Supreme Court leaning towards upholding Second Amendment rights?
posted at 6:10 pm on March 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Is Anthony Kennedy actually going to come through for once? Dude?
The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense…
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. “In my view, there is a general right to bear arms” that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.
“Yes” to handguns doesn’t necessarily means “yes” to everything. According to the AP, a majority of justices seem to agree that it’s okay to regulate weapons generally so long as the basic right is protected. How basic is the basic right? More basic than would be required by membership in a militia designed as a check on federal power, evidently.
Exit question: Time for AP to start setting up spring guns in front of his heavily fortified NYC apartment windows, or is patience the better part of valor for now?
Update: Whichever side loses this case gets a handy dandy hot-button election issue for November. Obama praying it’s true?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
YAY!
AP.. that is a mighty large potatoe gun you got there!
upinak on March 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
The anti-gun folks don’t have a leg to stand on because crime in D.C. has INCREASED nearly every year since the gun ban.
SoulGlo on March 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Just gimme the right to bear arms and forget about the election as there is a larger issue here that transcends.
mustng66 on March 18, 2008 at 6:17 PM
D.C. is NOT a State.
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Why? In order to take the heat off of him?
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 6:19 PM
True, but irrelevant to the situation.
James on March 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Is that a gun in your pocket, or … .
davidk on March 18, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I should also add that DC has National Guard/Air National Guard units of its own.
James on March 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Imagine that. The Supremes look like they might uphold the Constitution. Wonders never cease.
thatcher on March 18, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Why would he pray for the SCOTUS uphold the ban? I know he, being The Lefty loon he is, believes it would be good, but it’s a TOTAL LOSER in the general election.
Ditto that for Mrs. Clinton.
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Yeah, but the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot if they try to get gungrabby, a lot of those districts they picked up are pro-gun, The Democrat Party is nervous about letting gun control into the campaign rhetoric and twitchy about gun control legislation lest they get 1994′d again.
doubleplusundead on March 18, 2008 at 6:26 PM
It gets a state quarter, though.
But, more importantly, Hallelujah – the Supreme Court’s actually acting as it should!
emailnuevo on March 18, 2008 at 6:27 PM
I think this is win-win for gun advocates. They win? They win. They lose? The gun control folks overreact and draw the gun folks right back in to voting.
Vizzini on March 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Maybe Obama can hire Rebecca Aguilar for his campaign.
NeoconNews.com on March 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Just saw the report on Fox News. :)
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Seven Percent Solution on March 18, 2008 at 6:29 PM
iPod.
iPhone.
iGlock.
Heh.
JohnTant on March 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Statistics that show restrictive gun laws have an increase in gun related crimes. The opposite is shown to be true also.
The Second Amendment might not explicitly say the right to protect ones self, but I believe that was part of the founders thinking.
Kini on March 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM
They’re going to look like morons if they don’t uphold it.
I mean, which founders are they going to quote to justify their interpretation?
They will have abandoned any original intent and endangered the rest of the Bill of Rights (more than they already have).
Merovign on March 18, 2008 at 6:30 PM
I’m shocked, a 3/4 reasonable explanation from Kennedy.
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:31 PM
From an AP article on Drudge:
Excuse me?
chinotex on March 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM
SDO’C got it right a few times, too. ;-)
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a gun owner, have have been around guns my entire life and i’m favor of “reasonable checks”, total bans however are unconstitutional.
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Thank goodness that common sense is prevailing. That said I do not believe that the Right to keep and bear arms is an open ended right of the States. The only thing that scares me more than Iranian Nukes is New Jersey Nukes.
meci on March 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM
IMHO, upcoming Supreme Court appointments are the number one issue this election. Decisions like this one are the reason.
TheCulturalist on March 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Grrr.. My Typing skillz have gone straight to H3LL!
I’m giddy with excitement.. >:D
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
chinotex on March 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Mark Sherman obviously doesn’t get it… is my assumption.
upinak on March 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Not if he’s shown to be the gun grabbing liberal he really is.
With a Democrat majority in the Congress Americans won’t like the idea of a Democrat President at the same time.
Speakup on March 18, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Thats why States are allowed to make “reasonable gun control laws”, if they go to far, then it’s unconstitutional.
It’s obvious that we need “reasonable gun control laws”
Keep, guns out of the hands of known violent fellons, illegal aliens, etc.
Also, not allowing mass amounts of expolsives to be purchased at a time.. etc.(common sense, explosives covers more than just firearms)
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM
I wonder what motivates the anti gun crowd to continue to press this issue, particularly when the opposition has all the guns…
Viper1 on March 18, 2008 at 6:44 PM
As a gun owner and someone in law enforcement, the more responsible gun owners the better as far as I am concerned. Let’s have CCW’s in all 50 states as President Bush signed into law for current and retired law enforcement (which was a great bill to pass) for those that get their own CCW permits.
azcop on March 18, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Well one issue Obama will go to town on,reviving
the fairness doctrine,like trying to go after Rush,
and ya guns,two of the Liberals favourite political
kick balls!
canopfor on March 18, 2008 at 6:44 PM
That would depend on your decorating scheme in the apartment. If you have a 19th century theme going, I would go with the spring..If you have a more modern theme going, how about this
Pam on March 18, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I think the Democrats will be really dumb to act too aggrieved if the D.C. ban is struck down. This could be a Republican issue either way because we just love fighting on this issue.
frankj on March 18, 2008 at 6:56 PM
I am really excited to read that the justices are leaning towards ruling it’s an individual right. The devil might be in the details a to how far goverments can regulate firearms but this looks like an excellent start! I am excited about the way things are looking.
Afterimage on March 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Has stare decisis been part of the argument? What’s good for the abortionist might also be used to benefit the private citizen.
snaggletoothie on March 18, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Very welcome news.
Spirit of 1776 on March 18, 2008 at 7:04 PM
How could the constitution be all about individual freedom however the Second Amendment somehow was not?
It’s about time we’ve been MORE secure in our right to self defense than anytime before, as we are about to possibly elect the most anti gun liberals as president.
tx2654 on March 18, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Keep, guns out of the hands of known violent fellons, illegal aliens, etc.
Also, not allowing mass amounts of expolsives to be purchased at a time.. etc.(common sense, explosives covers more than just firearms)
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM
You bring up a good point. A judge friend of mine was hearing some noise about BATFE reclassifying common ammo as a class I explosive. Anybody hear anything about that?
jerrytbg on March 18, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Re: the spring guns, I seem to remember a case from first year criminal law that expresswed the majority view that spring guns or trap guns were illegal in all cases, because you are not present to make the decision whether the use of deadly force is objectively reasonable.
So, unless NY has moved away from that view (and I can’t imagine any reason in hell why one of the bluest of blue states would), no go, AP.
Mark V. on March 18, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Um, never mind, AP. Didn’t follow the link… obviously you knew that.
Mark V. on March 18, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Can you get up the C-SPAN video of DC Police Chief (and serious statist nitwit) Cathy Lanier saying the following to the assembled press outside the Supreme Court?
It was a glorious display of fascist arrogance.
Or was that arrogant fascism?
Bruce in NH on March 18, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Bruce in NH on March 18, 2008 at 7:18 PM
either or.
jerrytbg on March 18, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I think kennedy actually decided to read the constitution
Defector01 on March 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I want a tank.
- The Cat
P.S. Oh and an aircraft carrier.
MirCat on March 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
This is a great line from the report:
“Dellinger also argued that the phrase “bear arms” was a military term. He said the Washington law should be upheld because it allows homeowners to have a disassembled rifle or shotgun at home, even while it bans small handguns.”
Defending yourself with a disasembled rifle or shotgun…priceless!!! May as well buy a baseball bat.
bubby62 on March 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM
They just keep us hangin’ on.
infidel4life on March 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM
As a Life Member of the NRA, my hopes are high. But I’ll wait for the decision later this year.
Patience.
Zorro on March 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM
What effect are Bush’s appointments having? Are we moving toward actually interpreting what the Constitution says, rather than what they want it to say?
I don’t like McCain (or some of Bush’s positions), but he will appoint better judges than Hillary or Obama.
I’m really trying to find a reason to vote for him….
cs89 on March 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM
A positive sign, yes. But I’m thinking it’s looking too good to be true, given recent trends. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Meanwhile I’ll be sure to stock up on all the guns I might need or want for the rest of my life.
petefrt on March 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Nacho cheese isn’t REALLY cheese.
EJDolbow on March 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
What you just said is reason enough, plenty enough reason, I think.
petefrt on March 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Here Ya Go…
There was a carrier for sale a couple years back. I’ll try to find a link.
Rodent on March 18, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Color me surprised!
Is that racist?
omnipotent on March 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM
The right pre-exists other considerations or applications, such as militia service. Frankly, I wish all it said was, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Akzed on March 18, 2008 at 8:55 PM
To get a carry permit in my state you must, among other things, put an ad in the local paper announcing your permit application in case anyone wants to object, listing your address. Guess what? Crooks go around breaking into applicants’ houses and stealing their guns. I know of two cases, and the police say it happens a lot.
Akzed on March 18, 2008 at 8:58 PM
AP,
Are those spring guns going to protect you when evil forces conspire to drop a crane on your building?
/315 Troother
burnitup on March 18, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Akzed – that’s what it does say, but most people can’t be bothered to confirm that by reading what the founders wrote about the Bill of Rights.
Trust me, no one actually does their homework and is still confused about this – the control freaks are just pathological liars.
Some people WANT it to mean the National Guard, but no one can read what the founders wrote and seriously believe that.
The dishonesty is the only reason that debate is still going on. Well, that and the general laziness of people who don’t do their homework.
WRT the CCW requirements in your state, that’s pure harassment and possibly accessory before the fact, the officials responsible for that should not only be fired but prosecuted.
What if someone gets a restraining order, do they have to publish the address of their safe house in the paper?
The control freaks don’t just want to stop you from stopping the criminals, they want to HELP the criminals hurt you!
Merovign on March 18, 2008 at 9:19 PM
My utopian world is one in which a concealed handgun license holder in Texas can carry his / her concealed handgun and license to any other state / territory / commonwealth / reservation in the union any way or any how (e.g. by bus, by plane, by this or that) and vice versa.
My really, ultimate, super duper utopian world would be one where any American citizen who’s a non-felon could do all the above without the license.
BowHuntingTexas on March 18, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Good God. Which state do you live in?
BowHuntingTexas on March 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Can you please explain how the SCOTUS decision in this case creates a “hot button” issue for November? The decision which they render is the end of the story. Final. Fini. Fin. No where to go from here.
That’s why it is so important to get it right here and now.
Congress can go twiddle its thumbs if they don’t like the result.
seanrobins on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 PM
I would highly recommend anyone concerned about this to read the transcript of the oral arguments, which is posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987832/posts
seanrobins on March 18, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Again, how does this become any kind of an issue. Once SCOTUS decides the issue, its dead. Nothing more we can do about it.
Fortunately, it appeared pretty clear from the justices’ commentary during oral argument today that they will likely be striking down the DC ban.
seanrobins on March 18, 2008 at 9:33 PM
This smells of disturbing wiggle-room shenanigans.
LimeyGeek on March 18, 2008 at 9:34 PM
If you think the American public got their panties in a wad over illegal immigration amnesty, wait till you try to take their guns. It’s a personal thing, the right to defend yourself in your own home. Even some democrats don’t like being vunerable.
Hog Wild on March 18, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Forgive the crappy video quality, but I wanted to get this video of DC Police Chief Lanier up as quickly as possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HWb8INbZg
AP, can you get a clean version of this? I lack the ability to get video from my DVR to my computer.
Bruce in NH on March 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Liberal fascist lesbian stooge.
And ugly too.
infidel4life on March 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Pretty harsh. But let’s look at it clinically.
She has permission to carry a gun. She works in a building that is full of people allowed to carry guns. She takes her gun with her everywhere, except the Supreme Court, and I admit I have not been there but the Supreme Court probably has armed guards. Her gun is most likely on her nightstand as she sleeps, on her person as she shops, in her car when she is in her car, and is only disassembled and useless when she is cleaning it, but she as most police do probably has a “back up”.
However, if you are average law abiding “Joe Blow” American who is fortunate enough to live in the crade of democracy, you don’t need a gun.
Clinical analysis complete: She’s a stooge, and a pretty arrogant one at that.
Hog Wild on March 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I celebrated today by wearing my Browning Hi Power, my NRA hat, and taking the family to Wendy’s. I have a carry license, and did not shoot the place up. The only person I am a danger to is a violent criminal who is acting in my vicinity. My firearm is completely concealed and undetectable via casual observation. I would ordinarily not wear the hat while carrying, but today was a big deal for my “evil gun lobby.” In your face, Brady Bunch!
Buck Turgidson on March 18, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Made me laugh…
theregoestheneighborhood on March 19, 2008 at 1:30 AM
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
It’s a pity that the primary commander of a enemy force against the US during WWII knew more about the importance of the 2nd Amendment than many of our own citizens (and USSC Justices).
Yakko77 on March 19, 2008 at 1:51 AM
You live in NJ,CA,NJ,IL,CT,ME,DE or one of the ones I’ve forgotten, unfortunately for you I’m guessing. I grew up in upstate NY where “permits” were required which is ridiculous at best. Remember people, the NYC gun licensing system was to keep blacks from owning firearms back in the 1800′s. The NY state ‘pistol permit’ system is the biggest JOKE, next to Illinois’s FOID card.
I moved to Texas in 2001 and promptly purchased a machinegun, legally, among other items that I was denied in NY state. I’m your everyday citizen and have never hurt anyone (That didnt deserve it). I’ve been a police officer since 2003 and appreciate the CHL holders ( which I was before getting into L.E. and still am ).
Someone with an active CHL in Texas is one of the good folks. The first thing the state of Texas does is revoke or suspend your CHL if you’ve been convicted of a crime, and in some instances the mere accusation such as in a protective or restraining order being issued.
If more folks would move to FREE states and arm themselves, everyone would be better off. Hopefully however those moving to states like Texas, leave their NY,CA,DE,etc. politics, goofy gun laws and socialism.
tx2654 on March 19, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Dellinger is either a liar or a moron. There’s no other option.
You can’t ignore the intent of the founders when you argue the Bill of Rights.
And you can’t honestly argue that an unconstitutional ban on handguns isn’t unconstitutional because of ANOTHER unconstitutional law requiring handguns to be rendered inoperable. That’s just a damned dodge, and Dellinger knows it.
It’s dishonest and disgraceful.
Sadly, it’s also typical behavior for the control freaks. Hopefully the Supremes will react accordingly.
Merovign on March 19, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Oh, and re: the ignorant discussion in the oral arguments about the “meaning” of the words “well-regulated” and “militia,” can’t and of these God-damned lawyers and luminaries freaking read?
Anyone who goes before the highest court in the land and argues that the meaning of the phrase was never addressed by the founders needs to be beaten into unconsciousness with a copy of the Federalist Papers.
I’m kind of aghast that the court let that slide – not all of them can be that bone-shatteringly ignorant.
Merovign on March 19, 2008 at 4:58 AM
Ditto, but we have it pretty good with the current Texas CCL regulations. They are actually better for the gun owner now than when the CCL law was first passed.
txsurveyor on March 19, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Oops. That’s CHL not CCL.
txsurveyor on March 19, 2008 at 8:25 AM
HAAAhaahaa!
This issue would be dead in the water if GWB has not gotten 2 conservative supremes on the court. Thanks to him, we will be able to protect ourselves….at least for now…
kcd on March 19, 2008 at 9:57 AM
This decision will not be the end, only the beginning. Yes, a SCOTUS decision has a finality that lower courts lack, but the ripples from this decision will flow through state and local case law for years. If the SC says you can’t ban handguns, what are “reasonable” limits? If the ban is at least partially upheld, look for additional legislation patterned on the decision with other bans elsewhere.
And, depending on what the decision is, this could be a really hot issue in the general election.
cs89 on March 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM