Naoružana demokratija i kontrola držanja oružja u SAD
Armed Democracy – The Control of Possessing Arms in the USA

Summary/Abstract: The author comments on US Supreme Court’s decision in the case MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL, relying on the press agencies’ news, text of the Court’s ruling, as well as on the notorious facts from America’s social and ideological history. In the first part of this work he suggested that considered ruling is only an episode, a relatively insignificant one, in drawn out contest between liberals ad conservatives in US political and intellectual establishment, struggle that neither begins nor ends with this decision. In spite of efforts the supporters of „rifgt to arms“ are making to stress the landsliding importance of the Supreme Court’s dicision for legal informing, establishing and consolidating the right to bear personal firearms, the author views it in a wider perspective of continuing tensions between Obama administration and consrevative Republicans-led opposition. The said ruling may be understood as a reminder to President that there is yet a strong conservative majority in Supreme Court playing a role of counterweight to his liberal policies. The second part of this text deals with the wording and justification of ruling itself. It has more to do with American federalism embodied in respective powers of federal, state and local governments than with the constitutionality of measures providing for posession of arms control. It is because Supreme Court had already determined the true meaning of Second Amendment to US Constitution in its decision in case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554, interpreting it in a sense that its provisions confirm the individual right to possess the personal firearms as a constitutionally guaranteed right. By this example the author endeavors to illustrate different legal techniques of Anglo-Saxon and Continental law in making the consututonality and legality a real and efficient social force. The final part of this contribution traces the social and ideological background of present Supreme Court’s decision. It postulates the deeply-rooted traditions of „armed democracy“ – condition in which the majority of adult male population have posessed personal firearms as necessary prrequisit of self.maintenance in chaotic social environment of Wild West – in American historical consciousness, outlining its emergence in the colonail past, its role in shaping American democratic institutions in a pre-urban and preindustrial civilization, its transformation into a conservaive ideological complex in the post-Civil War era and its place in social landscape od contemporary America. In conclusion, author proves that the opponents of the stircter firearms’ control fail to show that mass posession of personal firearms favors anti-criminal policies.

• Details
• Contents