Michelle Malkin » Gun battle: Heller time; D.C. gun ban overturned

Gun battle: Heller time; D.C. gun ban overturned

By Michelle Malkin • June 26, 2008 10:00 AM

Scroll down for updates…10:13am…YES! The D.C. gun ban has been overturned…Scalia authors majority opinion…There is an individual right to bear arms…McCain weighs in…”Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today.”

All eyes are on the Supreme Court for the 2nd Amendment ruling in Heller v. D.C.

SCOTUSblog is covering it live. Tom Goldstein notes that there are three decisions coming down this morning, which will be released in order of the seniority of the author of the principal opinion: most junior to most senior.”

Barack Obama’s doing “inartful” flip-flops in anticipation of the decision:

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

Jim Geraghty: “All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”

Update 10:13am. Rejoice. The D.C. gun ban has been overturned. Tom Goldstein: “Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.”

More from Goldstein, quoting the syllabus: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Update 10:37am. Reader D.G.:

Prediction: Unlike the 5-4 Boumediene vs. Bush decision [the Gitmo case], which the MSM hailed as “landmark” [and] “historic” because it rebuked Bush, this 5-4 decision will be spun as a decision by the “conservative” Supreme Court, which was “controversial,” “fractured” or “splintered.” Anything to cast doubt on the decision.

“Landmark-Historic:” Any decision the court makes that the media likes.

“Controversial-Splintered:” Any decision the liberal media hates.

Update: Allahpundit dissects the ruling. You can find the PDF of the opinion here. SCOTUSblog’s summary:

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “This meaning,” it added, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

And McCain weighs in…

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

UPDATE: (See-Dubya) This goes much farther than the minimum. Not only is their an explicit right to own guns for self-defense (not just hunting or military exercises, and not just for the purposes of the militia) it explicitly mentions that this right extends to handguns.

Check out this rhapsody to the pistol on pp. 57-58. I want the bolded section chiseled in granite and ensconced someplace liberals will see it every day:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

And it’s not just that self-defense is a subsidiary right to the common defense, it’s (page 26) “the central component of the right itself.”

And not just self-defense in the sense of immediate threat to life: it’s for the defense of life, family, and property (p.54):

The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

Out-freaking-standing. I think there’s enough juicy red meat in there to keep the NRA’s lawyers winning victories for centuries.

Posted in: Guns

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (310)

trackbacks (28)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4]

#301

On June 27th, 2008 at 2:28 am, Jet Jaguar said:

love2rumba, #297

Like you, I find the 5/4 split very disturbing. It should have been a slam-dunk, based on the Constitution, and certainly clarified by the intent of the Framers. We hear all the time from the leftists that the U.S. Constitution is a “living and breathing document”. I completely agree, but not in the way that they mean. The “living and breathing” aspect is covered by the amendment process - not the faux-interpretation of words in the context of current events. One question I always put forth to those that use the “living and breathing” argument: If the Constitution was amended to enforce cessation of making, selling, transporting, importing, and exporting of intoxicating liquors (18th amendment), why wasn’t it similarly amended in regard to illegal drugs? …and who can possibly argue that the Federal effort to quash illegal drugs does not dwarf what the Feds did in the speak-easy days? The answer is this: the U.S. Constitution does not need official amending if the meaning of the Founders can be ignored, twisted, or shown as naive, ignorant, or racist. Now there are some really great things that U.S. government is doing. Some of those things are allowed by the Constituion. Most of those things are not allowed (in my opinion), yet they are very good things that probably need doing. Why was the Constitution not amended to allow those good things to be done? I can’t answer that, but the Founders, in their wisdom, provided the amendment process to cover those situations. Now we have rampant acts by the Federal government to do all sorts of “good” things that no one (in significant enough numbers) questions. As I see it, the fundamental problem is that, if the Federal government can do “good things” that are un-Constitutional (and unquestionably, they are good things), doesn’t that open the door for them to do “bad” things??? Shouldn’t the U.S. Constitution, as the Founders meant it, be the definitive guide on how this country should be run?

I suspect that the four, who voted against this decision, are in the no-amendment camp. That is, they see that the amendment process is too slow and inefficient, and that they need to do little tricks to speed things along, so as to do the “right” thing. Thomas Jefferson would have answered them thusly:

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
#302

On June 27th, 2008 at 3:13 am, love2rumba said:

Jet Jaguar..you said it.
#303

On June 27th, 2008 at 4:54 am, diaphanous said:

It’s about time it be turned around!

Now we need to work on every county that is strict at refusing to allow hand guns to law abiding citizens…one by one is how we do it.

