently, 46 states either issue or do not require permits to carry concealed firearms. However, after NFL v. NBA, some states are likely to see challenges to their existing gun laws.
Have arms but do keep them covered!
Arizona civil attorney Roland Polowski told reporters that "Alaska, for example, a state with no concealed weapon restrictions, has had a long legacy of cultural resistance to tank tops. Now that the right to bare arms has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, we may walk through the streets of Fairbanks in 2 years and find everybody wearing them." Polowski added that since such a scenario would undoubtedly lead to the denial of gun rights, the inability of tank tops to conceal guns would not become an issue.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the one dissenting judge, wrote in his opinion, "...the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Second Amendment to allow revealing clothing to be worn. Rather, it was designed to prevent the federal government from arbitrarily removing a person's limbs. It guarantees us the right to have arms; not the right to expose them. For this reason I must disagree with the majority opinion."
This article available for reprint/syndication.
Gotcha
