Gun battle: Heller time; D.C. gun ban overturned
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.
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
- District Of Columbia vs. Heller Opinion: Heller Affirmed | Stuck On Stupid
- A Tale Of 2 Constitutional Rights | A South Dakota Moderate
- The Bottom Line : Adam Lawson
- La Shawn Barber's Corner
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms UPDATE:“All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”
- Rhymes With Right
- Welcoming Our New Overlords » Pursuing Holiness
- The Other McCain: SCOTUS: VICTORY!
- Supreme Court Strikes Down Washington Gun Ban | OpenMarket.org
- Breaking: SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of 2nd Amendment » Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!
- Finally, Some Relief for Crime Riddled DC | The Hinge Of Fate
- Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Obama Flip-Flop Continues On Gun Bans
- Lump on a Blog » Blog Archive » Obama: Apparently He Was Against the Constitution Before He Was For It - or - Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court
- Pirates! Man Your Women! » Blog Archive » Finally A Good Decision
- The 2nd Amendment Is Affirmed « Out West
- Narrow Escape--Army of Dog
- Obama Flip-Flops on D.C. Gun Case, TODAY! | The Patriot Room
- Stop The ACLU
- Bitter, Gun Clingers REJOICE! «
- Supreme Court Humbly Permits You to Bear Arms | The Daily Conservative
- Supreme Court Confirms Individual Right to Bear Arms | shyspeak.net
- The Conservative Reader » Blog Archive » Supreme Court: Guns Still In Vogue
- THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- The Wide Awake Cafe » He Had to Respect the Gun
- THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS » Blog Archive » The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down
- Obama’s Slippery Stance on the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling : BigMouthFrog
- Michelle Malkin » DC mayor still unclear on the concept explained Heller
- Supreme Courts Uphold Right to Keep and Bear Arms | unlawful termination unlawful arrest unlawful discrimination unlawful eviction
- Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Hello, Chicago!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Guns
Stop The ACLU
» Oops! Now New Zealand NIWA Accused Of Faking Data
Riehl World View
» BBC, KGB, Oh My: More On Climate Change FraudJustOneMinute
» The Prescient Joe BidenAmSpecBlog
» A Good Time Not to be a DemocratRiehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney CaseThe Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas Special
It seems the people are UNHAPPY!
Supreme Court Update
Supreme Court Ratings Fall as Session Nears End
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Public perceptions of the Supreme Court are falling as its session nears the end and a number of significant rulings have been released. Just 26% of voters now say the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down from 31% two weeks ago and 41% a month ago.
These results were obtained from polling conducted before the Supreme Court issued a much anticipated decision on gun control and the Second Amendment. While voters are evenly divided on the need for stricter gun control, most believe that cities do not have the right to ban handgun ownership.
The decline in ratings for the Supreme Court can be found all across the partisan divide. Just 34% of John McCain’s party now give the Justices good or excellent marks for their work. That’s down from 43% two weeks ago and 52% a month ago. Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats now give the Court such optimistic reviews, little changed from two weeks ago but down from 39% a month ago. Twenty-two percent (22%) of unaffiliated voters give good or excellent ratings, down from 28% two weeks ago and 33% a month ago.
Republicans overwhelmingly believe that Justices should be guided by what’s written in the Constitution and precedent. However, a plurality (42%) of GOP voters believe the Justices typically act on their own individual notions of fairness and justice.
For Democrats, the opposite dynamic is in play. Fifty-two percent (52%) want the Court guided by individual notions of fairness and justice. However, by a two-to one margin, Barack Obama’s party believe the Court is guided primarily by the written words of the Constitution.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of unaffiliated voters want Justices who will strictly interpret the law but a plurality believe that the Court typically operates in the opposite manner.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters believe most Supreme Court Justices try to advance their own personal agendas from the bench. Fifty-three percent (53%) say that the selection of justices is a Very Important consideration in voting for President this year.
the right of the people.
Only the elites need apply. Now we see just how far Heller goes and what we can do to stop it’s misuse by the fascist.
Two of the four gungrabbing justices were appointed by moderate Republicans. Scarry, isn’t it? We are Free People by a 5/4 split. Child rapist were saved by a 5/4 split. We have to do better.
Yeah. This from the people who think the Constitution does not allow religious displays in public, but does allow abortion, gay marriage, and the (Un)Fairness Doctrine. They’re the ones who think the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document.
That’d be downright hilarious if it wasn’t so damn scary.
From the opinion:
“Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.”
On June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am, Paul-Cincy said:
The essence of the letter:
Now if only I could believe the second statement…
If Comrade Obama is elected Chairman, will we see another 2A case with different outcome? Most likely. Firearms are useful for self defense and hunting, but the 2A is the Founders gold plated, Constitutional guarantee, to allow citizens to overcome the tyranny of a government that no longer represents the will of the people. No wonder the liberals, the left, almost all Democrats, MoveOn, Comrade Obama. the UN and EU and every despot and dictator on the planet, wants to remove firearms from their subjects.
And just the other day McCain was bragging about supporting the remaining two.
I’m going out to do some shooting in celebration!
The problem I have is that the decision still allows licensing of handguns.
Anyone want to believe that section of the DC gov’t will make the DMV look like paragons of efficiency?
I can throw that cosmoline away now.
Still 4 didn’t get it right. That in itself is troubling. Even I can understand “will not be infringed upon”
Time to invest in some “gun Stocks”.
Re McCain’s potential SCOTUS nominees…he’ll have to reach across the aisle. He’ll be facing an overwhelming Democratic majority.
Also, Justice Scalia makes it very clear that concealed weapon laws, weapon limitations, and other gun control legislation are still very much Constitutional. It’s the outright ban of a weapon that is used for lawful purposes that is being overturned.
I am truly loving this decision.
Ha! Zing! You’re absolutely right. They’ll put the gun licensing office in a small office in the worst part of town.
HALLELUJAH! WASHINGTON DC IS FREE AT LAST!
John McCAin made a very wise, clear and unequivocal defense of the decision. I also note his support of the bipartisan amicus curiae from earlier.
Good show Mr. McCain!
Ok SCOTUS, now on to the 14th amendment if you please?
The “But” monkeys are coming out of their trees. Barack Obama has been spotted clinging to a gun. Infringements will be redefined as reasonable restrictions.
“You can’t fire in a crowded theater”
An armed populace frightens tyrants more than anything else. Watch the ones that try to minimize or co-opt this decision; they would be tyrants if they could.
All of it.
This decision is just another indicator of the failure of the socialist nanny state. DC is now free.
It will be interesting to see what “common sense” gun laws they come up with now.
SCOTUS must have heard the rattle of our pitchforks and knives. But don’t put them away just yet; we have a lot of work to do!
Can you believe 4 of them dissented?
I fear for our Constitution and our Country.
It’s not that good a ruling. It leaves the de facto gun bans in places like NYC or NJ or Chicago in place.
“2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
So much for “shall not be infringed.”
I’m sure they will come up with laws requiring people to get the permission of the local chief of police before they can get a handgun. No such permission will then be granted, except to the politically connected.
I just saw Wayne LaPierre (NRA) on FoxNews vowing to file suit against cities like Chicago, San Francisco, New York, etc.
In reading the dissenting opinion, somewhere around page 75 I think, Justice Stevens clearly states that in his opinion, the framers of the Constitution did not mean to codify an inherent right of the individual to self defense. It is his opinion that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the federal government was not allowed to disarm the state militias, and thereby force tyranny on the states.
So there you have it. According to at least one Supreme Court justice, we are not allowed to defend ourselves using firearms. I find that incredible, when you observe that the most precious thing to a liberal seems to be the individual, and not society. Yet the individual is not guaranteed the right to defend himself.
I have been frustrated with McCain over amnesty and wondered whether I would go vote in the general election. Because of his solid stance today, on this issue alone, I will vote for him in November. Good move Senator McCain.
Hard to see how he can win, based on this ruling. It pretty explicitly limits itself to this one law in DC.
There’s one born every minute.
The biggest problem I see with the ruling is not the licensing requirement being okayed–it’s the ominous indication that, even though the majority passed on the issue, the right found in the Second Amendment in its eyes is not incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. That means that unlike the first amendment and the abortion amendment (really, it’s in there. Honest. No really), this right does not restrict states and municipalities from infringing on gun rights. D.C. is a federal enclave, so it does apply, but people in California and Illinois and New York are out of luck, except as it pertains to the Feds.
I agree with others here who observe that this was a near-run thing.
What should’ve been a no-brainer 9-0 decision came down to one Justice.
If the donkeys can put together veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate in November, then even if McCain wins the presidency and acts along conservative principles, the only really effective speedbrake on a donkey Congress will be the Supreme Court.
A 5-4 Court. Unsettling to think about.
Rusty
Yes, I can see why a lefty like yourself would love it.
Well, LaPierre probably knows more about the situation than either of us, so I think I’ll go by what he says instead. Thanks for your two cents, though.
I don’t think they have a case before them that addresses this. That’s why we need a congressman with some grapes to introduce a bill closing the anchor baby loophole.
Hopefully this will end the discussion of whether it’s an individual right or not. You know liberals. They don’t just give up. We thought the whole gay marriage debate was over, but they’ll keep it up until they get their way. I read somewhere that you don’t win a war by killing your enemy, but by killing his will to fight. That’s what they’ll do with all of these issues.
Flenser: Gabriel Malor thinks Scalia laid the groundwork for overturning the state bans as well. See his first update here.
If they can put together veto proof majorites in the House and Senate, then they should be allowed to impose their agenda. That’s the way the system works.
Maybe conservatives would be better off trying to figure out ways to get the American people behind them instead of hoping for a court to block the Dems.
Uh, what liberal/liberalism are YOU talking about? Liberals and liberalism are anti-individual.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize.
On June 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am, flenser said:
Indeed, a look at the relative weapons laws in Chicago versus the ones in Phoenix would make it clear to most where the candidates stand. The candidates pronouncements on the issue might also be a good indication of what they intend to do. The fact that this was a 5-4 decision would make it clear to most people that we need a pro-second amendment president in office to solidify the court. But the fact that some so called conservatives are willing to risk an Obama presidency and the stacking of the court with people who make Che Guevara look like Samuel Alito does in fact demonstrate that there is one born every minute.
If McCain does win, the Dems probably will not have a veto proof majority in the House or the Senate. Presidential elections have coat tails.
On the other hand, if Obama wins, he will have at least a simple majority in the House, and close to a filibuster proof margin in the Senate.
Not sure who Gabriel Malor is, but I disagree with his conclusion.
Sure, I believe Scalia would have liked to make the Second Amendment binding on the states. But he clearly did not have five votes to do so.
And though people are going on about how the court found an “individual right” to bear arms, it also went to great pains to note that it was NOT striking down existing gun laws other than the DC one.
That leaves the sorts of gun laws in Americas big cities, which are de facto gun bans, safely in place.
Wouldn’t the 14th Amendment apply this ruling to all the states, not just federal land?
There’s one born every minute. Rudy frickin’ Giuliani announced his strident oposition to the DC gun ban, once he decided to run for president as a Republican. Politicians say all sorts of things.
By what mechanism?
Rusty–No, not necessarily. It depends on whether the right is seen as being incorporated by the due process clause. The opinion suggests it isn’t, even though they don’t expressly rule on the issue.
#130 khan
I was looking at it from the standpoint of liberals always being about me, me, me. My rights, my freedoms, my guaranteed, nanny state, income for life, freedom from smoke, freedom from defective products, world-revolves-around-me attitude.
Although it does only pertain to those individuals who have survived their release from the womb.
I am aware they do not have a case before them to address the 14th. I do however pray that SOMEONE will push this and get it before them!
The MSM is acting like this is the first time Americans have had the Constitution right to bear arms.
This ignorance is amazing. It is clear as day in Amendment 2: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That 4 justices could rule against this shows how far we have gotten from the country and values our Founding Fathers intended.
I doubt it because of the game Dems have been playing. They run as conservatives in the South and West just to get elected. There is going to come a point where they are going to be thrown out of office if they don’t vote on conservative principles they got elected on.
Yahspew headline:
No, the SC agreed with the constitution which already made it clear we have a right to own guns.
What is scary is those same 9 people could have ruled against the constitution and, 4 of them did.
-Kevin
Yeah, but the SCOTUS didn’t write the 2nd Ammendment, so the headline isn’t really inaccurate.
On June 26th, 2008 at 11:58 am, flenser said:
The senators in their own words on their requirements for supreme court justices:
Choice #1:
Choice #2:
Yup, all sorts of things.
Adrian Fenty is on Fox now reiterating that fascism still maintains a strong hold on Washington D.C.
I suspect Mr. Charlton Heston has a big smile on his face, in his special place in heaven…
Halle-friggin-luah!
J S Ragman, we should tell Stevens that the framers failed to word the 2nd Amendment in a manner consistent with his opinion. Even if he is right about their intent – the wording is clear.
In fact, I’m a bit disappointed with the majority decision. It’s clear that the 2nd Amendment provides the people with the ability to possess firearms for the purpose of forming a militia (not just home protection). The language of the amendment does not limit the right to home use or to militias which are already in existance.
Most important point (I think) made by Scalia in his opinion:
“A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no guarantee at all.”
I think so. Although, DC obviously isn’t a state, I believe the analyis will certainly be the same. Due to this decision, no state government will be able to allow an outright ban on all handguns. I think this decision will mandate that local governments bow down to the U.S. constitution on this narrow second amendment issue.
I’ll second that.
Yes, licensing, registration and background checks are all vile intrusions and we must work to eliminate them. Licensing and registration registration are generally local and state issues and we must work there. Some states are so far gone I wonder if it would be worth trying, but for our own sake I think Yes, we must.
One the Federal level RINO elimination and control must be first priority so we can get conservatives to support a Conservative President IF we ever get one.
To work on the local and state level you might try and find an organization in your state such as this.I know Ohio, Texas and Virginia all have such organizations.
http://www.azcdl.org/
Regarding application to the states through the 14th Amendment, here’s the ominous language I was talking about.
FN 23. With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal government. (emphasis added).
Or until a Court with a different mix of Justices hears another case and decides differently.
That whole “Let’s stay home in November!” thing just keeps sounding dumber and dumber, doesn’t it?
DC is not a safe place.
This decision will not make it much safer. Look for the DC to impose local laws in retribution that will again meet challenge in court.
The same Marxists are in charge there and criminals work the streets with impunity.
Smart folks that work in DC live in Virginia or Maryland.
Been there done that years ago.
Now we have to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark. What were those idiots thinking?
What should happen in all illegals should be considered ‘hostile’ and that would put the kabosh on their ‘birthright’ citizenship.
The issue simply wasn’t before this court, although it would have been nice to put the kabash on future litigation with pointed language. No state will be able to successfully ban handguns, or weapons for hunting after this decision. Could you imagine what would happen if the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was limited?
Incorporation is limited, though. The Bill of Rights has not been applied against the States via the 14th Amendment “tittle and jot,” as they say. If it was so unimaginable, why would the court even need to say it was not addressing that issue?
I live in NYC…
In discussion about this, it is thought that Bloomberg is going to ignore this ruling long enough to find a loophole to exploit to keep people from handguns. Currently it is highly illegal to have a handgun IN the City- I think it’s a felony.
My questions to all of you reading this- Can Bloomberg get away with it? Is there any reason he can keep ignoring the ruling and maintain a ban on the handgun in the City?
flenser, what is your problem? Did your mommy dress you funny today or something?
But, they’re sending a message!
/sarc
Send the message financially by not donating or by changing your party affiliation, just don’t let Obama get in office or you may not get a chance to correct that error.
I wonder if this is the Court’s way of making up for yesterday’s horrific ruling – a backhanded suggestion for kids to take up arms, now that the Court has made them easy prey for would be rapists and perverts?
JennyBea–if you read my prior posts, he probably can get away with it, because this decision not only avoids the issue of whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms restricts state governments and municipalities from infringing on that right, but it also implies that long-standing precedent holds it does not.
This is a nice outline of the problems inherent in liberalism.
1) It is not “a Constitution” but “THE Constitution.”
2) They don’t “pretend the Constitution doesn’t exist,” the just elect pols who trample it and appoint judges who do likewise.
3) They have selective support of the Amendments that they like, and treat the others as legal lepers. Sorry, it is one big enchilada.
4) The incredible inability of them to understand that the fact that DC has a tremendously bad gun problem specifically because they don’t allow the vast majority of honest citizens to own a gun for self defense, and more incredibly, they can’t digest the fact that “taking the extremely reasonable step of banning the gun most frequently used in crimes” has no applicability to a criminal who, by definition, ignore and break laws.
It may be an old saw, but the only people that obey the laws are the non-criminals, and they are the ones that have taken the brunt of the unreasonable (and unConstitutional) decision to ban guns in DC.
They are trying to be extra careful, and wait for the right case(although I doubt if such a case ever occurs at this point). They don’t want to overplay their hand, and if a certain case ever comes around, they will be able to research and study the briefs to word the decision as a rock solid precedent, as opposed to being muddied up with the DC federal issue.
That’s just my take, but I see your point. I just don’t think the states have anything to worry about.
Don’t get too excited about this ruling folks. The next step to gun control will be controlling ammunition. There’s a proposal to limit purchase/transfer of ammo in California right now.
This will be the next step.
Can’t shoot your gun without ammo.
.
A question for those in the know: how does this decision affect the inability to carry a gun across state lines, and the fact that an FBI sanctioned gun permit is not applicable in another state? You know, like driver’s licenses?
Driving is a privilege, but individual gun ownership is a Constitutional right, yet we cannot take our government approved and cleared guns across a state border?
Is there logic here, or just a distrust of the common man?
On June 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Concerned Citizen said:
Heh… “If you want to send a message, call Western Union.”
Here here.
Dimsdale–questions like that are going to be litigated for years to come, with ammunition for both sides (no pun intended) being provided by Heller.
Hopefully there is someone in NYC or Albany with the stones to challenge the Mayor. The ammunition issuse will probably needed to be taken on locally and eventually to the Supreme Court.
Damn, DO NOT stay home in November. Do that and the libs get free votes and we take bigger hits in Congress and Locally. The time to punish RINOs is in the primaries. It is easy to get discouraged, frustrated and cynical and that is EXACTLY what Obama, Momma and the rest of the fascist want.
it is your country, fight for the Right.
Umm, I’m no liberal, I’m a libertarian, and I see nothing wrong with someone defending and protecting their rights and freedoms. None of what you list, though, is about the individual or putting the individual first.
You know shotguns and other types of “long-guns” were never banned in D.C. If the “new-found” abililty of D.C. residents to defend their home and hearth is the reason behind all the applause for the decision then methinks everyone’s cheering is misplaced.
That said, I think the majority’s decision is completely correct as a matter of Constitutional law.
JennyBea said:
It’s called the Sullivan Act.
Yo, Bill Grant. re: #143,
“PUMA founder Will Bower…said he’d liked McCain’s answer on judges, in which he “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg and Breyer.”
Yeah…candidates in their own words, alright.
Before everyone gets overly excited we all need to remember that four Justices are sure “the People” DO NOT have an individual right to defend themselves. If any one believes a court with the Hildabeast, or worse, would hold to the principle of deferring to previous court decisions and not strike this down the first chance they get is kidding themselves. We all need to be reminded every day that elections matter, especially when talking about who sits on the “Highest Court in the land”.
Dimsdale #163–the “a Constitution we are expounding” line quoted by the Kossack is actually from John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Nobody really knows what that means, but it is often invoked as some sort of mystical incantantaion before liberal judges make a new law.
AMAZING! DC Mayor Fenty already announced that semi-automatics will remain “generally illegal.” What part of “unconstitutional handgun ban” doesn’t he understand?
I agree w/ jtex. They continue to come after ammo (ex. OSHA storage requirements) and the semi-auto vs. non-auto debate rages on. Get your reloading equipment and components soon. Anyone want to be my partner in starting up a revolver and speedloader store in DC? HA!
so do I have the right to shoot someone who is raping a child?
Yes. Thank God.
An excerpt from Mark Sherman’s AP story:
**************
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
***********
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the whole point of the Bill of Rights to do exactly that, Mr. Stevens.
The Bill of Rights specifies a number of instances where “over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate” the freedoms of US citizens.
There is plenty of evidence to support this statement.
I’m no liberal, I’m a conservative, and I see nothing wrong with someone defending and protecting their rights and freedoms either. On that we can agree.
Stevens.
What country has this clown lived his life in?
Bill Grant;
Politicians say all sorts of thing.
One more 5-4 ruling from the Supremes, highlighting how precariously at risk our fundamental rights can be. The next president will probably appoint a number of justices. Something to remember when you vote. Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, etc. aren’t going to appoint any justices. They will be appointed by either Obama or McCain.
Yo, khan re: #173
Former Clinton supporter Will Bower said something after a fund raiser therefore it supersedes the statements of Candidate himself, right? Direct quotes above from McCain (Roberts and Alito “would serve as the model for my own nominees” etc.) somehow doesn’t signify as much as a non-comment from Will Bower.. OK, Here from the Wall St. Journal:
But once again, there is a choice here. Between Roberts and Alito “would serve as the model for my own nominees” and:
The choice: A new-speak phrased “Living constitution” that means whatever Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want it to mean or the document that some of us believe is sacred and should be defended and upheld. Decisions, decisions…
How will they regulate ammo? You may shoot more than me. What if I went to the range every day for practice (because practice makes perfect, after all)? Will they say so many bullets per day/week/month? And if that’s the case, how will they monitor how many bullets you have on hand vs. how many you buy? What if I’m “allotted” so many per month, but I don’t use them? I can save them up. But will it be illegal to have too many bullets? and if so, who is going to monitor that? (Because if they think they’re coming into my house to check, I will shoot them.)
JennyBea,
CA AB 2062 does this: You may only purchase 50 rnds. per month, from a registered seller, and the transaction is reported to the state, along with your thumbprint.
Yes, apparently you can save them up, but look for that to go away once they can monitor how many you buy. Many pols already want regulations concerning “arsenals,” and that includes ammo qty.
They don’t care how much you wish to shoot.
Out of state gun shows and reloads…..There’s always a solution…
#184:
Yo, Bill…I wish I could find that audio clip Rush played of McCain in which Juan chuckled as he said yeah, he does things for political expediency. Never trust a politician.