Stay vigilant.
#304

On June 27th, 2008 at 4:55 am, diaphanous said:

And while I have been very disappointed in Bush this last term, he did well seating the supreme court justices to help with this verdict. It is disgusting to me that it divides along party lines but that is how we have to deal with it.
#305

On June 27th, 2008 at 7:43 am, Concerned Citizen said:

On June 27th, 2008 at 1:29 am, atheling said:

On June 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am, Concerned Citizen said:

Here’s the warning signs.
1. I’m Independent/Libertarian
2. I vote for the best candidate, not a party
3. I used to be a Republican, but Bush…

And those actually mean:

1. I like to think of myself as “original”.

2. I vote contrary to conventional wisdom.

3. My parents are Republican, but I’m still rebelling against them.

Priceless.

I’ve never seen one of these “Independents” turn out to be anything other than liberal. Except for Khan. He’s happy out there on the lunatic fringe.
#306

On June 27th, 2008 at 8:04 am, khan said:

If embracing the same values as our founding fathers makes one a part of the “lunatic fringe,” then so be it. Unlike many so-called Republicans (McCain included) and unlike many so-called conservatives here (you McCainaanites), libertarians actually DO support limited government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, abolition of the income tax, and preservation of the Constitution. As I said, many libertarian values and principles are, in theory, in line with Republican/conservative ones; however, given the RINOs, given McCain, given the behavior of Republicans in Congress over the past 12 years, it’s still theory. You guys are the very reason why I can’t describe myself as conservative; freedom and liberty are radical and frightening ideas, and very young ideas in the history of civilization. Clearly these ideals and values frighten and threaten you, too.
#307

On June 27th, 2008 at 9:08 am, Concerned Citizen said:

I would love to hear you explain how Nader is a libertarian. It seems to me that taxing corporations out of business doesn’t limit government or abolish income taxes. That’s just another one of those facts that gets in the way of your point of view.

We could spend another day doing this, but unfortunately, you are immune to logic and reason.
#308

On June 27th, 2008 at 9:51 am, khan said:

#307:

A couple of things to keep in mind rather than jumping to assumptions:

1. I’ve never claimed Nader (or Perot) is a libertarian.

2. I never claimed I was a libertarian when I voted Perot and Nader.

3. I said that I vote based on my principles. As I’ve grown older and taken more interest in the goings-on of government, civics, our nation’s founding, etc., I’ve reexamined them and found that a few have changed over the past 20 years. At the heart of it, though, the motivations for those votes were partly still rooted in my libertarian beliefs, although at the time I would be unable to articulate them or identify them as libertarian (they were first stirred during that election year by the Libertarian candidate, though, but this was before the internet for me, and I had no interest in researching him). Now that I think of it, I voted for Nader in ‘00 as well. If I had seen Nader for what he is today, or if he were the kook then that he is now, I would never have voted for him.
#309

On June 27th, 2008 at 11:27 am, Bill Grant said:

On June 27th, 2008 at 8:04 am, khan said:

“If embracing the same values as our founding fathers makes one a part of the “lunatic fringe,” then so be it.”

That’s not what makes you a member of the lunatic fringe.

“Unlike many so-called Republicans”

You aren’t even a “so-called” republican.

“and unlike many so-called conservatives here (you McCainaanites), libertarians actually DO support limited government,”

Well by effectively supporting Obama you have got a strange way of showing it. I am for smaller, more financially responsible government. If you take a look at what the current front runner proposes in spending, mostly in new entitlements, you will realize that it has to be stopped. We can’t add another TRILLION dollar entitlement program to the defect spending when our debt is approaching the 10 trillion dollar mark. That, along with the other disgusting waste will bankrupt (Literally) the country.
Our currency is not backed by a gold or silver standard, it is “backed” by our national productivity as measured by our GDP. If our debt is greater then our gdp we are going to be in for some serious difficulties in trying to pawn off our paper.

“personal responsibility, abolition of the income tax, and preservation of the Constitution.”

It is so courageous of you to take on the pro-irresponsibility, pro-tax, pro-trashing the Constitution lobby. Actually you are not, because you and your second string Ron Paul are probably going to help elect Barry O.

“however, given the RINOs,”

The term RINO has become a democrat weasel word to try to help split the Republicans. Seriously, Regan would be shouted down as a RINO by some of the same idiots using the term now.

“. You guys are the very reason why I can’t describe myself as conservative; freedom and liberty are radical and frightening ideas, and very young ideas in the history of civilization. Clearly these ideals and values frighten and threaten you, too.”

And we also burn witches and seek to slug “people of color” with our new testament. Please, spare me your Starbucks fueled sanctimony. I am not afraid of “freedom and liberty”, I am on guard against threats against them. The major threat I see against them as of now (aside from the glassy eyed zombies that do their bidding) are the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama as well as the likes of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
All of those threats to my liberty and freedom (not to mention the fact that Bob Barr is no libertarian) are why I am voting for McCain.
#310

On June 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm, Dimsdale said:

On June 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pm, see-dubya said:

Dimsdale #163–the “a Constitution we are expounding” line quoted by the Kossack is actually from John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland.

In considering this question, then, we must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding.

Nobody really knows what that means, but it is often invoked as some sort of mystical incantantaion before liberal judges make a new law.

But is a “kossack” smart enough to know that?

Somehow, I doubt it.