Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms; Update: Obama’s gun-grabber credentials revisited; Update: Obama supported D.C. ban in February?
posted at 10:19 am on June 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Just across at SCOTUS Blog. 5-4, which means Kennedy was the deciding vote — or, if you prefer, Alito was the deciding vote. Would O’Connor or Harriet Miers have voted the same way? If nothing else, Bush at least delivered this.
Stand by for the opinion.
Update: The first AP report says the right extends to “self-defense and hunting.” And here’s an update. Hmmm:
The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
Update: Here’s the opinion at SCOTUS Blog. They’re getting hammered by Drudge so e-mail us if you can’t access it there and I’ll upload it elsewhere.
Update: A key passage from the syllabus. If you had your eye on a machine gun, think again:
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.
Also from the syllabus: “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.”
Update: According to How Appealing, Scalia’s opinion cites no fewer than three law review articles written by Eugene Volokh.
Update: The first 50+ pages are devoted to historical analysis. Skip down to section III on page 54 for a discussion of limitations on the right. Here’s the whole thing, with citations omitted, for ease of reference:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues… Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”… It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
So as I understand this, you have a right to own a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle or some other weapon you’d buy either for home defense or hunting, since that’s how a colonial-era militia operated. (Live by the originalist sword, die by the originalist sword.) I’ll have to check the regulations, but offhand I don’t think this is much different from how the system works now in New York City: As I recall, they make you pay a $500 fee but they won’t reject your handgun application unless they have some sort of good cause.
What about the boldfaced part having to do with concealed carry “in sensitive places,” though? Does that mean you have a right to carry in non-sensitive places?
Update: SCOTUS Blog notes that the opinion doesn’t explicitly say that this ruling applies to the states. The gun ban being challenged was from D.C., a federal jurisdiction, so in theory there’s now an open subsidiary question of whether the Second Amendment was “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against the states as well. Don’t expect anyone to make a big deal of it, though: Almost all other rights in the Bill of Rights have already been “incorporated” and the logic of the decision here doesn’t lend itself to any obvious distinction between the feds and the states.
Update: The obligatory applause from McCain:
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: Here are the New York City gun regs. Scalia emphasizes on pages 58-59 that they’re not ruling on the D.C. licensing scheme; cities can still make you register after today, although there are bound to be lawsuits now challenging each distrinct’s licensing requirements. As I suspected, in NYC you can basically own a gun for home use as a matter of right if you provide a birth certificate, prove you’re a citizen, pay the fee, and have a (relatively) clean criminal record. If you want to carry or to keep a gun at the workplace, you have to show “necessity.” Whether that’s still constitutional will be determined at a later date, which is why Geraghty’s point about the importance of having conservative judges on the bench to fill in the blanks of this ruling going forward is important.
Update: I must be misreading the regs because this New York Sun piece from March says the NYPD has discretion to deny handgun licenses. In all cases, though? Even to a law-abiding citizen for home use? Not anymore, in any event.
Update: The quote of the day comes not from Scalia but from Stevens in dissent:
The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court 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, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
Yeah, that’s … the whole scheme of the Constitution, isn’t it? To limit the power of government? Or does that principle only apply to Article II anymore?
Update: Here’s a shrewd piece from TNR back in March predicting that the decision won’t make much of a difference except in the most gun-grabby districts. Quote: “For all but the hardest-core gun lovers, prudence and public safety ultimately limit libertarianism–and the justices don’t seem inclined to dive off a cliff and read the amendment so as to permit individual ownership of upper-end military hardware… Outside of Washington D.C., in other words, a revitalized Second Amendment would largely forbid what nobody was seriously contemplating anyway: bans on common weapons for the recreational and self-protective uses of law-abiding people.” Yeah, if even the laws in New York City are already (mostly) consonant with the decision, then it’s not some huge game-changer in practice — yet. With the coming blue tide in November, though, who knows? It’s nice to have it on the books before anyone gets any ideas.
Update: Be sure to read Geraghty’s post about Obama’s history with gun control, before he was deciding that statements on the subject by his campaign were “inartful.” A lefty friend sent me the link to the ABC story this morning about that with a note saying, “Didn’t he sit on some gun-control organization’s board?” So he did.
Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.
During Obama’s tenure with the Joyce Foundation, donations to anti-gun groups increased dramatically. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the Violence Policy Center received $221,000 and $360,000 from the Foundation; those grants and donations increased to $1 million in 2000 and $800,000 in 2002. In all, during Obama’s tenure, the group received $15 million from the Joyce Foundation…
Lest anyone think I’m mischaracterizing their objective analysis, note that their web site touts themselves as “the most aggressive group in the gun control movement.” Also note studies like their one from 2000 entitled, “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” which declared the idea that the Constitution would forbid a national handgun ban a “pure myth.” Also note the organization’s subtly-titled book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.)
Update: Politico claims St. Barack’s reversal on the “inartful” statement his spokesman made last November about supporting the D.C. ban is more recent than thought. Ben Smith doesn’t offer a date but says this came around the time of the Potomac Primary, i.e. early February:
LH: One other issue that is of great importance to the people of the district here, is gun control. You said in Idaho here, recently, that “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
BO: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people – law-abiding citizens use if for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support. The problem is, that we’ve got a position, often times by the NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8W2timWpEJ8
rjs34 on June 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM
SCOTUS blog
I’m not sure what SCOTUS blog is smoking, because the court explicitly said that the ruling did not apply to state regulation.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM
As it also permits the de facto gun rights to be upheld in the big cities. It was a Federalist approach. Let the people decide.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kV59_if9vTw
rjs34 on June 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Switzerland, safest and most well armed population in the world.
peski on June 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Sorry flenser, but you’re over reading it. DC had an outright gun ban and Scalia has specifically said that a gun ban is unconstitutional while registration is not. And he said nothing about how this may apply to the states. There will be a flurry of filings from pro-gun activists in the near future I am sure.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
you do realize that old english is still proper english and in which is still used today. It isn’t weird, it was written properly so all would understand it.
But the english language has declined so much, that even simple sentences from 200 yrs ago are now misunderstood to the point of this ruling. Very sad!
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
You have to admire a nation that has explosives engineered and wired into every bridge in the country.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I would expect the election outcome to be as close, one way or the other.
Election monitoring will need a lot of Republican volunteers EVERYWHERE in order to protect the right of citizenry, that our voices be heard through the legitimate ballot! Time to contact local authorities to get clearance to volunteer on election day. Though conservatives may be more generous financially with charities than liberals, liberals are far more generous with activist paid “volunteers”. So look out for your vote to be counted and the dead and illegal alien vote NOT allowed, regardless of “registration”. I suppose the registry needs an ongoing overview for verification of legitimacy until we legislate or the President decrees by executive order that required voter ID cards include either a fingerprint or eyescan. Then polling places would have use for that hightech machine upon entry. But KEEP THE PAPER BALLOT filling in the blank standardized.
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
That must be so. I’m surprised that ‘originalists’ would so blithely ignore the mode of english from that era. They come close, and respect the semantics of the day, but this pattern of sentence is not unusual.
I was raised on classics, so perhaps I am failing to appreciate others’ difficulties, but parsing the 2nd amendment is so trivial I am dumbfounded that there is so much idiotic dispute.
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I’ve just slogged through Scalia’s opinion. It is beautifully written and does exactly what I’d hoped… interpret the case at hand and fail to legislate from the bench beyond the reaches of that case.
Way to go, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, even Kennedy, and especially Scalia.
flutejpl on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Provide the relevant text flenser.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Sounds like a terroristic threat to me!
becki51758 on June 26,2008 at 11:48PM.
becki51758:I love that word,ya better trademark it quick!
You’ve described a new Liberal!
Artistic,Terrorist=Terroristic!
Sounds about right,a new liberal artform!
(And I’m kidding)———————-:)
canopfor on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
No. The court specifically said that it was not striking down laws regulating gun ownership. It did not even say that it’s ruling was applicable to non-federal law.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Language changes over time, that is unavoidable.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Really? Seriously? If that’s true then I salute Switzerland!
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
It may be, but then why is it over run with Muslims now?
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Seriously.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Indeed they do. Not always for the better ;)
Nevertheless, contemporary modes of english do not invalidate classic ones. It is critical to be able to ’switch back’ in order to correctly parse the constitution.
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
The 2nd allows the People to protect themseleves from above all there Government.
When Stevens says
I would have to say yes the Framers did.
It does not make much sense to have the same Government that the 2nd allows you to protect your self from, to tell you what you can and cannot have, does it?
jharada on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Muslims - can’t live with ‘em, can’t kill ‘em
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
D.C.’s criminals have had guns for years, only the law abiding citizenry have been denied the right to self defense against them. As a resident of the place, I am very pleased; BURGLERS BEWARE! The ruling isnt perfect, but it could have gone the other way and been a total tyrannical disaster.
Lunkinator on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Heh. Every male required to serve in the army as well.
Funny story -
My friend’s unit was involved in a big “war games” exercise. They did some scouting of the territory assigned to the “enemy”. They went door to door asking locals if anyone had requested approval for a chopper landing on their property. One farmer said yes, they’re landing in my field tomorrow at X-o’clock. They set up a little ambush and captured the “enemy” general when he landed to join his troops.
peski on June 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Yes, that’s what I said. Although he actually said that a federal gun ban is unconstitution. And that leaves the de facto gun bans in non-federal law entact, as well as the entire existing body of other federal gun laws.
Well, he did not say nothing. But he did say that the ruling was limited to the DC gun ban and should not be taken as striking down other gun laws.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Why would it make it harder to get a license for a handgun? They already do the federal minimum of a 2 week hold for background checks to make sure you are not a felone or want criminal or other type they deem noneligible.
As States are all different entities, you will have to check with your State to see if they are going to change theor rules. The only thing I can think of they would do is put a specialized tax on getting the license for the hand gun.
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 12:14 PM
That’s simply the Court’s way of showing a little modesty by not reaching an issue that wasn’t before it, i.e. a state regulation. There’s virtually no doubt that lower courts will apply this decision to the states via “incorporation.” The logic of the decision compels it. Take it to the bank.
Allahpundit on June 26, 2008 at 12:16 PM
the supreme court should not be deciding these issues…our freedom is hanging by one vote….
and rights should not depend upon the whim of a judge…
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Yeah, because liberal justices are so beholden to court precedent. Sorry, but that mechanism only works in one direction.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM
True enough. But I read that as meaning that they are not striking down all gun laws, just outright bans.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Nice to see there are five members of the Court who actually took the time to read the Constitution.
As to the other four, why are they there?
pilamaye on June 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
That’s an odd statement, since the Court seemed to go out of their way to make clear that this was not their intent. And only the SCOTUS can “incorporate” something. (I’d argue that they have no power to do that, but that’s a different matter.)
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM
It’s about damn time we’ve been recognized as having a 2nd Amendment.
tx2654 on June 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM
So the 2nd Amendment was to give us the right to hunt and defend ourselves? Gee, all this time I thought it was to protect us from a tyrannical government….
Tim Burton on June 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
From the majority ruling.
The Court is speaking here of Federal law. But assuming this is applied to the states, it sure looks like it allows all sorts of restrictive gun laws to remain in place.
And it seems to suggest that even NYC style “conditions and qualifications” are allowable on the Federal level.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Thanks for that. I signed it also.
BowHuntingTexas on June 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I hope that if you ever have a burglar or intruder in your home, they never touch or harm you and your family.
Because you will wish you had a gun if they had!
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Ain’t that the truth.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:27 PM
unfortunately its at the point where our constituion and our ‘rights’ are whatever 5 judges on the supreme court say it is.
we need to take the power to decide what is ‘constitutional’ away from the court…they usurped that power anyway.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:31 PM
February statement under the bus in 5, 4, 3, ….
Some check to see if there’s a weasel hiding in that empty suit.
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Great quote from Scalia in the ruling which will hopefully carry considerable weight in future 2nd Amendment rulings.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM
oops…I forgot there is a ban on using the word..terrorist!! Yikes!! :)
becki51758 on June 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Damn … Someone check …
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Obama said in February, …the position of the “NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent.”
What does that mean?
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Y’know, I’m no Supreme Court justice, but it seems like the opinion could have been written in two sentences:
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. Any law that infringes upon a law-abiding U.S. citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.
Period. Why is this one so difficult? It seems like a no-brainer to me.
aero on June 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM
They still don’t understand that the judiciary is not supposed to make laws. Their role is to interpret the law.
Mark Levin is right. We are living under judicial tyranny.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM
[bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 12:35 PM]
Sounds like a foreigner’s, and middle eastern in particular, way Americans say slippery slope. (LOLOLOLOL)
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM
You don’t want a camel in your tent. But once you let the nose of the camel in the rest is bound to follow. It’s another way of saying slippery slope.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM
“That’s not the February that I knew.”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM
LoL Dusty
Thanks guys. Slippery slope.
But, if you have a gun you could shoot the camel’s nose and it won’t get in. just kiddin’
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
[aero on June 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM]
Yup, and the Framers did it in one sentence.
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
First, I read the decision as requiring “shall-issue” laws. It says that while registration is allowed, arbitrary refusal is not. I expect that requiring training will be allowed except in cases where there is an immediate need. (An ex-NYC cop told me some years ago that NYC has a dirty little secret: if you are a woman and you claim you were raped, you get your permit almost the next day.)
Second, Scalia marshalled for his argument a corps of armored divisions where a couple of MPs should have sufficed, were there any degree of sense or reason in the debate. He tore a new anus for every anti-Second Amendment ruling since WWII, noting that most of them date from the 1960s or later. He left the lower courts very little lattitude to misinterpret statutes, precedent, or the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution. And he stated directly that the infamous Miller decision was a poor basis for precedent because (a) it was a far narrower finding that commonly held and (b) one petitioner was not even able to make his argument before the Court, thus ensuring that any vital issues were not considered by the Court. Inferior courts should consider themselves warned!
As an aside, the language of the Constitution and the preceding century and a half is not “old” English. Even Shakespeare is Modern English. Old and Middle English are truly incomprehensible to most people; Shakespeare is incomprehensible to the lazy, and the Constitution is written in language so plain and so well supported by other documents (including the Federalist papers, the Declaration of Independence, other statutes of the era, and more than a century of English Common Law and commentary) that only a lawyer, leftist, or postmodernist could miscontrue it.
njcommuter on June 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I feel like celebrating. I’m gonna go by a .44 Magnum and name it Harry.
looking4statesmen on June 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM
[aero on June 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM]
Yup, and the Framers did it in one sentence.
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
LoL, they didn’t expect such idiots to be around hundreds of years later
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM
The part of Scalia’s opinion that I like the best is the part where he cites approvingly an opinion by none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg in defining what it means to “keep and bear arms.” Scalia knows how to deliver, better than anyone else I’ve seen, a tactful, methodical, and undeniably deliberate insult of one’s intelligence or lack thereof.
flutejpl on June 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM
oops…
becki51758 on June 26,2008 at 12:33PM.
becki51758:No,no,you won’t get banned for saying
terrorist,er I hope not!haha.——-:)
canopfor on June 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM
You think Barry learned that phrase in Indonesia?
txsurveyor on June 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Obama on Heller. (HT: amspecblog)
Wethal on June 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM
txsurveyor on June 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Does make me wonder…..but then, I just learned it here on HotAir.
:)
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Exit question: How will Obama handle this. His base hates this ruling but agreeing with his base will most assuredly lose him any chance of winning a red state. So how will he try to walk this line?
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Sorry if this has been said already - I need to catch up on comments. But this needs to be said:
“Bring forth the Humping Robot”
innominatus on June 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
[txsurveyor on June 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM]
Nah, it’s probably in the tourist book he’s using to cram for his Iraq visit.
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
He is the master of the rhetorical smackdown, but he did lose his calm demeanor in places, notably his one-word sentence commentary on a specious argument:
Even the Bible gets no shorter than “Jesus wept.”
njcommuter on June 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
When guns are outlawed I’ll be a rich SOB when all the no-gun lobby folks are looking for an ‘unscrupulous’ gun dealer on the blackmarket. They won’t have their scruples in their wallet, that’s for sure.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
This court case is only the start. It’s a crack in the wall. Future cases with stronger arguments will be made, and the courts will expand the right, even as the Left has driven the courts to expand “freedom of expression” to include stinking in a public library.
The key is to not be typical conservatives and just go back to your own lives. Now is the time for MORE activism, both to secure the victory and to expand it. If you do the typical thing and just focus on your own personal narrow interest in this, the enemy will recover and overcome. But if you sacrifice of your own resources, this can be the START (not the end) of a beautiful battle for true freedom.
Just remember: 5 vs 4. The next President will appoint a Justice with a crucial vote. McCain’s choices might uphold this decision. Hussein’s almost certainly won’t. IT IS EXACTLY THAT SIMPLE!
Tommygun on June 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Tommygun on June 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I’m shocked, shocked!
its vintage duh on June 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Funny, reminds me of something I read about that happened during the making of “Red Dawn”.
“Five of the 36 parachutists who took part in the invasion scene early in the film were injured when high winds blew them as far as one mile off target. Parachutist Jim Fisher, wearing a Soviet paratrooper uniform including full Soviet insignia and including an AKM Assault Rifle, landed in a tree and found himself calling out to local rescuers including armed citizens and police: “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot! I am not a Russian soldier!””
_
You gotta love this country!
MechEng5by5 on June 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I have no idea how anyone could read that from it.
Perhaps. Contrary to what AP believes, NYC does not have a “shall issue” policy at present. You are free to apply for a permit, but granting one is at the complete discretion of the police.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Do I have the right to shoot a child rapist?
ocbrat on June 26, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Ugh…
lets not even go there. I am so ticked about that.
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM
AP
That’s not the case. You also need the permission of your police department. Unless you have connections, they won’t give it to you.
There are law firms in NYC whose sole purpose is to help people go through the process of trying to get a permit.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Say hello to my little friend.
jaime on June 26, 2008 at 1:04 PM
That is such BS. Having to go through your police department! WTF is the problem with the getting a permit via the Federal and State means.
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 1:05 PM
From Steven’s dissent:
1) Yes, that was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights. To limit the power of government.
2) If the people decide they don’t like these limits, there is always the ammendment process to change them.
MarkTheGreat on June 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Still clinging bitterly to what’s left of your precious gun bans?
Imagine that.
You’re really gonna be bitter when Obama throws you under the bus too.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Undoubtedly, you got that wrong, are willing to quote the part of the decision you are talking about?
If this ban cannot be upheld in Washington D.C. where the Feds have a special plenary jurisdiction, then such a ban surely could not be upheld in one of the Fifty-States were the Feds DO NOT enjoy plenary jurisdiction.
Maxx on June 26, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Drywall indicates just what is wrong with liberal thinking.
He defends a 5-4 court decision by noting that the country is divided on the question.
Supreme Court decisions are not supposed to be popularity contests.
According to every poll that I have seen the country is not as divided as drywall wants to believe. Only small minorities support outright bans, as the DC registration scheme had become.
MarkTheGreat on June 26, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You need to know the meaning of the words at the time they were written. If you apply today’s meanings of some words you will not get the original intent of the Constitution. I recommend the Websters 1828 Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition to overcome this problem. You can usually find a used Black’s Law Dictionary 5th edition on eBay for a reasonable price.
Maxx on June 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM
You aren’t telling me anything I disagree with. I was just pointing out that language changes over time.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Many thanks to AP and HA for the updates and clear, concise analysis. And three cheers for Scalia and the guys for a much-needed glimmer of light (I’m so tired of the canned and processed ‘hope’) for conservatism.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Hillary was right - Obama doesn’t take UP or DOWN postions, he votes PRESENT. He did that with this issue - he didn’t say what outcome he’d like to see, he took and wait and see approach. What a phony.
jtorres138 on June 26, 2008 at 1:30 PM
That makes no sense. Unless the Second Amendment applies to the states (and the court left that question unresolved) then such a ban, by a state or local government, could of course be upheld by the Court.
Have you actually read the decision? I’m talking about the decision in total. If you want specific language limiting the scope of the ruling, then try this;
Note that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” leaves room for some very restrictive gun control laws.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM
It would be interesting to find out how many are in jail in DC, then of course you expand it to the other cities that have bans, who had been put in jail because of the un-constitutional law. Seems to me like they would have a case to first, be re-leased, second, to be paid for their rights being violated.
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I agree 100%. In the past when asked about Heller he refused to give a constitutional view on gun ownership. Rather extraordinary when you consider his degree is in constitutional law. If this ruling upheld the DC gun ban instead of striking it down he would be just as supportive of that ruling as well as he claims to be of this one. The man defines empty suit.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I believe that in his opinion Alito did state that registrations could not be denied arbitrarily.
MarkTheGreat on June 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM
The SC applies the 14th Amendment to every other constitutional question. In my view they would be hard pressed to explain why the 14th does not apply in this issue as well when faced with future cases.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Yup, this opens the door on a lot of future cases. Swing free door swing free.
I predict 2008 will be known as the year of the gun for legal type folks.
- The Cat
P.S. Now, where do I buy a tank. . . A guy has to have his hobbies.
MirCat on June 26, 2008 at 1:40 PM
That’s your opinion. It’s also my opinion. But it is not the Courts opinion. They have never applied the Second Amendement to the states, or really even to the Feds.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM
That makes no sense. Why would it not apply to the states? It is the Constitution. It is original law of the land. Would you argue, for instance, that the “Establishment Clause” doesn’t necessarily apply to the states?
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM
giggles
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Is this the same AP who approvingly cited a TNR piece saying the courts ruling basically changed nothing? The guy in the comment sections seems to be unrelated to the one writing the article.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Pets the Cat.
You can always make your own like the Frat boys in Michigan.
**rubs under the chin**
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I’m telling you what the courts ruling said, not what I think the law should be.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM
And no, I don’t think that the “Establishment Clause” applies to the states. “Congess shall make no law ….”
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I believe you are telling us what you want the ruling to say.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM
I believe that as a mind reader, you suck.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »