Breaking: The Heller Decision: Gun Rights Win
The Heller gun rights case has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
As expected, the Court found an individual right to keep and bear arms. The decision was 5-4, and was written by Justice Scalia.
Howard Bashman will post the link to the decision in this How Appealing post when it is available. [UPDATE: Read it here.]
5-4. Let that sink in, folks. Even though it was expected, it’s now official. Ponder it for a moment.
If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.
It is about time the SCOTUS recognized the 2nd amendment. Screw you Liberals!!!!!
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 7:24 am
Yes. It’s a sobering thought that one old geezer or old bag can be so influential in this republic. It’s like we missed a bullet (pun intended).
Comment by C. Norris — 6/26/2008 @ 7:31 am
the 4 here ,and the 5 yesterday, with the child rapist ruling, need to be impeached. I would actually say tarred and feathered and paraded around town on a donkey, then deported. They are not true to our constitution, they are not true to our founder’s intent. They are traitors of the most evil sort.
Comment by martin — 6/26/2008 @ 7:32 am
It is scary that only 5 of the 9 Justices can read the fucking Constitution.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 7:38 am
So, in truth we elected Presidents in order to get 9 robed overlords that we hope will be amiable to our positions?
Wacky.
Comment by Techie — 6/26/2008 @ 7:44 am
One wonders just where harriet meiers would have been on these issues. Imagine the havoc Urkel could wreak with appointees. Thank you Juan McCain and L. Graham for the gang of 14 and all the really good potential lower court appointees left twisting in the wind.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/26/2008 @ 7:45 am
That is how democrats think. They use judges for “superdelegates”. Think about it, with how they run their primaries, that mindset plays over to judges.
Comment by martin — 6/26/2008 @ 7:45 am
Amen.
Comment by C. Norris — 6/26/2008 @ 7:48 am
It is scary that only 5 of the 9 Justices can read the fuckingIt Constitution.
The other four can read it just fine, they just don’t care what it actually says.
You know, evolving standards and all that…
Comment by ThomasD — 6/26/2008 @ 7:49 am
#7 or strong-arming in caucuses to usurp the actual primary voters’ preferences. Didn’t Hillary get more actual votes than Obama in Texas, for example, and yet he had more delegates to convention? Every vote must count, except military absentees and god forbid we have actual voter ID cards that somehow prevents minorities from voting.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/26/2008 @ 7:49 am
Be happy. This is a strong opinion. I think it legalizes “open carry” of anything short of machineguns at most places you have a right to be. (Lawyer’s disclaimer: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer.)
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 7:50 am
The trick now is for the gun-rights organizations to rush to file their declaratory judgment cases before the criminals file their appeals.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 7:53 am
Barack Obama, constitutional scholar, err professor, err lecturer, err speaker, err panderer, err occasional reader, err inartful constitutional interpreter, err gaffe a day candidate, was seen huddling with his spinmasters deciding how best to handle his latest preannounced flub.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 7:54 am
I don’t think so, nk. IANAL, but I don’t see anything that even mentions Open Carry…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 7:58 am
daleyrocks – They do not care. They know that their words only have meaning for the instant moment in which they are uttered.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 7:58 am
that was Stevens from the article i read about the decision. compare and contrast his views of the 2nd vis-a-vis his views expressed yesterday of the 8th. what happened to evolving standards?
Comment by chas — 6/26/2008 @ 7:59 am
If there is something I missed, please share. I am eager to learn from professionals.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 7:59 am
It was a close victory, but still a great day for America! I’ve been skimming through the decision written by Justice Scalia, and it appears to my (non-legally-trained) eye that the majority was slapping the minority opinion justices around a bit (especially Stevens). Comments?
Comment by dhmosquito — 6/26/2008 @ 8:00 am
One vote away from Environmental Marxism. Not a comforting thought. If justices can read the Bill of Rights and come to this kind of 5-4 split decision, what does that say about the future of the Republic. I fear the future is not bright.
Comrade Obama is the 2008 version of the post turtle.
Comment by bill-tb — 6/26/2008 @ 8:00 am
JD – But it is not the same constitution that Barry O read in law school. It is supposed to live and breathe.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 8:01 am
How else can you parse “shall not be infringed”?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 8:01 am
daleyrocks – I guess Baracky will be throwing the Constitution under the back of the bus. It is getting pretty crowded back there.
Drumwaster – By Aplomb’s standards “shall not be infringed” could have evolved to “can be infringed if we feel like it”. 4 Justices appear to believe that.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 8:04 am
“Comrade Obama is the 2008 version of the post turtle.”
bill – I think Obama, unlike a post turtle, has some ideas of what he wants to do. The question is whether America wants to let him do it. Socialism has been such an outstanding fucking success everywhere it has been tried I would argue against it.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 8:04 am
JD – So he’s of the “Just because I said ‘absolutely not’, I didn’t necessarily mean ‘No’…” mindset, eh?
However, that privacy penumbral interpretation? ROCK SOLID, BABEE!
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 8:08 am
Drumwaster #14,
What you quote there is the limitation on an individual right to keep and bear arms which the opinion as a whole recognizes. So the question is, “is there a limitation to openly carry a gun short of a machine gun in non-”sensitive” places?” I don’t see one.
Caveat again: Get an opinion from your State’s Attorney General. His or hers count in court. Mine don’t.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:09 am
Ahead of the decision this morning the Obama campaign already backed away from his statement last year that the DC law was constitutional.
They called that statement by him “inartful.”
The guy has no shame.
A better approach would have been to — like McCain on Boumediene — say his view is closer to the 4 dissenters, and that view has much support in the historical record. The fact that 5 justices disagree does not mean the defenders of the DC statute are nutjobs.
That’s what Obama should have said.
Now he looks even more craven than he did a couple days ago when he flip-flopped on FISA.
The far leftwing is getting buyer’s remorse, and its only June.
Comment by wls — 6/26/2008 @ 8:10 am
Jerry Brown. I’m f*cked.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 8:10 am
JD – He’s gonna need a bigger bus as I’ve said before. He just threw another one of his former Weathermen commie pals under it yesterday who had a blog on his website. After a conservative blogger pointed it out – wiped clean.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 8:12 am
nk, I suspect that with the way the Madigans feel towards our Govenor, and the fact that the Governor would shit himself at the idea of Open Carry, We just might be able to get away with it…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 8:13 am
I think I’m going to go to one of those custom badge places and get the best badge they make with “D.C. v. Heller” on it and wear it wherever I go. The Second Amendment, an orphan for 219 years, has finally been allowed to come in to the house.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:14 am
nk, one other thing. The last paragraph of the summary (if that is what it is called – I mean the numbered paragraph that summarizes the deciusion, just above where it gives which Justices voted and how and who wrote what) says “Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
I’d be careful using Heller as a free rein to carry machine guns around. Or even the Harry Callahan .44 Magnum Special…
Once again, IANAL, and you have said that you are, so YMMV.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 8:17 am
nk – okay, i know im probably in way over my head here but this passage:
seems to indicate open carry would be up to the states. the laws that currently prohibit will still prohibit.
oh, when replying please be kind, as i said i very well could be in over my head!
Comment by chas — 6/26/2008 @ 8:19 am
…but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Extinct? No. Endangered to the point that it has been locked up in a cage ‘for it’s own protection?’ Yes.
So far I am underwhelmed. Great for the poor souls who currently reside in D.C. Thin gruel for the rest of us. The entirety of the ATF still stands, and by applying this this type of legal reasoning the First amendment the court would have you believe you are perfectly free to publish or possess, but the government can still regulate, the sale or public distribution of your newspaper.
Comment by ThomasD — 6/26/2008 @ 8:19 am
and that passage was on page 2 of the opinion.
Comment by chas — 6/26/2008 @ 8:19 am
As a lifelong Chicagoan, I was just going to second those comments. But whereas once (a long time ago) I felt that some gun control might be a good policy in theory, the reality here has suggested otherwise. We now have one of the highest murder rates in the nation, albeit with one of the strictest gun control laws. But our mayor continually rails for more gun control, because to suggest that the police cannot protect everyone 24/7 means to admit failure for one of his most holy of tenets.
Comment by Dmac — 6/26/2008 @ 8:21 am
BTW, I was referring to the comments made earlier by Scott Jacobs, at #29.
Comment by Dmac — 6/26/2008 @ 8:22 am
“Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
Man, why do you see the glass as half-empty? What are the disqualifications for exercising Second Amendment rights? Convicted felon, juvenile, mentally ill, non-resident?
How about the “must” part. If he is not any of those things, the District must issue him the license. Which is fine. The States can have licensing schemes. But their “must” is going to be a lot bigger than their “can”.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:24 am
chas #32,
It could well be touch and go. That’s why it’s important to have law-abiding citizens challenging open carry prohibition in declaratory judgment actions instead of criminals appealing their unlawful use of firearms convictions. The way I see the opinion, Scalia slipped a sleeper in there which with the right case and the right judge does recognize a right to open carry.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:28 am
“We now have one of the highest murder rates in the nation, albeit with one of the strictest gun control laws.”
Dmac – The problem is those damn crooks and murderers are just not obeying those gun control laws, the bastards. Imagine that.
Maybe some armed homeowners and shopkeepers might prove a deterrent to some crimes. Stats seem to bear that out in other venues.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 8:30 am
P.S.
And I am courteous to all who do not insult me,
My fellow commenter relax, I have no flame for thee.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:31 am
so i guess gun sales have gone through the roof in the DC area. all those criminals can finally buy guns huh?
/sarcasm
Comment by chas — 6/26/2008 @ 8:32 am
And I refuse to entertain any negative vibes today.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:35 am
Well, no, the opinion expressly left in place restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms. And expressly excluded felons.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:36 am
I’m happy that we can have guns in the home, as (I’m sure) are the residents of those so-called “gun-free” cities where crime is rampant (such as DC, NYC, Chicago, etc.), but there is a world of difference between having a general gun ban lifted (as this does), and having the SCOTUS pronounce a general rule of Open Carry nationwide.
As chas points out, some states already allow it, other States (like here in Cali) prohibit it inside almost all city limits (if I correctly understand how People v. Knight reads). This decision doesn’t address Open Carry, so it doesn’t affect Open Carry laws, since even Scalia acknowledges that there are reasonable limits on the 2A.
I wish it were so, but I would be arrested were I to carry my revolver to the grocery store, even if it were unloaded. (I don’t know what the charges would be, but I’m sure there is something here in the county where only six civilians are allowed a CCW permit out of a population exceeding a million. Yes, I said six. 6. Total.)
I’m happiest about the decision’s ban on trigger locks. That’s an epic WIN. But Open Carry will have to come another day.
If you live in a State where OC is allowed, then by all means, exercise it, and keep it alive (like the US Navy sailing into the Gulf of Sidra every time it passes, just to prove we can).
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 8:37 am
“If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
You are completely full of shit. And you are a liar.
Scare tactics. You are following the GOP tactics to a tee.
And 30% of the morons will believe you.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 8:39 am
#45 – how so? You think the Democrat party supports gun rights?
Comment by steve miller — 6/26/2008 @ 8:41 am
i just love the footnotes. scalia is holding an english class for the benefit of the liberal justices!
Comment by chas — 6/26/2008 @ 8:42 am
Scalia at his best in the Majority opinion.
Page 10
He uses quotes from Ginsberg in a previous case to undermine her arguments in this one.
Page 15
“The Court argues that a “qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass”.”
Page 16 He also calls Stevens arguments “worthy of the Mad Hatter”.
This is an interesting read.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 8:43 am
Eat it, jharp. You clowns lost big. Waaay big. Just get yourself some Anusol and a Grande Double Skim Latte to help you get over it.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:44 am
Got any evidence to back up your nonsense? You’ve got a heavy row to hoe to prove that he is lying, much less “full of shit”, so until you do, wouldn’t that make YOUR word suspect (at the very least)?
The whole “making unfounded and insulting accusations with no evidence” ranks right up there with “Your momma is a doo-doo face!” as far as intellectual rigor goes, wouldn’t you say?)
Put up or shut up, you moron.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 8:45 am
If the Republican politicians weren’t worthless, they would be drawing up articles of impeachment against the four creepy tyrants. For the Kelo decision as well as their attempt with this one.
Comment by j curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 8:46 am
Interesting comment by Scalia:
“[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.”
Imagine that, the VOTERS.
I’m joining the NRA. They are filing suits in all the big cities where the bans still exist.
Comment by arch — 6/26/2008 @ 8:47 am
“You are completely full of shit. And you are a liar.”
Such witty repartee – nice contrast in debating style. Now, how about offering some evidence to the contrary instead?
“Maybe some armed homeowners and shopkeepers might prove a deterrent to some crimes.”
Daleyrocks, I was thinking something more akin to having Da Mare spend a few nights (unsupervised and unprotected) on a street in Englewood. Funny, but somehow having to dodge bullets wizzing by your head may change your dogmatic views about subjects in which you only have an esoteric understanding about at this point. But nevermind, we’ve got an Olympics hosting gig to win, so let’s sweep everything under the carpet and screw the citizens who have to actually live here.
Comment by Dmac — 6/26/2008 @ 8:50 am
Glory Be! Kennedy sure must feel powerful, no? Had he decided to go the other way the words, “shall not be infringed” would mean “shall not be infringed unless we say so.” In Illinois you still can’t carry a gun in your car. But what I like is Arizona’s gun law. OK to wear it, so long as you wear it openly so everybody knows your packing. Just think how much safer we’d all be if everyone carried a gun. Ala Heinlein, people sure would be a lot more polite to each other. That it was 5-4 is very, very scary. It will be interesting to see how B. Hussein Obama spins this one, I’m pretty sure he’ll actually speakout of both sides of his mouth all at the same time – he’s actually pretty good at it.
Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 6/26/2008 @ 8:56 am
So now my only reason for voting for Bush in the first place is justified.
Comment by gabriel — 6/26/2008 @ 8:56 am
harpie sure does seem a bit agitated today.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 8:57 am
” Funny, but somehow having to dodge bullets wizzing by your head may change your dogmatic views about subjects in which you only have an esoteric understanding about at this point.”
Dmac – Very nice. Because of my esoteric understanding of the subject I choose not to live in such neighborhoods. How about you?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 9:00 am
Several months ago there was a TV show on violent crime where the interviewer went to a prison to ask a group of convicted violent felons about urban gun bans. Surprising the lady reporter, they laughed and said they liked gun bans because it meant their marks would be unarmed. She failed to realize that criminals are, by definition, people who violate the law.
One guy said that he wasn’t afraid of the police. What he feared most was an armed victim.
I wonder how much violent crime will drop in DC and how many criminals will find themselves assuming room temperature.
Comment by arch — 6/26/2008 @ 9:00 am
j. Raymond, I believe the quote is:
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 9:00 am
harpy – Baracky thought the ban was Constitutional, until he denounced himself and threw himself under the back of the bus for his inartful statements. I cannot wait for Phil and Aplomb to tell us that this ruling is liberal.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 9:01 am
Bob Barr just released a statement expressing his support of the Heller Decision – calling it “One of Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty”. See it at http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press
http://www.BobBarr2008.com
Comment by Andrew — 6/26/2008 @ 9:03 am
If Henry Hyde were still on the House Judiciary Committee, he would be drafting articles of impeachment for the justices who stated what the Second Amendment reads.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/26/2008 @ 9:03 am
Incorporation wasn’t at issue here, but Scalia manages to muddy those waters pretty well. In Footnote 23 he suggests that it is NOT incorporated, but all his historical references, particularly in the immdiate post civil war era, suggest otherwise. See pp 41-47, where it is pretty much assumed that the (individual) 2nd Amendment right is enforceable on the states.
Scalia is clearly using these passages to reinforce the individual right aspect, but the incorporation assumption — even before the 14th Amendment — is clear. See for example page 42:
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 6/26/2008 @ 9:03 am
harpie sure does seem a bit agitated today.
JD – I think it’s an everyday thing. Politics is personal on the left. They have no other identity. That’s why they always come out unhappier compared to the right on all those surveys – they have to keep fucking around with something. Equal misery for all.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/26/2008 @ 9:05 am
I’m not going to be going around with a gun. That’s not what my parents worked hard all their lives for. But damn, I feel good.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 9:05 am
#45 is evidence of why democrats win elections, a huge part of their core are complete idiots.
1+1=2.
Comment by martin — 6/26/2008 @ 9:06 am
Scott Jacobs: Right on!
Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 6/26/2008 @ 9:07 am
Hopefully, every single one of them.
Does this apply to the police?
Or are they somehow “special”?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/26/2008 @ 9:09 am
“Eat it, jharp. You clowns lost big.”
And what makes you think that I don’t support the decision?
“If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
I simply pointed out this remark is dishonest and not true.
“Got any evidence to back up your nonsense?”
The burden of proof is on you dickbreath. You cannot “prove” that something won’t happen.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:09 am
If Obama wins and replaces any of those five justices, we go back to the post-reconstruction state-regulated milita-only (i.e. blacks need not apply) version of Cruikshank.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 6/26/2008 @ 9:10 am
That’s pretty close, but technically wrong. Strictly speaking, even the dissenters acknowledge that there is some individual right under the Second Amendment, it’s just a really, really hollow one:
The Obama view, in a nutshell.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 9:11 am
I’m not the one that made such an unfounded assertion. YOU are.
Until you prove your statement, YOU are the liar, cum-gargler.
True. But all we have to prove is that something DIDN’T happen. The Democrats did not get to appoint another anti-gun, living Constitution onto the SCOTUS bench, and the decision was 5-4.
And, as nk says, your side lost big.
Suck it deep, beeyotch.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 9:14 am
nk #65 – That’s not what my parents worked hard all their lives for.
Unfortunately for all of us, the work’s still not over. The 5-4 is problematic, as I see the nutjobs completely reverse themselves if given a majority – precedent be damned. It’s about control, not logic, not the Constitution, and most certainly not about justice.
Comment by Apogee — 6/26/2008 @ 9:18 am
“And, as nk says, your side lost big.”
And how in the fuck do you know which “side” I’m on.
I happen to be a gun owner. Lot’s of em. And lot’s of bullets too.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:21 am
Harpy, calling someone else a liar puts the burden of proof on YOU to show that he is a liar, not on the other person to show he is not. I trust that Patterico has not read your comment yet, else he’d have rightly banned you or at least threatened to do so if you did not retract that baseless smear.
As to the underlying issue, proving that Patterico’s statement is basically right (i.e., right in substance, albeit technically wrong in that the nullificationists eschewed the “individuals aren’t people” view in favor of the slightly less retarded, but correspondingly more disingenuous “sure it’s an individual right, it just doesn’t mean anything” dodge) is relatively easy. It was a 5-4 decision. Both Democrat appointees on the court were among the 4 dissenters, and both Bush appointees were opposed (and one nearly filibustered) by both of this year’s Democrat candidates and by the idjit who would be sitting in the White House now if the Donks had won in 2004. What other proof do you need that a single Kerry appointment, let alone two, would have been enough to push today’s decision the other way?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 9:23 am
“I’m not the one that made such an unfounded assertion. YOU are.”
Hey, I’ll help you here. This is the unfounded assertion.
“If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
And I didn’t make it. I just pointed it out.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:24 am
You remind me of someone…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 9:25 am
Comment by Apogee — 6/26/2008 @ 9:18 am
“It’s about control, not logic, not the Constitution, and most certainly not about justice.”
Justice plays only a minor role in our legal system at this point in history. Just take a look at how the lawyer who used “ethics” to justify his not trying to prevent an innocent man spending decades in prison was lauded by the legal system as such a good man. When ethics prevent you from doing what is right and moral, we live in a seriously messed up world.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 9:25 am
Other than profanity, jharp has given us nothing to support his disagreement with the rather obvious statement regarding the fact that one more Democratic nomination to the Supreme Court would have resulted in the loss by the American people of a constitutional right.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 9:27 am
By your reaction.
Even if I were to accept this arguendo, this is irrelevant to your status as a liar. You have made an insulting assertion without evidence to back it up. That is known as ‘libel’ (since it was in writing, rather than spoken, although it might be questionable given the nature of the forum in which your unwarranted damaging statements were made), and if your own reputation were worth a plugged nickel, you might have caused some damage to Patterico’s reputation as a lawyer.
That would be legally actionable.
That is, if your unsupported assertion weren’t held on the same intellectual level as “the moon is made of green cheese”, and insults sans argument your standardized MO…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 9:27 am
I happen to be a gun owner. Lot’s of em. And lot’s of bullets too.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:21 am
Snicker Snort Snort, the term your looking for is ammo..*wink*
Comment by MS — 6/26/2008 @ 9:27 am
MS, jharp a Moby? Say it isn’t so.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 9:28 am
I’m shocked at the 5-4 margin. Also at the limits that the majority sees, presumptively, as on constitutionally firm ground.
.
I think this case is much more persuasive in the “it’s about the judges” rationale for choosing sides, than is Roe / Casey.
.
At his moment, I wouldn’t piss on a Democrat if he or she was on fire.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 9:28 am
You know, I thought that read funny…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 9:28 am
“If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
The ruling was about a handgun ban in D.C. not banning possession of firearms in the United States.
God help us if there truly are that many folks who can’t see the difference.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:28 am
jharp, god help you since you can’t understand the issue and think that profanity is a substitute.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 9:29 am
And Miranda was about one unlucky Mexican in Arizona, not about arrests made all over the country.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 9:30 am
“Because of my esoteric understanding of the subject I choose not to live in such neighborhoods. How about you?”
Yeah, I live in Roscoe Village, where the only thing we have to fear these days is the occasional mountain lion out roaming for a quick bite. But back when I first moved here, we had lots of invitations from the local youth groups liberally sprinkled on our properties – calling cards of a sort. I still get their greeting cards from time to time, like last year when they opted to reintroduce themselves via my car’s front hood. Quite an artful display, but a little on the garish side as well.
Comment by Dmac — 6/26/2008 @ 9:30 am
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of the government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutjonal guarantee at all. — Justice Antonin Scalia, District of Columbia v Heller, p. 65-66
Comment by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia — 6/26/2008 @ 9:31 am
jharp: While the case at hand may have been about the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, it certainly has implications for those who would like to see all firearms banned. Such people really are out there.
Comment by Dana R Pico — 6/26/2008 @ 9:34 am
#81
Maybe he does own “lot’s of em. And lot’s of bullets too“. (BTW, who is lot?) Maybe he just hasn’t gotten around to buying the shells, primers and powder.
Seriously, I know of no educated gun owners who call their ammunition “bullets”. Bullets are what impacts the target, ammunition is what your gun fires.
Hint: if you really do own “lot’s of em“, take a gun safety class and learn the terminology.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 9:34 am
You’re quite dense…
One more liberal Justice, and the DC ban on handguns, and the requirement that ALL guns be basicly un-usable in the home, would have been upheld.
Had that happened, every single city and state could have passed identical laws, and nothing could have been done about it.
So yes, this WAS about possession of guns in the US.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 9:35 am
“And Miranda was about one unlucky Mexican in Arizona, not about arrests made all over the country.”
Now if Patterico’s statement was with one more democrat appointment municipalities would have the authority to pass laws banning handguns I’d have to agree.
His claim that “there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.” is nonsense.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:37 am
“While the case at hand may have been about the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, it certainly has implications for those who would like to see all firearms banned.”
That I would have to agree with.
This, “there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.” is nonsense.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:40 am
– I happen to be a gun owner. Lot’s of em. And lot’s of bullets too. –
.
Bullets?
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 9:43 am
If municipalities had the authority to ban them, then owning them wouldn’t be a right. Is it that hard to understand?!
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 9:44 am
um… isn’t that the whole idea of the Bill of Rights?
Would he make the same statement, replacing “civilian uses of weapons” with “religious belief” or “political speech” or even the currently absolute right to abortion?
Oh, wait. For the first two, I think he would, and has.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 6/26/2008 @ 9:44 am
I’m not sure it was “expected.” Given the last few rulings, I had doubt. Remarkable and frightening that four judges dissented. Apogee nails it — if the Left gain power, all bets are off. The constitution, individual sovereignty, justice, precedent, freedom mean nothing next to their will to control.
Comment by rrpjr — 6/26/2008 @ 9:44 am
#98, but even if we lost these rights, at least we would be protected. Plus, we’d feel good about our President. That’s nothing to sneeze at — a little loss of liberty but a great gain of security and happiness.
I don’t understand why that’s seen as a problem.
Comment by steve miller — 6/26/2008 @ 9:48 am
How do you go from this to “there is an individual right to bear arms”? If the various municipalities can completely ban handguns from civilian ownership (which is what DC had in place), then there IS no individual right to ownership, since any municipality, anywhere, can just hold a vote and override that so-called “right”.
Heller changed that. And follow-up cases in those handgun ban cities (like NYC) will extend it nationwide the first chance there is. (Later today, methinks.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 9:49 am
I think the Democrats have stepped on their own crank with this Heller dissent. Should have let 2 of the justices say their piece, and the other two could have “faked it” and played with the majority.
.
But, they didn’t.
.
And the rights the majority is willing to protect aren’t worth writing hoe about. Heller has to obtain permission, before exercising his right. OKAY, are the licenses FREE?
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 9:50 am
“If municipalities had the authority to ban them, then owning them wouldn’t be a right.”
Handguns, my friend.
Patterico’s quote “there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
See the difference.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 9:50 am
I credit Kennedy. (Ducks) I know he is anathema on this site but I believe he was as “absolutist” on the issue as Scalia and would not allow Roberts to have a “narrower” watered-down decision for the sake of a wider majority.
Or maybe not. Guns are a polarizing issue. I’m very glad our pole is higher than theirs.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 9:53 am
What difference? Handguns are firearms. If municipalities can arbitrarily ban one kind, what’s to stop them from banning any other? Are you equally comfortable with a law that doesn’t prohibit you from expressing all opinions, just the ones that offend whoever happens to be in power?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 9:54 am
The Second Amendment says “keep and bear arms”, not “keep and bear handguns”.
Is English not your first language? Is that why you sound like such a moron?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 9:55 am
Paterrico’s quote is accurate. The dissent do not see an individual “right.” They put the power of the municipality to regulate superior of individual right, to the extent that DC absolute ban on possession of a handgun would be Constitutional. Likewise, that longarms would have to be kept in disassembled or locked condition.
.
Piss on that point of view. All 9 of these SCOTUS justices are a threat to a fee state, and 5 of them are irredeemable. Likewise the administration which conceded licensing, the precursor to confiscation.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 9:56 am
Make that “4 of them are irredeemable.”
.
I agree that impeachment ought to on the table. Let the DEMs take GWB, he’s not been a beacon of transparency himself, and we can take the 4 liberal justices.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 9:59 am
JD: At 22 and 60, you drag my name into a thread I haven’t posted in, and wildly mischaracterize my views on this case, which you don’t have any clue about. I could understand it if I was rude in the earlier thread or attacked you or mischaracterized your views, but I didn’t. Could I ask you to please stop doing that?
For the record, I mostly agree with Scalia’s opinion in this case, and completely agree with the outcome. I think Kennedy is the only one to be on the right side of both these cases, and I don’t think in either case the Court was acting as a Super-Legislature by striking down legislation that infringed on individual rights, as was suggested by the title of the earlier thread.
Comment by Aplomb — 6/26/2008 @ 10:00 am
I hope we have this all cleared up that the only issue I have a problem with is the claim “there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.” with one more democratic appointee.
As far as the ruling I have mixed feelings. I 100% support the right to own firearms but the handgun gun thing gets a little sticky for me.
Not saying I support handgun bans nor saying I’m against em. I just don’t know.
One thing I do know is a handgun is a dam poor home defense weapon, but dam good for robberies. 90% of of folks wouldn’t be even close to shooting accurately enough. And handguns generally aren’t nearly powerful enough.
9mm, 38’s and down just don’t pack much wallop.
If you are truly interested in protecting the homestead get yourself a shotgun and some 00 buckshot. Very effective.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 10:03 am
They don’t have to be free, since there will be administrative costs that can be legally handed down to the general public (like filing fees for property documents and certified copies of official records and the like), just not so prohibitively expensive as to make it impossible for the citizen to get one.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:03 am
We have. The consensus opinion is that you are still an idiot. And a liar.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:05 am
Come and get your license to practice religion. Come and get your license to free speech. Come and get your license to vote.
.
This is the guys HOUSE. He needs a license to keep a personal firearm object at home?
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 10:06 am
harpy – I thought that felons and the mentally ill were not allowed to own guns.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 10:07 am
As I see this decision, the constitution is in trouble. 4 out of 9 find it ok to go all Humpty Dumpty on us … “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
Perhaps they want look to Europe for help in interpreting the constitution. At least one of the 4 justices has found that preferable to the actual words of the document.
Comment by quasimodo — 6/26/2008 @ 10:09 am
Now wait a minute. You have to register to vote. You have to register to borrow a freaking library book. You have to register to drive or get an ID card. What the Court is holding is that there cannot be a blanket ban on the issuance of such licenses, as there was in DC. If you are going to try to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, you have to have some means of knowing that the weapons aren’t legally going to those classes of individual.
However, I think that one such license should be sufficient to own however many weapons would be necessary for the owner to feel safe, as opposed to ‘one license, one firearm’.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:10 am
The Left goes apeshit over identifying themselves when voting, or charging $5 for a state ID card, but licenses on guns. No problem.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 10:10 am
Simple answer: TRAINING.
(Hint: How do you get to Carnegie Hall?)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:11 am
Well, as the level of discourse has taken a sharp turn, eighty posts later I have to ask : What is a ‘post turtle’? If it is a turtle tied to post; is this associated with some particular folklore/aphorism or what? Also what sort of harness does one affix to the turtle; like, where is it tied, neck, foot or what?
Comment by J2 — 6/26/2008 @ 10:12 am
A country doctor struck up a conversation with an old rancher while sewin’ up a cut on his hand.
Eventually the topic got around to that there feller Obama.
The rancher said “Wellp… I reckon Obama’s just a dadburned post turtle”
The doc, bein’ new to those parts, asked him what a post turtle was.
The ol’ rancher said, “Okay, you’re driving down a country road, an’ ya see a fence post with a danged turtle balanced on top’a it. That there’s what we call a post turtle”
Seein’ a puzzled look on the doc’s face, the ol’ rancher explained:
“Wellp… y’know that turtle didn’t get up there by hisself,
he certainly dun’t belong up there,
he dun’t know what the Sam Hill t’do while he’s up there, and
ya just gotta wonder what kind’a danged fool put him up there to begin with.”
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:15 am
inside 2 hours I can teach anyone to hit a human-sized target at 15 feet…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:15 am
From SondraK’s site…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:16 am
– Now wait a minute. You have to register to vote. You have to register to borrow a freaking library book. You have to register to drive or get an ID card. –
.
My comment was “Is the license FREE?” to which you said it was reasonable to charge for it. I disagree. I think the majority is screwing us too, just not as deep as the dissent would.
.
Register to vote: no fee
.
Library books don’t come from the government. Go to the damn bookstore, borrow a book from your friends. You need a license to keep a book at home?
.
Driving is done on public streets. Competency is an issue. How competent does one have to be to be at home? You want to own a car and have it in your driveway? No license, registration, or age limit. Just title to prove you didn’t steal it, in case there is a contest in that regard.
.
I don’t know what you mean by having to get a license to get an ID card.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 10:16 am
Late to the party…
That is really scary.
What really shocks me is that liberals used to distrust the government (or so it seemed). They simply did not believe that the government could be trusted to do right by all its citizens.
It shocks me that we are supposed to trust the government to provide police protection in an equitable manner, so that the crime-ridden neighbourhoods of D.C. will have the same police response time as residents of Georgetown enjoy. We are also supposed to trust the government to not infringe upon our rights, so that we are not in need of personal protection from tyrannical dictators.
JHarp – you’re fundamentally incorrect about the superiourity of using a shotgun for home defence. A shotgun cannot be used in tight spaces, nor can it be kept in a nightstand (or under a pillow) for easy access. There is no need for “much wallop” when you hit someone from three feet away.
Handguns, unlike shotguns, can be kept on the person for self-defence on the street. I’m a woman, so this one hits home with me. If you put a woman up against a man who singles her out for aggression, she’s going to lose unless she’s armed (regardless of whether or not he is armed). Minority groups, like gays, are often the target of violence from groups, and can use handguns to stop aggression. (They need not even fire in order to stop an attack: many attackers will walk away when the would-be-victim shows a firearm.)
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 10:17 am
Constant vigilance! I’m very pleased to see this decision, it’s a good step. I’m looking forward to seeing how this affects other cities eg. NYC and Chicago.
I’m especially please that banned commenter David E. will probably have a LEO visiting his house for investigation of this comment.
Comment by bonhomme — 6/26/2008 @ 10:17 am
Which one is it with you guys? The glass is half filled or half empty?
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 10:18 am
Is there a difference?
The “half-full” crowd is happy that the Second Amendment wasn’t declared extinct, while the “half empty” group is unhappy that the decision didn’t go further (to cover open carry nationwide, for example).
Both are right.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:21 am
LEO – low earth orbit?!
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 10:22 am
*looks Bridget up and down, and considers*
I recommend something in a Mossburg…
Some shotguns are specificly designed for home defense, in that they have no stock, instead having a pistol grip… they aren’t very accurate, but inside a home they don’t need to be.
However, even if you HAD a shotgun and not a pistol, in DC it would be useless for defense as it still must be kept in an non-functioning state. If it is ready to fire, you are breaking the law – even if it isn’t loaded…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:22 am
– Which one is it with you guys? The glass is half filled or half empty? –
.
One more Democrat liberal puke on SCOTUS, and the glass would be all the way empty with a hole in the bottom.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 10:23 am
You DID study engineering…
Law Enforcement Officer…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:23 am
You have to register with the State and pay a fee just to get an ID card.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:24 am
Somebody must have put sand in David’s vaseline again.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 10:24 am
I meant Law Enforcement Officer. As a computer science type guy it’s even worse for me. Any written word or conversation in which an acronym is used almost certainly has a common usage meaning and some esoteric computer group meaning.
Comment by bonhomme — 6/26/2008 @ 10:24 am
God damnit nk, I was taking a drink when I read that!
Not in all states… I don’t think you even have to register a legal purchase in Wyoming, just keep the reciept someplace you can show it to cops if you ever use the weapon and need to later prove you used a legal weapon…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:25 am
Drum @ 126 – I am in between both of those. I sit here in bewildered awe that 4 SC Justices either cannot read and understand the simple plain language of the 2nd Amendment, or choose not to. Either way, it should be cause for concern. We already know that they do not mind acting in place of the Legislature, like in the mind boggling liberal ruling in re. Louisiana yesterday.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 10:26 am
That reminds me of the mention by Reagan of “the AGNC”, which drove his staff crazy trying to find out which government agency he was referring to.
Turns out Reagan was talking about the Aegean Sea.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:27 am
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:22 am
“Some shotguns are specificly designed for home defense, in that they have no stock, instead having a pistol grip… they aren’t very accurate, but inside a home they don’t need to be.”
In California, these are defined as assault weapons. 8-(
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 10:30 am
I was spacing out in admin law one day and snapped back to reality when my professor said something about “ab initio.” I thought, “How did we start talking about Schroedinger?” I looked at my book. Looked again. Not a thing about wave functions to be found.
That’s probably what I get for taking Greek instead of Latin in college. Oh, well.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 10:33 am
I’ve only lived in nine different States, so I have a limited sample size, but it was true in every single one of those nine. Fees were nominal, ranging from $2-12, but they all had a fee of some sort.
I recall hearing that some people were using this fee to protest the requirement that voters have some sort of ID on them when they showed up at the polls. (Apparently there are people who can cash their welfare checks without any kind of ID, but can’t be bothered to pay the $5 for a State ID card.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:34 am
– You have to register with the State and pay a fee just to get an ID card. –
.
It depends. It’s unconstitutional to charge if the function is for voting, and the state requires ID for voting.
.
I’ll certainly concede that YOU are okay with licensing for posession of a personal firearm at home; as long as you give me the courtesy of having a strenuous disagreement.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 10:34 am
Seriously?????
This is an assault weapon???
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:35 am
I took Greek in High School. It was either that or French (the only two options we had), so I flipped a coin. Thank God it was only two years.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:35 am
120, Scott, I have a Marlin Mod. 60, banana clip, scope. It scares the Libs to the point of never needing Ex-Lax again.
To those not in to guns. The Marlin is a .22 semi-automatic. But I can make that honey sound like a machine gun and empty the 15 round clip in a second or two.
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 10:36 am
Scott Jacobs – I think it’s an assault weapon because it can be hid under a coat…? (I seem to recall that short shotguns are often banned for that reason. That’s why I said that shotguns – impliedly legal – are not good for home defence.)
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 10:37 am
It only takes hours and a score of comments before jharp begins to actually articulate his claims – that handguns are not very good home defense firearms – and so are not constitutionally protected.
It is incoherent of course. It is also the usual drivel we get from faux supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. If the firearm is not a perfect defense, it is no defense at all is the “argument”.
The reality is that in self-defense situations, all firearms are compromises of one sort or another. For short range defense, shotguns have some advantages but some disadvantages. jharp’s opinion of handguns only shows his ignorance of the issue.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 10:37 am
That sounds like a lovely weapon, and would like for you to leave it to me in your will…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:38 am
Forget the drinking glass. It’s a case of the gun being half-loaded. It’ll do for now, but we’d sure rather have a full clip.
Comment by Don — 6/26/2008 @ 10:39 am
Adding to my complaints about shotguns: you guys don’t seem to have a problem with them. Some of the members of the fairer sex, however, don’t find them nearly as easy to handle as revolvers or pistols. Yes, I have picked up a few “lightweight” shotguns, and, no, I’m not a weakling. Just pointing out that we have much less upper-body strength, and shotguns are a bit tough to handle.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 10:42 am
How about this’n? Is it considered an assault weapon in CA?<a
Comment by bonhomme — 6/26/2008 @ 10:43 am
There has to be SOME method in place for preventing weapons from being given to ex-felons and the mentally ill, and this is either going to happen at the government level or the merchant point-of-sale, and I don’t think weighing down the merchant with a lot of bureaucratic bullshit is a good idea. (Small business owners have enough on their plate, thankyouverymuch.)
Better that the State, which already has multiple registration bureaucracies in place (such as the DMV and various trade registration boards – for contractors, doctors, lawyers and the like) handle the increased paperwork, and issue citizens their licenses. Once the citizen has a license (maybe as part of their original automobile registration, with occasional re-checks every five years or so to make sure that they haven’t been assigned to one of the banned classes, or maybe to check eyesight and reflexes), they can walk into any gun shop and buy whatever they wish, and as many as they “need”.
I don’t agree with waiting times, or any kind of regulations on private sales between citizens, but some level of screening is necessary.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:44 am
20-gauges have far less kick…
though I just assumed I’d have a small arsenal from which to choose…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:45 am
“It only takes hours and a score of comments before jharp begins to actually articulate his claims – that handguns are not very good home defense firearms – and so are not constitutionally protected.”
So now you choose to just make shit up. Seriously, where and how do come up with something like this. I am aware the GOPers are desperate but thrust me, making shit up isn’t going to help your cause.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 10:46 am
“But I can make that honey sound like a machine gun and empty the 15 round clip in a second or two.”
Really? A semi automatic?
You ought to call the Guinness Book of World Records. I think you’ve got one there.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 10:48 am
CA Assault weapon characteristics
Sorry, this one would actually be legal as long as it doesn’t have a folding stock.
My personal favorite for home defense is the Taurus Judge which is a 5 shot revolver that can fire both .410 shot shells and .45 Colt ammunition. Load 3 shot shells for the initial confrontation and 2 .45 rounds for confirmation.
No more nasty problems.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 10:49 am
#109 – jharp
Not saying I support handgun bans nor saying I’m against em. I just don’t know.
– The Obama position on this issue in one succinct sentence.
Comment by Icy Truth — 6/26/2008 @ 10:50 am
First, “sound” and “fire like” are quite different, and really, if the trigger is responsive enough it’s not that hard to do…
A buddy of mine can get 3 or 4 brass in the air with his semi-auto AR-15…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:51 am
Re: Taurus Judge
WANT!!!!
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:53 am
Did anyone else notice the hat tip to Volokh at the bottom of page 3?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 10:53 am
Though speed loaders would be an issue… Do they work with mixed loads?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:56 am
Yes, they work with mixed loads. I am not aware of anyone offering a speed loader for this model yet. Not incredibly accurate but for a lot of impact at close range, the .410 works great and the .45 followup just puts the icing on the cake.
My first interest in this was as a snake gun. But then I got to thinking about the .410 bird shot would have minimal danger of penetrating through sheet rock walls (minimizing the danger to people not in the same room with you). The .45 would be a last resort if the .410 wasn’t enough to discourage the intruder.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 11:02 am
You’ve kitted it with a 3-2 mix, and fired at the range?
I will have to look into taking one of these for a test drive…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 11:05 am
153, harp, sarcasm will not work. You’re too clumsy and slow.
As to the rate of fire I can attain with my .22, try breaking into my bedroom. I assure you I will make more than one of the 15 a kill shot.
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 11:05 am
Scott Jacobs, I just load up my “Belgian” Browning with alternating Sabot slugs and Buckshot. It was good enough in Anaheim, and works even better in Iowa.
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 11:06 am
bridget,
JHarp – you’re fundamentally incorrect about the superiourity of using a shotgun for home defence. “A shotgun cannot be used in tight spaces”
It is true that a shotgun could have space limitations.
“nor can it be kept in a nightstand (or under a pillow) for easy access.”
A shotgun can be just as easily accessible as a hangun
“There is no need for “much wallop” when you hit someone from three feet away.”
Quite the contrary is true. Unless of course head, heart, and or shots.
Handguns, unlike shotguns, can be kept on the person for self-defence on the street.
I thought we were talking about home defense. of course a handgun can be easily carried and a shotgun cannot. I’m a woman, so this one hits home with me.
If you put a woman up against a man who singles her out for aggression, she’s going to lose unless she’s armed (regardless of whether or not he is armed). Minority groups, like gays, are often the target of violence from groups, and can use handguns to stop aggression. (They need not even fire in order to stop an attack: many attackers will walk away when the would-be-victim shows a firearm.)
Mace and pepper spray can also work.
I guess my point is if you choose a handgun you’d better get lots of practice as it is not very easy to stop someone with it. With a shot gun it’s hard to miss and the guy will be blown backwards.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 11:07 am
I saw it SHOT show in Las Vegas. I have not personally taken one to the range but the Taurus reps assured me that this was one of the preferred configurations for home defense. I plan on getting one of these before CA defines anything that can push a bullet out of the barrel as being an “assault weapon”.
Comment by Jay Curtis — 6/26/2008 @ 11:09 am
Lively up yourselves, people. It wasn’t totally the victory we wanted – but it was the victory we got. And it IS a victory.
It says that
1. The RKBA is an individual right.
2. With #1 in mind, government can enact prudent restrictions on that right.
That means government – legislatures, city councils, Congress – needs to start passing laws to define what these restrictions will, or won’t, be.
Which means we – all of us – have to get off our butts and pressure our politicians to vote right on RKBA issues.
Do you people realize how powerful the RKBA movement is on “the American Street?” Even Barry The Messiah is afraid of the NRA.
Let’s justify that fear. With the individual right battle won, it’s time to press on on the legislative front.
This is huge.
Comment by Mitch Berg — 6/26/2008 @ 11:10 am
“….Out of my cold dead hands!” “My cold dead hands!” :@
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 11:12 am
“As to the rate of fire I can attain with my .22, try breaking into my bedroom. I assure you I will make more than one of the 15 a kill shot.”
Seriously, I think you might be overestimating the stopping power of your 22. You can only shoot the dude once he is in your bedroom. And if he’s in your bedroom and armed he will probably have a good chance to shoot you. Hopefully he also brings a pea shooter with him.
If you truly need home protection get yourself some firepower. Why take any chances?
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 11:12 am
164, harp, you have no experience with firearms. You don’t know what the Hell you are talking about. To get a spread pattern with a legal shotgun you need 20-25 yards, and that depends on the type of shot you use.
My brother would also show you how effective a handgun is at close range. Take your pick. .22, .36 blackpowder Navy Colt, .357 Magnum, .410GA derringer.
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 11:15 am
followed almost immediately by
Do you even know which side of your own argument you are trying to make?
Just for the record, “space limitations” != “easily accessible”.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 11:21 am
– There has to be SOME method in place for preventing weapons from being given to ex-felons and the mentally ill –
.
Well, we know a complete ban doesn’t do the trick, so something less is SURE to be effective.
.
And of course, licensed people, e.g. LEOs, never perpetrate an unjustified shooting
.
I’m not arguing for no penalties for misuse – I’m arguing that a licensing requirement for possession of a personal firearm in the home is not it.
.
“Oh, possession of gun, without the license – felon” :: “Oh, possession of a dog, without the license …”
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 11:23 am
Just for the record, “space limitations” != “easily accessible”.
Try this. Lay the shotgun beside or under your bed. Viola! Easily accessible!
And this. You are in a bathroom and can’t swing the gun around because of space limitations. Viola! Space limitations!
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 11:27 am
cboldt, how would you prevent felons and mentally ill persons from gaining access to a weapon, other than individual registration (much as is required to vote or legally drive a car)?
I’m a big fan of words like “must issue” when it comes to gun ownership (and CCW, for that matter), but there are people out there who I would rather not see carrying a weapon legally, because that ownership would pose a greater hazard to the general public than you or I.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 11:31 am
“harp, you have no experience with firearms.”
Wrong.
“To get a spread pattern with a legal shotgun you need 20-25 yards, and that depends on the type of shot you use.”
To get optimal spread you are correct. However even a a short distance the spread is much greater than a single bullet from a handgun. And it will blow the guy backwards. A handgun puts a hole in him which may or may not stop him.
“My brother would also show you how effective a handgun is at close range. Take your pick. .22, .36 blackpowder Navy Colt, .357 Magnum, .410GA derringer.”
Of course an handgun can be very effective. I’m just saying it ain’t easy. I have a lot of experience with handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Much more difficult to miss with a shotgun.
And a little bragging on my shooting prowess.
Killed a woodchuck from 60 yards with a handgun.
And one from 317 yards with a 243. And 317 yards is a long friggin way.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 11:34 am
The ruling was about a handgun ban in D.C. not banning possession of firearms in the United States.
God help us if there truly are that many folks who can’t see the difference.
If you are permitted to ban handguns in DC then you’re permitted to ban them anywhere. It’s like if they passed a law limiting free speech in DC and they said it was contitutional. Would you say no big deal, it doesn’t ban free speech everywhere? Are you really that stupid?
Comment by Gerald A — 6/26/2008 @ 11:34 am
Try this: carry the shotgun in your purse. Voila! Space limitations!
And this. An alley behind a strip mall where a lady is attacked by ruffians of undetermined ethnic extraction, while her shotgun is lying under her bed at home. Voila! Easily accessible!
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 11:36 am
– how would you prevent felons and mentally ill persons from gaining access to a weapon –
.
I don’t think it’s possible. First, I assume you meant for “weapon” to be limited to firearm, but if not, those felons and mentally ill can get knives fairly easily.
.
If the person is dangerous, get them the hell off the street.
.
But I honestly am not threatened if every ex-felon had a gun at his home.
.
Courts still have the power of TRO’s and personal restraining orders, and I’m not digging into that rat’s nest – I’m talking about the generally applicable default laws that apply, absent a TRO or other “personal law”
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 11:36 am
And bullets, too. Don’t forget all those bullets.
(exeunt omnes, laughing)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 11:37 am
Good lord, folks – could we drop the talk about what kind of firearm to use? That choice is infinitesimally personal and infinitely permutable; it depends on your proficiency, comfort with guns, budget, the construction of your home, your city/state laws, your logistics (carry or leave at home?), size, level of innate aggression – and I’m just scratching the surface.
Anyone who says there’s a perfect (or useless) gun for self-defense needs to get a perspective transplant. Stat.
Oh, yeah – and anyone who makes guarantees about their performance in a life-or-death self-defense situation is fooling themselves. With the adrenaline rush, you’re facing muscle clumsiness, tachyspatia, tunnel-vision, and a zillion other things cropping up that will – not may – make your statements in a nice, well-lit room on a computer look pretty dumb someday.
Just saying.
Comment by Mitch Berg — 6/26/2008 @ 11:46 am
You say “Get them off the street” as though simply saying so would make it so.
How would you spot them? And who is better equipped to do the spotting – the State or the merchant? Once identified, how would you continue to keep them easily identifiable? A Scarlet Letter? Branded or tattooed?
It’s a serious problem, and matched in scale by the number of people who wish to drive. I think the issuance of such licenses should be no more difficult than getting a driver’s license or in registering to vote, but we have to make some sort of attempt at screening out the dangerous and crazy before they actually get their hands on a weapon capable of harming the innocent at a distance. (Hell, we test people who want to drive, so that they know the rules of the road. Why not have a test covering the ‘Rules of Engagement, and the Lawful Use of Deadly Force’?)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 11:46 am
The ruling was about a handgun ban in D.C. not banning possession of firearms in the United States.
God help us if there truly are that many folks who can’t see the difference.
“If you are permitted to ban handguns in DC then you’re permitted to ban them anywhere.”
Correct.
“If the Democrats had appointed just one more Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
Is utter nonsense which was and is my point.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 11:51 am
#54 – But what I like is Arizona’s gun law. OK to wear it, so long as you wear it openly so everybody knows your packing.
– Just wanted to point out that some other states also allow open carry of weapons, although here in AZ we definitely have one of the least restrictive open carry laws; we also allow concealed carry with a permit.
Comment by Icy Truth — 6/26/2008 @ 11:54 am
176, harp, not bad. I knocked down a running 180 lb Buck at 175 yards with a 20ga slug after exiting a car, unsheathing the gun, breaking it open (single shot 20Ga with the trigger guard activating the break), loading it, swinging it over the roof of the car, and then snapping off ONE shot. The deer was running left to right across one field and half way into a second. 2 of my 3 witnesses from the car are now deceased, but the 3rd is happy to demostrate to you the folly of your words.
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 12:04 pm
Oh, one thing about harp’s blatherings, we are only talking at most 10 feet in a bedroom, less in a bathroom. Unless the shotgun is the one used in “El Dorado” by James Caan, no shot is going to spread very far. an 8″ x 11″ piece of paper can catch the entire load, and while you are kicked firing the gun, you may not kill or knock down your target.
Mythbusters had a whole show on what happens to bodies that are shot to knock them down. They don’t fly when you hit them with anything less than a Punt Gun.
Comment by PCD — 6/26/2008 @ 12:07 pm
Aawww! That would be so cute! Some really strong guy would come at me, the pistol would fail, and, as Invincible Attacker Man marches towards me, undeterred by my bullets, I would… whip out my pepper spray!
I’m sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard. “Bullets won’t stop him, so make his eyes water!”
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 12:10 pm
jharp spouts: “I guess my point is if you choose a handgun you’d better get lots of practice as it is not very easy to stop someone with it. With a shot gun it’s hard to miss and the guy will be blown backwards.
More ignorance of firearms, self-defense issues and the introduce of mythology about physics to boot.
You are on a roll, jharp, and its a downhill one.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 12:11 pm
bridget, well said. The reality is that many people can fight through the effects of pepper spray and even the stronger mace chemicals.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 12:12 pm
– How would you spot them? And who is better equipped to do the spotting – the State or the merchant? –
.
Before I follow the modest tangent, I want to go back to the Heller case for a bit. SCOTUS has said that it’s reasonable to require Heller to obtain a license in order to posses a personal firearm in his own house. I vigorously dissent.
.
As for “spotting them,” I assume you mean for purposes of transferring either possession of ownership of a firearm; which is a slightly different question from the right to possess. Even so, I’m not sure a ban on possession by ex-felons actually reduces crime.
.
As for how to spot them, NCIC seems to work, i.e., “background check” by the merchant. But I am against requiring this for private transfer or otherwise “closing the gun show loophole.”
.
I can see that guns freak people out, but realistically, we tolerate all sorts of dangers in the hands of the general public. See the nuts who poisoned the church coffee in Maine, drivers who plow into crowds, and there is other substantial deadly mischief possible with “ordinary household chemicals.”
.
My remedy for your hypothetical “dangerous person” isn’t to make the rest of us “get a license.” It just doesn’t seem logical at all.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 12:12 pm
Thanks, SPQR.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 12:14 pm
Haw haw…. hey which of yesterdays pathetic snivelling worthless liberals who should be hung by their sensitive bits and beaten like a pinata is todays fearless eagle eyed bold protector of our great republic’s citizen’s right… like whom ALL SCOTUS justices should be?
Comment by EdWood — 6/26/2008 @ 12:14 pm
Oh, and by “hypothetical dangerous person,” I don’t mean there aren’t any. Obviously there are people out there who I wish never came into possession of a gun. Read the paper any day, and you’ll see the tragic stories.
.
But banning guns or making them “difficult” to obtain (which is BS – “difficult” just translates into “more expensive”) isn’t the answer.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 12:19 pm
Also, in many places – New Jersey for example – Almost all sizes of pepper spray aren’t legal to carry around with you in public…
For everyone’s safety, of cource…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 12:20 pm
Additionally some percentage of the population is completely unaffected by mace (I’ve heard 2-3%). Some narcotics allow a person to seem unaffected until the drug wears off. Some people who are sprayed multiple times grow more accustomed to the chemicals and develop a sort of immunity. Prisoners for example can be maced for fighting or refusing to come out of a cell. After time they fight through it much more easily.
Comment by bonhomme — 6/26/2008 @ 12:22 pm
I agree, but I think the State (since it would be the ones requiring the bureaucratic nonsense) should bear the burden of doing the paperwork (id est, that NCIC background check, etc.), rather than the merchant, who (when it comes right down to it) is a private individual, just one whose personal talent lies in collecting and then redistributing that private collection at a small profit. (Whether that “person” is a natural person or a corporate person is irrelevant under the law, so it would be irrelevant here.)
It seems to me a bit like the prohibition against unfunded mandates at the Fed/State level. Why should the State level governments argue against such a mandate when dealing upwards, but be perfectly okay in requiring it in a downward direction, especially when you consider they are placing a specific law enforcement burden on the individual citizen, rather than the State employees tasked with enforcing it.
If there is a license requirement, the State should bear the burden, not the individual.
Just my dos centavos.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 12:23 pm
I used the word mace too easily, I meant OC spray where I said mace.
Comment by bonhomme — 6/26/2008 @ 12:23 pm
i’m happy with the decision, of course.
i only skimmed the comments, but i had to laugh at this guy who said he shot a woodchuck at 317 yards away. i hunted throughout my teens and early 20s, downed my fair share of birds and bunnies, but never shot at anything more than about 75 yards away. at 317 yards i wouldn’t recognize a woodchuck well enough to shoot at it.
planet earth is a cage overrun by its master species, the rats on two legs. competition for available resources among these rats is inevitable. for a grownup rat like me, one of the big tricks in life is what i call “finding a nice part of the cage” and i live in one of the very best parts of this cage. access to firearms is an unfortunate but necessary element of keeping this a nice part of the cage. i haven’t hunted in many years; not enough time, too many other interesting things to do, and i don’t pack heat in public or out in the woods because i possess at least the bare minimum of self-confidence to go outside unarmed, but i still own guns, like just about everyone else in my rural neighborhood. there’s very little violent crime here, and that is one of the reasons. as a practical matter, there aren’t enough cops and soldiers in america to take our guns away, but i salute today’s decision for its symbolic individual empowerment significance.
on to the technical specifics: i don’t like semiautomatic firearms, they’re more dangerous to innocent people around them in the hands of untrained users, and they’re less reliable when you pull the trigger. my only semiauto, a ruger .22, occasionally jams on the second shot. manual firearms never jam. a fine manual firearm is the culmination of the industrial art of gunsmithing, and i am a patron of this art.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/26/2008 @ 12:26 pm
cboldt:
As would I, if the Heller majority had said any such thing. What they actually said (p. 59) was this:
do not address != approve
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 12:30 pm
harpy — actually, the case was about a handgun ban and a regulation on the possession of rifles and shotguns that required them to be disassembled or unloaded with a trigger lock mechanism in place.
Comment by WLS — 6/26/2008 @ 12:31 pm
Handguns, my friend.
Patterico’s quote “there would be no individual right to possess firearms in the United States of America.”
See the difference.
Now I see. Explain the constitutional difference between handguns and other firearms.
Comment by Gerald A — 6/26/2008 @ 12:31 pm
There is no constitutional distinction between handguns and other firearms. Why can’t you understand that?
Comment by Gerald A — 6/26/2008 @ 12:34 pm
Gerald, why that’s easy. Handguns are ineffective according to jharp. Which then makes the question of why they need to be regulated at all a mystery…
But coherence has not been jharp’s strong suit.
On a related topic, Ehrenstein has been caught calling for Scalia’s murder in comments on another blog.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 12:36 pm
Try it this way: My remedy for your hypothetical “dangerous person driver” isn’t to make the rest of us “get a license.” It just doesn’t seem logical at all.
Cars kill many more people each year than guns. So by your argument, we should abolish the need for licensing, because there is no way that the cops would ever be able to stop all of those children, senile seniors and blind people from getting behind the wheel and tooling around.
I think that a license, so far as the requirements for same aren’t “arbitrary and capricious”, is perfectly fine, if only to provide some rudimentary level of training and verification of physical ability and mental stability.
Just like at the DMV.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 12:42 pm
What other proof do you need that a single Kerry appointment, let alone two, would have been enough to push today’s decision the other way?
That was one of my first thoughts upon reading this opinion.
Senator Obama has pledged to appoint justices like the 4 dissenters (Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsberg). If he gets into office, the 2nd Amendment may be dead and gone forever.
He wants judges who decide the controversial 5% of cases with their hearts, not with their heads; based on their social values, rather than on the text of the Constitution. That’s how you get four justices who want to strip us of one of our most fundamental rights as American citizens.
It’s disgusting. I’m disgusted. I’ve never been physically repulsed by those four justices before. They’ve gone too far this time. I hold them in utter contempt.
I’m also disgusted with Kennedy, because he has the same attitude as them. Luckily, this time, he was feeling a little more right-wing, deep down inside. But who knows how he will feel on the next gun case? We can’t afford to entrust the future of our Constitution to one fickle “maverick.”
Comment by Daryl Herbert — 6/26/2008 @ 12:47 pm
jharp, you do realize that the reason you have seen people blown backwards when shot with a shotgun is because the stunt coordinator has attached a line to the back of the person and pulled him backwards don’t you?
You shoot someone with a shotgun at close range and with sufficiently large shot (that’s the bullet thingies in the shotgun ammunition) and there will usually be a large hole with the insides going outside accompanied by some god awful smells and the shot person going in any direction, sideways, straight down, forward and sometimes backwards too.
Comment by Labcatcher — 6/26/2008 @ 12:48 pm
Fine with me, as long as the license you are talking about is a license to carry a weapon on the street, not a license to own the damned thing in your own home. Just like that license you get at the DMV.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 12:51 pm
– Cars kill many more people each year than guns. So by your argument, we should abolish the need for licensing, –
.
You’re applying my example outside the parameters I expressly conceded. See above, where I have no problem with licensing for driving on public roads, but not for possession of a car.
.
And again, the issue in Heller is whether or not he is to be required to obtain a license to posses a handgun in his home.
.
I don’t think he should need to get a license at all – but I opened with the thought that if it was to be required, it ought to be free. And you agree with that (the “ought to be free” part).
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 12:51 pm
XRLQ: fair enough, but unless the person you bought it from delivered it, you need the license to carry it on the street from the shop to your home.
Comment by aphrael — 6/26/2008 @ 12:54 pm
– do not address != approve –
.
Good point. And noted too, licensing for possession in the home was a [fricking boneheaded, asinine] concession, not litigated.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 12:56 pm
Aphrael: not if it’s unloaded and in the trunk, which it presumably should be following a routine purchase. If that were not so, it would be almost impossible for any Californian to purchase a handgun at all.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 12:58 pm
I agree completely with Drumwaster, and am looking forward to his completion of a licensing exam to establish his competence to exercise his First Amendment rights as well.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 12:59 pm
Then again, it might be worth it just to see if Harpy or Levi can pass such a test.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 1:00 pm
All I am asking for as far as a license requirement goes is for the license to be the bureaucratic and legal equivalent of saying “The person carrying this card has been examined by the State, and falls into no restricted class of citizen for the purposes of the ownership or possession of a weapon.”
Just like your driver’s license is the bureaucratic and legal equivalent of saying “The person carrying this card has been examined by the State, and falls into no restricted class of citizen for the purposes of the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle.”
Weed out the crazy and the convicts, and I have no other objections.
As far as a license to carry openly (or even concealed), there should be some modicum of training required, either honorably-completed military service or a training class, roughly equivalent to what the cops have to go through. (Not the physical training and the busting through doors, but what the local laws are, the explanations of “reasonable force”, and situations regarding the application of deadly force, etc.
Call it a week of evening classroom training with a written test at the end.
(Roughly what HAZMAT certified drivers have to go through.)
How is this so unreasonable?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 1:05 pm
I always thought that licenses were about control and culpability. You get a license so that the authorities have a record of the last person, and their address, who owned a vehicle, boat, gun etc. That way there is someone to immediatley question if something bad happens involving said equipment.
In the case of guns, I suppose the idea is that liscences may be an incentive for all us generally law abiding citizens to stay law abiding while totin around our Ruger 9mm double action bannana clip semi-auto blasters with the cop issue hollow point teflon coated “I cud cut you in half before yer candy ass .22 could finish me off” express ammo.
Isn’t the idea is to allow the cops etc. to not have to worry about the law abiding while they are catching the crims?
The flip side of liscences is, of course, when Dick Cheney and the Neocons bomb Iran and declare a state of emergency and cancel the 2008 elections, then declare martial law and try to take over the country, if there are gun licenses then they will KNOW who has the firepower to resist them…
Whoops wrong blog….Uhh….I mean… when Barack Obama declares that the Entire USA is now the Peoples Republic of Goddamn Amerikkka and institutes his 5 year plan for social fiscal equity and public be-goodness… oh alright ….
Comment by EdWood — 6/26/2008 @ 1:09 pm
Bring it on.
C’mon, the use of words while angry is much less dangerous than the use of a weapon while angry, and speech (especially “incitement”) is already limited. All I ask for is that the individual attend a class to learn what the rules are (much like you learn society’s rules when growing up: “Mustn’t punch your playmates, not nice.”), and have a background check done to make sure you are not a felon or a loonie-bin resident.
Once you get the license, then all’s fair, etc.
I wouldn’t object to a minimal fee, just to cover administrative costs. (About what getting a State ID or filing a marriage license costs.)
It already is almost impossible. (Thank God for my DD-214.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 1:13 pm
It’s not, but then again, that’s pretty much what they do require for a permit to carry concealed in the United States (as opposed to Cuba, Canada, Zimbabwe, California or North Korea) today. I hold three such licenses myself. Two (UT and NC) require a class that could be completed in a long day, while the third (VA) accepted a written certification from me that I had had appropriate training (I lived in a semi-rural, gun friendly county; YMMV in cities or more urban counties).
As to the free license that merely shows you’re not a prohibited person, I have no objections to the concept in principle. I’m unclear, however, as to what such a license would do that NICS can’t do better in real time. After all, the most a paper license can prove is that you weren’t a prohibited person at the time the license was issued.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/26/2008 @ 1:15 pm
But hey, at least we tried.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 1:18 pm
It is unreasonable, Drumwaster, in that such a licensing scheme has already become de facto bans on possession in many states. Secondly, it is unreasonable in that we’ve experience with different states applying different training requirements for concealed carry licenses and there being no difference in misuse between those states with high requirements and those with low requirements.
And I make those comments as someone is is certified to teach CCW classes and hunter education classes in my state.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 1:22 pm
– If there is a license requirement, the State should bear the burden, not the individual. vs. I wouldn’t object to a minimal fee, just to cover administrative costs. –
.
Pick one. Anyway, I don’t care. I’ think I’ve made my point of view clear. Over and out.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 1:24 pm
[gasps]
Wow. Close calls like this I don’t like.
[takes deep breath]
So what do we do next?
Comment by htom — 6/26/2008 @ 1:28 pm
One thing I note with much anger is how, in the not-so-distant past, a 5-4 decision, especially one addressing such a fundamental proclamation as Scalia’s today, would be seen as less significant, or even weak. Such a decision would be seen as ripe for reversal.
Have you read/heard any liberals using this tack today? Nope. Since so much of what they want has been accomplished in 5-4 decisions, they dare not call attention to the fragility of the rights and privileges discovered, notably Roe.
I am disgusted and I am not fooled by today’s sandbagging (as in levee) against the feckless onslaught of the liberal tides of anarchy.
Comment by Ed — 6/26/2008 @ 1:33 pm
Correction: This should read “If there is a license requirement, the State should bear the paperwork burden, not the individual.” That was what I meant.
It is, after all, the paperwork which ruins productivity and profit margins. I speak as a small business owner here in SoCal. Trust me, my paperwork load is heavy enough. I can’t imagine how bad it is for someone forced to be tied into – and fill out reams of paperwork for (in triplicate, of course) – every law enforcement agency on the planet.
Because those licensing requirements are both capricious and arbitrary. This decision changes that part, but some attempt at weeding out the wackos needs to be done, or else it will be done in gun battles on the streets. I prefer that the weeding happens before the purchase is made.
I want the process to be almost exactly analogous to getting a driver’s license. You don’t have to have a license to own a car or to park it in your driveway, but you DO have to have one to operate that car anywhere but on your own property.
If you have enough extra ground space that you own that you want to take that sucker out for a few rounds down around the south forty, then more power to you. But the moment you start to interact with the rest of society, then you should have to be certified to operate that piece of equipment safely enough to not wantonly kill your fellow man, just because you hadn’t learned the rules and everyone else had.
If the cops see you out and about with that unlicensed piece of equipment, and you appear to be operating it in an unsafe manner, they have the right to stop and ask for that license, and even to seize it entirely if you don’t have one.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 1:40 pm
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Of course it does.
In the 17th century the king (Charles I, Charles II) used to pay for a standing army out of his own funds, without Parliamentary approval, and could threaten the Parliament with suppression.
After multiple civil wars, in 1688 the “English Bill of Rights” declared that such standing armies maintained by the government were injurious and threatening to liberty; therefore, England should rely on an army from the people (to use the modern terms)–a militia. And in order to have that militia–and to keep the king from being able to coerce the people–every loyal citizen should be permitted to keep a firearm.
The object was to be able to defend one’s liberties against incursion by the king.
Most of the American colonies followed suit and passed similar measures immediately.
The US Constitution uses virtually the same language–a militia being required (instead of a standing army controlled only by the central government–a thing to be feared)–every citizen should be permitted a firearm.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it; and no disarming of the citizenry by the central government, which would then have the only army.
We aren’t living in the 17th century any more. We may or may not still have to fear the central government taking away our rights. Keeping guns may or may not be a good idea.
But there is no question of what the intent of the 2nd amendment was, or what the intent of the (English) framers was, when they wrote that.
If anyone wants to change it now, a new amendment will be necessary. There is a process for that, the constitution can be changed. But it cannot be changed to say what it does not, or have its provisions canceled out, merely by judicial fiat.
Stolen from here; liestoppers
You folks have really outdone yourselves in this thread.
The 5-4 split is almost disturbing, no it is disturbing.
Comment by TC — 6/26/2008 @ 1:42 pm
M700 APR. Me likey.
Comment by JD — 6/26/2008 @ 1:52 pm
Why Patterico is correct:
Heller involves a DC gun statute.
DC is a federal enclave.
Not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States by incorporation through the 14th Amendment.
A future Supreme Court decision, with an Obama appointee in place of one of the five justices in the majority, could easily limit Heller to its facts — applying the 2nd Amendment only to federal land, leaving states and municipalities free to impose whatever regulations they think appropriate.
They could do so without overturning Heller.
Comment by WLS — 6/26/2008 @ 1:54 pm
Those arugula and fresh fruit eating swells in Berkeley and Hyde Park best watch out for the red state bible-totin’/gun-lovin’ ridgerunners who had a lifetime hunting if the revolution ever comes.
I’d love to see more women trained and packing. We had several upscale mall killings here in moonbat central Boca and the police and mall initially downplayed the threat. One incident was a mom and 8 year-old daughter.
Can’t see playing cowboy and carrying one in my car because I might just get pissed off enough with other drivers, but home front has a pump 12 gauge, 357 mag and 22 target pistol. Miss the old model 911 45s and even the Walther. Anyway I figure I’d aim for a reprobate’s feet with the 12 gauge and maybe hit him in cojones? Of course I might already be dead in my bed. Maybe that samurai sword is a good option also? I love it when Willis does the job in Pulp Fiction and rue fact that we didn’t see the pliers and blow torch deal with Ving Rhames cracker rapist Jeb.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/26/2008 @ 1:59 pm
It’s a great day — one quibble I’d have with the header, though (and, yes, it’s your blog . . . )
“The Heller Decision: Human Rights Win” Self-defense, including the right to keep and bear arms, is a human right. Guns don’t have — or need — rights.
We, the People, do.
What a terrific day.
Comment by Joel Rosenberg — 6/26/2008 @ 2:07 pm
Whilst you all are debating nonsense a rather significant day for all Americans.
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — U.S. stocks fell sharply Thursday(Dow lost 358 pts) with the blue-chip index enduring its worst June so far since 1930…
…after getting slammed hard as crude soared to new highs $140 a barrel
And I’m sure this is good news for republicans
And the $12 billion a month goodwill mission in desert goes on.
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 2:17 pm
– Whilst you all are debating nonsense … –
.
How to win friends, and persuade people to adopt your point of view. Two can play that game – you started it.
.
You’re one of those Democrats I wouldn’t piss on if you were on fire, but as you aren’t on fire, I’m pissin’ away.
Comment by cboldt — 6/26/2008 @ 2:24 pm
#227 you should be happy with high oil prices. The more profits they make, the more Urkel the Lightmaker can take out in confiscatory excess profits taxes. San Fran Nan is already on record championing retirement taxes to level the $$ playing field between the haves and have-nots, the citizens who work vs. the mistreated, underpaid, undersaving minorities and illegal aliens. The old socialist grasshopper and the ant parable. One does wonder what Nancy and her corrupt family will do to protect their own millions.
Funny how the political elites have protection armed with guns, but want the peons disarmed and vulnerable. Another example is the likes of harridan Rosie O’Donnell. No guns for thee, but plenty for me because she’s an important bulldyke icon.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/26/2008 @ 2:35 pm
Ehrenstein’s comment has been removed from that blog, it seems. (Crooks & Liars had it, but it’s gone now.)
Comment by steve miller — 6/26/2008 @ 2:46 pm
“feckless onslaught of the liberal tides of anarchy”
I dunno Ed, it seems to me you are actually worried about “liberal” control, not anarchy. People all over the blogs, commenting on a whole variety of topics are all worried about control- by people who they don’t agree with, or government policies they don’t like, or regulations and laws they think are unfair. What is funny… or maybe it’s disturbing… is that many commentors thinks that it;s THOSE OTHER GUYS on the OTHER side who want to control everyone… when, at least from where I’m standing, it’s both sides who want to control everyone…. just in different ways and on different topics.
Are you more worried that “Big” government is going to take your home away using eminent domain? or that a developer or wealthy individual will take it away to build something they want and make money for themselves…. using imminent domain (via city hall)… which you can’t fight coz they have MORE MONEY?
The good thing about this decision is that it gives the people some tiny bit of self control back. The bad thing is that all the guns in the world won’t save your property or business if someone with more money is allowed to take it away coz they want to build a mall and you are in the way.
Comment by EdWood — 6/26/2008 @ 3:03 pm
That’s job security for the Mafia. Can’t have people defending themselves when there’s unemployed hit men around, right?
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 3:21 pm
He really disappointed me with the lack of creativity on that one.
The Dow is a significant thing to all Americans? Who knew?
Comment by chaos — 6/26/2008 @ 3:30 pm
Anyone care to take the odds on whether the harpie can name any of the stocks that make up the DJIA (without Googling, that is, but I wouldn’t put it past her), or set the over/under on how many she unwittingly uses every day?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 3:38 pm
Ed – my point is that to have a system of the rule of man, as opposed to the rule of law, is to not have a system. Anarchy.
However, if your point is that what we are moving towards – big government – is better described as fascism, I won’t disagree.
Either way, we are completely at the mercy of elites who believe they answer only to themselves.
Comment by Ed — 6/26/2008 @ 3:45 pm
Levi: You don’t have to read something to know its contents. I’ve gotten A’s on papers I’ve written and tests I’ve taken about books I’ve never read.
jharp: I happen to be a gun owner. Lot’s of em. And lot’s of bullets too.
I gotta hand it to you, Pat. You couldn’t have done better to match these two together on one website if you were Dr. Neil Clark Warren.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 6/26/2008 @ 3:46 pm
“The Dow is a significant thing to all Americans?”
Not all but quite a few as it is composed of 30 widely held significant market cap companies that are worth 3% less today than yesterday. And the biggest June drop since 1930. Not good by any stretch.
The S&P is a better gauge. And it lost 3% also.
The $140 oil is probably more significant to most Americans. Mostly due to the weakest dollar that I can remember.
Heckuva job! W!
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 3:53 pm
You do license free speech, or religious rights and there is no add on that says shall not be infringed on any other defined constitutional right. The second amendment was not written to protect citizens from criminal but from Government.
Comment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — 6/26/2008 @ 4:18 pm
jharp has now gone from on topic nonsense to off topic nonsense.
Hardly an improvement.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 4:24 pm
Have no fear Harpy..your liberal Congress will soon reverse that oil price; afterall they did pledge to do so. We don’t need no stinkin’ new refineries, nuclear plants, domestic oil exploration or dividends from oil companies making widows and orphans feeelthy rich from their bonds and pension funds. All you peeps need to take the bus and train and get off your lard butts and walk/ride bike a bit. The hypocrites in the limousine liberal elite have more right to that fossil energy. Let’s hope! for change! and maybe some fair rationing of scarce resources. Let’s home Obama reverses today’s gun travesty with some executive orders or liberal justice appointees that show you all who knows best.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/26/2008 @ 4:26 pm
jharp holds up a shiny penny and says, Look over here. One wonders if she/he has a handful of”bullets” in the other hand. Snicker Snort Snort.
Comment by MS — 6/26/2008 @ 4:29 pm
Whilst you all are debating nonsense
Translation: I’m tired of getting my ass kicked on this, so I’ll bring up something else to blame on Bush!
Comment by Paul — 6/26/2008 @ 4:34 pm
I’m wondering why harpie thinks these two data are unrelated. And why harpie hasn’t asked when the price spikes started, and what event might have precipitated said spikes.
(Hint: The prices started rising late on the first week in November, 2006. What happened early in that week? Specifically, the Tuesday following the first Monday of an even numbered year.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 4:39 pm
I seem to remember a certain House member from California promising to reduce the price of oil. Can’t remember which party, though. Anyone want to help out?
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 4:40 pm
Maybe she’ll go out and buy “lot’s [sic] of bullets”.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 4:40 pm
Here you go, bridget.
Hope this is what you were looking for…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 4:44 pm
bridget, given how often Democrats and their environmentalist constituency have advocated higher fuel costs, it is pretty hilarious is it not, to see them trying to blame Republicans.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 4:51 pm
All this talk about high oil prices, weak dollar, falling DOW is just so much background noise. My local paper’s letters to the editor delineate what is truly important. We must back Kucinich and Wexler in their efforts to hold Dubya accountable. Impeach now. OUR REPUTATION IN THE WORLD IS ON THE LINE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will someone kindly enlighten me as to why I should give a rat’s asp about what foreigners think of the good old USA? Whose military has protected Europe’s backside for decades? Who saves their bacon in two world wars? This seeking of European approval is one hallmark of liberal thought. Why? You’ve got those liberal jackasses on SCOTUS also seeking approval of the euroweenie elites. Even the voters in some countries have said no to Euro elite and it seems to be like the gore nethod- keep counting or voting until the unaccountable Brussels drones get their wishes.
Comment by madmax333 — 6/26/2008 @ 5:02 pm
Thank you, Drumwaster.
SPQR: It is interesting to watch Dems play both sides of the fence. They at once blame Republicans for higher fuel costs, but then say that it’s a good thing, because it forces [hoi polloi, whoops,] Americans to use public transit, buy hybrids, and reduce unnecessary fuel expenditures.
If I didn’t know better, I would say that the second part sounds like free-market thinking.
Senator Obama, interestingly, made a stop at a Ford (IIRC) plant and discussed what he would do to keep Detroit afloat. Problematically, American cars have long had a dual effect on increasing fuel consumption: they are fuel-inefficient, and so heavy that their presence on the road discourages Americans from buying light cars that cannot withstand an accident with a Tahoe or a Yukon.
Nevertheless, Detroit fights fuel-efficiency standards, even as Toyota is about to overtake GM as America’s number-one selling car. We may very well have to choose between energy independence and Detroit, yet Obama made a big deal about “keeping American jobs.”
(I’m not saying that the Republicans have been great on this front, either, but the Democrats should, if they really cared about fuel economy, global warming, etc., be screaming for the demise of Detroit.)
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 5:07 pm
Engine efficiency has actually increased greatly in the last decade, but the cars get heavier, so you lose what gain is made as the engine has to work harder to move the bulk…
Never… After all, where would they be if not for the Unions?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 5:14 pm
NO MATTER what you gunphobes say you will never take my gun away from me! NEVER! Now step back fool, this thing is loaded.
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 5:16 pm
I just had this mental image flash through my head.
Who else? C’mon, be honest…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 5:25 pm
It would seem so wouldnt it Drum?
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 5:30 pm
Actually, bridget, studies by the NHTSA show that lighter cars are actually less safe in single-car accidents as well. The NHTSA studied the effect of CAFE standards and concluded that it had cost hundreds if not over a thousand lives.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 5:36 pm
Given your clear incompetence at most subjects, I wouldn’t be in the least surprised.
(I’ll bet you thought that was an impressive picture, rather than one showing Kerry for the brain-dead tool he actually is. Hint: think safety.)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 5:38 pm
I wouldn’t doubt that, SPQR, but the presence of heavy cars on the road does spur people into buying heavier cars than they normally would.
As we’ve been over in another thread, I’m a Volvo driver. My car can get about 28 mpg, and, as my dad learned from experience, take the back axle off a Suburban and allow the driver to walk away from the accident with nothing more than a little stiffness.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 5:44 pm
I understand, bridget, I’m a Yuppie Redneck. My Volvo has a gun rack.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 5:45 pm
I’ve been meaning to put one on the back of my car, too, but Wal-Mart’s gun section only had ones that fit camo-painted pickup trucks.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 5:46 pm
#255
Drumwasted fool.
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 5:55 pm
You could always get a paint job for the Volvo…
heh… A camo-colored volvo… THAT would be something to see…
Then we’ll get it a lift package, and some big tires… You’ll scare the shit outta the cummuters…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 6:18 pm
That’s hoplohobes, love2008. As opposed to hoplophiles and armasexuals.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 7:05 pm
Or, in the case of love, coprophilia.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 7:19 pm
#261
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 7:27 pm
#261 and #262
Where do you guys get all these crazy words from? Wackopedia?
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 7:32 pm
I don’t know about him, but I am a natively trained sesquipedalian autodidact.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/26/2008 @ 7:39 pm
[glares at Scott Jacobs]
She’s a very pretty gold colour; I have no desire to camo her up.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 7:39 pm
Oh come on… Live a little!
You know she wants to go muddin’…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 7:44 pm
I’m a teacher-taught user of short words.
Comment by nk — 6/26/2008 @ 8:00 pm
Figures.
Comment by love2008 — 6/26/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Can I ask the lawyers here something? Why are the Supreme Court decisions published with such huge margins? Just so you can make copious notes there? Tradition? Conspiracy with the paper companies?
Comment by htom — 6/26/2008 @ 8:34 pm
The clown who is currently mayor of D.C. has put out a press release that is hilarious in its incoherence.
He thinks that D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic handguns is still going to be in effect.
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2008 @ 8:44 pm
Technically, for about a month, it could be.
Usually though, I would think places tend to immedeately stop doing what the SC said is a no-no…
But technically, it sounds like yeah, it still is in effect…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 10:50 pm
Now, bear with me on this…
If owning a hand gun is a right under the Constitution, do we now get government funds to help us buy guns, because owning one is a right?
What about the poor women and children who lack the means to buy their own guns, are they being denied their rights?
OR
Are billions of dollars of our tax dollars being spent every year to provide things for some of our citizens that they have no right to expect.
Does the right to be able to obtain something force the government to provide it to the poor free charge, or not?
Comment by tyree — 6/26/2008 @ 11:00 pm
No, because it’s a right, not a requirement…
I have the right to assemble… Doesn’t mean I have to go to any rallies…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2008 @ 11:02 pm
Our rights are properly negative rights: the right to do something, free from government interference. Much as the right to free speech encompasses the mere right to speak without government interference, it does not encompass the right to have the government purchase a microphone for one’s personal use. The right articulated in the Second Amendment is the right to own, carry, and operate a firearm, without government interference, not the right to a taxpayer-subsidised Sig Sauer.
Comment by bridget — 6/26/2008 @ 11:35 pm
SPQR:
Alas, it may well be, at least for a while. Heller left the licensing requirement intact, so if DC refuses to issue licenses for any semi-automatics, someone else is going to have to bring them back to court. A few more rounds of this nonsense and maybe Congress will have the good sense to dissolve DC’s government altogether.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/27/2008 @ 5:50 am
What’s Marion Barry doing these days?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/27/2008 @ 6:47 am
I’m no lawyer, but I was thinking anyway -
Is it a good idea to appoint lawyers as judges? Aren’t the two tasks completely different?
A lawyer represents his client, he comes up with the best legal arguments he can to help his client – to manipulate a jury or a judge. He is free to bend the law, because the final decision is not his, it is someone else’s.
Make such a person into a judge and they are their own client, bending the law to suit themselves. They don’t respect the written law, they use it to get what they want.
Would it not be better to have judges who have not been trained to manipulate, but to interpret?
Comment by Amphipolis — 6/27/2008 @ 7:34 am
Drugs…
And whores…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/27/2008 @ 7:49 am
Wouldn’t it be even better to have judges who have been trained to read simple English? (”Shall not be infringed” doesn’t need to be “interpreted”.)
“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” — St. George Tucker, 1803
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 7:51 am
Don’t you just love the NY Times editorializing on this decision:
“This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human rights.”
So you gun advocates are bringing even more damage to the rights and the safety of Americans.
Facts and logic mean nothing to these buffoons. How come places with strict gun control laws have much higher crime rates. How come Iraq is safer than many inner US cities when it comes to murder rate? Afterall DC, Detroit City and Compton are not war zones. Or are they?
Comment by madmax333 — 6/27/2008 @ 8:37 am
Erwin Chemerensky in today’s LATs:
“What then explains the court’s decision to strike down the D.C. law? Conservative political ideology. The majority followed prevailing conservative political philosophy and found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns.”
Imagine that.
Comment by Dana — 6/27/2008 @ 8:43 am
282, Dana, since when has Erwin been right on anything? He was out at Duke during the LaCrosse team scandal and did not stand up for the innocent team members, nor did he chastise the 88 faculty members who tried to run the students off campus with out evidence or conviction.
Comment by PCD — 6/27/2008 @ 9:25 am
Exactly my point with the sarcastic imagine that… which reminds me, I still haven’t seen a public apology for the public smearing from Erwin & the 88 toward the lacrosse team members…
Comment by Dana — 6/27/2008 @ 9:51 am
I have a point I made at the Liberty Pundit. The Lefties are right when they say they are less safe. These are the thieves and criminals of society. The left can’t rob and steal if the victims can fight back.
Obama’s whole campaign is that his opponents are not allowed to fight back.
This is modern Wimp Liberalism on the march.
Comment by PCD — 6/27/2008 @ 10:06 am
If that is his whole campaign, he might as well concede.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/27/2008 @ 10:19 am
I wonder what liberals would think if county clerks refused to register new voters- especially in counties with growing black populations.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/27/2008 @ 10:21 am
Ed 235- Yes. Yes indeed. Politics is a circle (sphere?), and totalitarian or at least overly authoritarian goverments can be reached from the left or the right…. or even both directions at once.
Comment by EdWood — 6/27/2008 @ 11:27 am
Since WLS vilified the Supremes “It’s Official — The “Supreme” Court is now the National Super-Legislature” I’d like to know: Has anyone asked the people of DC whether they wanted the ban or not? Or what they think the Second Amendment means?
Comment by just another reader — 6/27/2008 @ 1:27 pm
Not in the Heller case, no, as DC’s law was so far out in left field that it clearly (at least to the five Justices capable of parsing a simple English sentence) constituted an infringement. But in future cases I think it’s a wide open issue, how much a regulation can impact one’s ability to keep and/or bear arms without “infringing” it.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/27/2008 @ 2:14 pm
““Shall not be infringed” doesn’t need to be “interpreted”.”
Well then, I want my machine gun and shoulder-held rocket launcher. That is: unless it’s “a well regulated militia”
To say that Nino didn’t offer up an “interpretation” is simply absurd.
Comment by just another reader — 6/27/2008 @ 2:23 pm
jar is back to fling feces.
Comment by JD — 6/27/2008 @ 2:29 pm
Fair enough. How would YOU interpret “shall not be infringed” that doesn’t violate every definition ever offered?
shall: 3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
not: 1. (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that.
be: 2. to take place; happen; occur:
infringed: 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
Therefore Congress (and, by extension of the 14th Amendment, all of the various subsidiary political subdivisions legislative bodies) is “obliged to” “not” have “a breach or infraction against” “take place” as regards the right to “keep and bear arms” for any lawful purpose. (Best I can parse it, and I invite you to do better.)
If you want to fixate on the dependent clause, we can hash it out, but Tony did it better.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 2:36 pm
Fair enough. How would YOU interpret “bear arms”
Comment by just another reader — 6/27/2008 @ 2:44 pm
District of Columbia, et al, v. Heller (2008), page 11
“From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
Good enough for me.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 2:50 pm
Then [again!]: I want my machine gun, my grenades and my shoulder-fired missile launcher.
Comment by just another reader — 6/27/2008 @ 2:54 pm
Fair enough. How would YOU interpret “bear arms”
Gestate and give birth to weapons?
The upper parts of a Kodiak’s frontal limbs?
What you do in warm weather?
Comment by nk — 6/27/2008 @ 2:55 pm
Then [again!]: I want my machine gun, my grenades and my shoulder-fired missile launcher.
Get them. Who’s stopping you?
Comment by nk — 6/27/2008 @ 2:57 pm
“Has anyone asked the people of DC whether they wanted the ban or not? Or what they think the Second Amendment means?”
jar – Has anyone asked the people of DC whether their current gun ban is keeping violent crime low?
D’oh!
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/27/2008 @ 3:07 pm
Why are the gun grabbers always seeking to take away things from the people that didn’t do anything wrong?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 3:10 pm
Drumwaster, the motivations of gun grabbers are sometimes difficult to figure out. I’ve often had the impression that some are operating from a misplaced sense of hatred – displaced from those who perpetrated crime. Tom Mauser is probably the saddest example of that – he’s gotten unhinged. Some I believe are operating from a contempt for people that they believe are devoid of the sense of enlightenment they see in themselves. Others are operation from a general socialist viewpoint of improving the world by oppressing others. And some I think just enjoy the sense of being powerful by clawing themselves to the top of a non-profit organization.
Comment by SPQR — 6/27/2008 @ 3:29 pm
Especially the ones who also have the “for me, not for thee” mentality, such as Rosie “Fire can’t melt steel” O’Donnell. She ambushed Tom Selleck on national TV the day after Columbine, yet demands armed bodyguards for her and her “family”.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 3:34 pm
I asked a question.
Comment by JAR — 6/27/2008 @ 4:36 pm
So?
(See what I did there?)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 4:38 pm
No, you tried a very very old, very very lame faux “point”. Hackneyed would be a compliment.
Comment by SPQR — 6/27/2008 @ 4:39 pm
I asked a question.
Comment by JAR — 6/27/2008 @ 4:36 pm
So did I.
Then [again!]: I want my machine gun, my grenades and my shoulder-fired missile launcher.
Get them. Who’s stopping you?
Well, who’s stopping you, JAR?
Comment by nk — 6/27/2008 @ 4:41 pm
caught this nugget from keith olbermann posted on Media Blog
he just made the arguement that congress can completely censor his television show and that is completely constitutional!!
Comment by chas — 6/27/2008 @ 8:11 pm
The Second Amendment means only flintlocks and muzzle loaders in exactly the same way that the First Amendment means only quill pens and hand-cranked printing presses.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 8:15 pm
And obviously, wiretapping telephones can’t be against the Fourth Amendment since telephones did not exist in 1790 either.
Comment by SPQR — 6/27/2008 @ 8:21 pm
Whoa! We are outthinking Keith Olbermann.
For our next trick, we’ll do the far more challenging trick of outthinking a four year old.
Comment by SPQR — 6/27/2008 @ 8:22 pm
Can three-fifths of a man run for President? (Since we’re talking about 1790s, after all…)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 8:50 pm
Heller did not define gun ownership and upheld the rights of local governments to regulate gun ownership – the line was drawn at total prohibition.
I’m for gun ownership but I strongly feel that revolvers, light caliber automatics and rifles are more than reasonable – that anything with a magazine greater than 8 is potentially a para military weapon and should be restricted to those who can prove exceptional merit or circumstances.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 6/28/2008 @ 10:26 am
EricPWJohnson, “para military” ? Wow, that almost sounds scary. Just how is it that the ninth round in a magazine is some order of magnitude more dangerous than the first eight?
Comment by SPQR — 6/28/2008 @ 10:35 am
Not “regulate”. “Register”. There is a difference, y’know.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 10:49 am
“Not ‘regulate’. ‘Register’. There is a difference, y’know.”
regulate |ˈregyəˌlāt|
verb [ trans. ]
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly : a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function.
• control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations : the organization that regulates fishing in the region.
Register
verb [ trans. ]
1 enter or record in an official list as being in a particular category, having a particular eligibility or entitlement, or in keeping with a requirement .
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 11:51 am
You might be interested to read Mark Graeber,
“Heller is a stunningly easy case when considered in light of what rights meant in 1791. Whatever else may be said of the DC regulation, the restrictions on handguns were clearly an attempt to promote public safety and prevent crimes, both very legitimate public purposes in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”
Was the state more intrusive in the past than it is today? Are we less willing to accept regulation in the public interest?
There are a few good posts at Balkinization.
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 12:08 pm
Thank you for providing those, but, like I said, there is a difference. Keeping track of something is NOT the same as controlling it.
I can register people to vote, but that doesn’t mean I regulate their votes.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 12:13 pm
Heckuva job! W!
Comment by jharp — 6/26/2008 @ 3:53 pm
As the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said “elections have consequences”
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
Comment by Cowboy is a compliment — 6/28/2008 @ 12:13 pm
The Second Amendment means only flintlocks and muzzle loaders in exactly the same way that the First Amendment means only quill pens and hand-cranked printing presses.
Heller was being prohibited from keeping and bearing a weapon for the most sacred right of all – the right of self-defense. He was required to get a license, but no one would give him the license. (In point of fact, the people that had the authority to give him that license were prohibited by law from doing so. THOSE are the laws that were struck down.)
He now has the right to have that license issued to him as long as he does not fit one of the proscribed categories (which the State has an interest in disarming – criminals and crazies).
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 12:17 pm
Wait, does that change anything?
The Founders didn’t say, “shall not be infringed, except when the legislature thinks it would be a good idea to so infringe.” A constitutional right is meaningless if subject to the oversight of a legislature; it then becomes nothing more than a statute that may be repealed by the electorate of the day.
Comment by bridget — 6/28/2008 @ 12:17 pm
And registration is not open to everyone DW. You know that. There’s a whole bureaucracy of permissions to run through and tests to pass. That’s called regulation. It’s not like a birth certificate or an SS# though some would be offended even if that’s all they were.
—
“The Founders didn’t say, “shall not be infringed, except when the legislature thinks it would be a good idea to so infringe.”
But in point of fact in the public interest it was quite common to do just that, up until recently.
Here’s Graber again
I think that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read about the issue. Graber is very very sharp. Sharper than Scalia, and nastier.
Again, read the whole post
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 12:32 pm
And the Heller decision has just affirmed that those “permissions” can be neither capricious nor arbitrary. In short, the State will get to decide on certain rules based on legitimate societal concerns (over the age of 18/21, no criminal record or history with the police (such as a troublemaker who has been prosecuted but never “convicted” or a guy who has been detained by the police for domestic violence but the charges are always dropped), no history of mental illness, etc.)
But once the individual meets those requirements, the State MUST give them that license. If the State starts making up new rules (such as “only celebrities get licenses” or “Licenses cost a bajillion dollars”), the locals will be able to file lawsuits to roll back those restrictions as “arbitrary and/or capricious”.
I don’t address Open Carry or CCW, but only those rules that say “nobody gets a gun without a license and nobody gets a license” popular in DC, NYC, et alia…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 12:40 pm
“as he does not fit one of the proscribed categories (which the State has an interest in disarming”
And we used to accept that state interest was more broadly defined.
No taste for irony DW?
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 12:42 pm
“Shall not be infringed” is not followed by the words “unless.”
I’m not arguing the case I’m arguing against Scalia being an “originalist” and against anyone who says that they aren’t twisting the words into something else, or that they haven’t always been twisted, one way or the other.
According to Scalia the Constitution says I can’t have my own shiny new fully-functioning machine gun. I think that’s a good idea frankly, but if you want to go by the plain meaning of the text [while isolating the phrase "well regulated militia"] then I think there’s a problem.
You’re either an absolutist or you aren’t. But once you admit you aren’t then you’ve opened up pandora’s box.
This goes back to Moses and Aron.
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 12:55 pm
Not when there isn’t any to be found…
I love irony. I’m a big fan. I have all their albums.
But that wasn’t it.
There are proscribed categories for people getting driver’s licenses or registering to vote. Why not for owning a gun?
If you are too young, you don’t get to drive a car. If you are not a citizen, you don’t get to vote. If you have been certified as crazy or have a felony record, you don’t get to own a gun (although the Dems would like to speak with you about voting).
If it
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 12:57 pm
You’re using current definitions of state interest DW.
As Graber points out, it’s liberals who’ve helped to develop those definitions.
Our host likes to say that judges should make “the right” decision.
On these issues, there is none.
I’m out
ciao
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 1:05 pm
Thoughts from a gun-dealer…
Machine Guns…A quote from J.Scalia’s opinion:
“…The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms…” (emphasis added) – this could be one Hell of a hook in the future;
Scalia directed the DC Govt to issue Heller a license to allow him to keep his weapon ready and usable within his home. This could also be the death knell for “safe storage” laws throughout the country;
As to “dangerous and unusual”: Miller was decided under the reasoning that NFA-34 could “tax” weapons that were not commonly used in warfare (such as Miller’s short-barreled shotgun), but that the 2-A would included weapons commonly required for call-up to military service. Except, short-barreled shotguns were in common use in armies throughout the world, and were used in the trenches of France. Sub-machine guns are a typical military weapon that would, by the reasoning, be protected from government control, but are the heart-and-soul of NFA-34;
For Jay Curtis…Yeh, the Taurus Judge is a neat little handgun. Unfortunately, it is not available in CA for two reasons: CA law considers it to be a short-barrelled shotgun due to the dual chambering for .410g, and (due to that) Taurus has never submitted the Judge for testing under the Safe Handgun testing (and listing) requirements;
ada…If your Ruger .22 handgun is misfeeding/malfunctioning with the ammo you are using, you should buy better/different ammo. Ruger Mk-II’s and Mk-III’s are very sensitive as to what they will work with. Inexpensive, and/or low-powered ammo is usually a no-no – try Federal Premium High Velocity;
Incorporation…It is only a matter of time for this to occur (one step at a time, as they say). The Second is the only one IIRC of the first eight that hasn’t been Incorporated to the States;
and, to whoever posted comment 289:
Rights are not subject to popular review!
(My appologies for the long comment, but I have been out of town since Wed, and did not have access to the Net)
Comment by Another Drew — 6/28/2008 @ 1:43 pm
JAR, Scalia himself denies being a pure “Originalist”.
Comment by SPQR — 6/28/2008 @ 1:56 pm
JAR is partially right on registration. In the interregnum, in-between Yorktown and the ratification of the Constitution, the Continental Army was short of guns. So it did a census, all the way to Kentucky, to see which household had how many. For purposes of putting them to public use, in exchange for script, should they be needed to arm the Army and militia.
Comment by nk — 6/28/2008 @ 1:58 pm
And this was not “the right” decision, it was just “a” decision you agree with, for any number of reasons.
“Rights are not subject to popular review!”
But are subject to state interest as it’s been defined and redefined over the years.
Welcome to the present; not the past nor the eternal verities.
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 2:10 pm
jar..
I disagree. Rights, as codefied by the BoR, are not subject to state interest. We constantly repeat the refrain that one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre; but, we neglect to mention that that action is perfectly acceptable if there is a fire.
What we cannot do, is in asserting our rights, to put the safety and lives of others at risk.
As has been mentioned, the state has no right to interfere with my right of ownership of a vehicle, as long as I do not operate it on public roads. In fact, as long as I operate it only on my property, I do not need any sort of operator’s permit either (see the many sort of allowances for the use of “farm vehicles” on and off the public roads).
BTW, “eternal verities” are just that: Eternal. They existed in the past, in the present, and will exist in the future.
They are not a nether world. I do not need to be welcomed to it, as I have never left.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/28/2008 @ 2:24 pm
Read Graber’s post.
I gotta go, for now
Comment by just another reader — 6/28/2008 @ 2:34 pm
SPQR
All Military requirements for hand held weapons guns have specs for caliber, rate of fire, and magazine capacities and many many more specs.
You could continue in this vein of scoffing – all you will eventually do is remove the right for reasonable defense for everyone.
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 6/28/2008 @ 6:04 pm
Eric, your comment is not responsive. And having you tell me that scoffing at your earlier comment imperils everyone’s rights is just – well, laughable.
Your proposed limits on 9 round magazines are in fact greater than that in the most restrictive jurisdiction I can think of. Not to mention without any rational excuse.
Comment by SPQR — 6/28/2008 @ 6:09 pm
SPQR
Please explain why a homeowner needs a banana clip?
Why
Give any example with the average number of rounds fired in a home invasion exchange that would warrant selling to the general public 20 30 round clips?
I can only imagine you will never come back with one or maybe just only one out of literally 100’s of thousands of incidents
I think you are providing a shinning example of why there should be gun control
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 6/28/2008 @ 6:27 pm
EricPWJohnson, I find myself without any interest in proving why I “need” something that is the subject of a constitutional right. You don’t really “need” to be able to write silly things and yet look at that First Amendment.
Certainly I don’t intend someone to calculate that I only “need” the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense scenario. It would make me so uncomfortable that I might find myself in the wrong half of the bell curve.
Nonetheless, what is it about the ninth round that is an order of magnitude more dangerous than numbers one through eight?
Comment by SPQR — 6/28/2008 @ 6:32 pm
So because YOU can’t think of a reason, that means that no one should be able to do it? You can’t come up with a reason to have a ninth bullet in that clip, so you think that everyone’s rights must be therefore curtailed to fit your limited understandings.
“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” (Heller)
And why? Because some criminal might get hold of a gun and start shooting people, therefore we should limit the ability of everyone else to protect against such depredations in the future.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 6:39 pm
What’s silly, Drumwaster, is that EricPWJohnson wants to imply that my refusal to accept a ban on magazines above 8 rounds imperils our rights.
But only a handful of states currently ban magazines of large capacity, the usual limit is 10 rounds, and many grandfather in magazines that predate the ban.
The Federal ban on sales of new magazines of capacity above 10 rounds ( which expired several years ago ) was unenforceable and did little except raise the price of pre-ban magazines for awhile.
So if I don’t immediately accept something that is currently only law in a handful of states, I’m a threat to our rights and the “shining example”.
Unbelievable.
Comment by SPQR — 6/28/2008 @ 6:46 pm
The 4 who cannot READ the Constitution, should be required to live in the Worst area of DC, with NO protection whatsoever. Give em a year…
Comment by D. Rock — 6/28/2008 @ 8:33 pm
The same argument against those opposed to same sex marriage, btw…
{/not trying to threadjack, I promise)
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/28/2008 @ 8:47 pm
No one said it was. One of the liberal Justices – Stevens, I think – tried to lure Alan Gura into that trap, only to have Scalia jump in and point out that the argument against machine guns is that such a ban does not infringe the right, not that it constitutes a permissible infringement. One can agree or disagree with the position, of course, but that doesn’t make it un-originalist.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/29/2008 @ 5:02 am
Picking and choosing is not in the plain text.
Nino: “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead.”
If it’s dead then don’t interpret it. Interpreting it brings it back to life. Ask a Fundamentalist. He’ll explain it to you.
Here’s a good philosophically serious if sardonic response to Scalia’s pretensions.
Comment by JAR — 6/29/2008 @ 11:44 am
SPQR and Drumwaster
Why do we need magazines over 8?
Please – where exactly does this impact your second amendment rights?
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 6/29/2008 @ 5:53 pm
EricPWJohnson, we need magazines of more than 8 rounds in case we miss eight times when shooting to defend ourselves.
Or if we are attacked by a baseball team.
You still have not addressed my points that you are proposing a restriction greater than that imposed by any state I can think of.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 5:56 pm
The only answer an American citizen ever needs to give to a question like that is: BECAUSE I CAN. It isn’t a question of “needing” to exercise a right. You don’t “need” to be able to express your opinion any more than I “need” a magazine that can hold ten rounds.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/29/2008 @ 6:01 pm
For others who may not be aware of it. The recent short-lived Federal ban on the sale of new magazines greater than 10 rounds showed just how stupid magazine capacity bans are.
Magazines are very inexpensive to manufacture, there are literally millions upon millions of magazines of larger than 10 round capacity in existence for various models of firearm. Making a magazine is a simple operation of bending metal.
The previous ban was completely unenforceable – I know of no convictions for violation of it – because it grandfathered in existing magazines, and required new magazines of greater than 10 rounds to be marked “law enforcement only”. It was easy to buy magazine parts and build new magazines out of them.
All that happened was that legal magazines of greater than 10 rounds became worth about three times the preban price. Police departments were actually incentivized to sell their preban firearms back to wholesalers for new firearms – because the pre-ban magazines were valuable.
Another result of the magazine ban was to create an incentive for people to buy smaller, more concealable firearms that used 10 round magazines or smaller. This combined with the widespread adoption of concealed carry laws in approx two score states to create a new market for 10 round concealable semi-auto pistols.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:07 pm
First, from a philosophical perspective: why do we need blogs? Why do we need FMV, rather than purchase price, compensation for government takings? Why would you want access to defence counsel at interrogation and not just at trial? Why do we permit churches, when people are perfectly well able to read their Bibles at home?
Why do we need any specific incarnation of our Constitutional rights?
Second, your question presupposes that the United States will forever remain the free country that it is now. The Second Amendment does not merely permit people to defend themselves against rogue citizens; it also permits us to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. While we may not need a large magazine in a free society, we certainly would need one if defending ourselves against the government. The restrictions upon that liberty, premised in safety and freedom, are the very ones that are likely to lead to the loss of that safety and our freedom.
Comment by bridget — 6/29/2008 @ 6:11 pm
Another side effect of the magazine ban, and of the handful of state bans, was that the United States region of the International Practical Shooting Confederation had to change its specifications for certain classes of pistols because the capacity ban was pretty unique among the member nations.
It wasn’t that competitors could not obtain magazines, they could, but it drove up prices such that it discouraged new competitors to enter the sport and made obtaining replacement parts for worn magazines more difficult to find. These rule changes actually exacerbated a lot of political problems between the US region and the IPSC’s world body.
It also meant that certain standard courses of fire in the sport had to be recalibrated or redesigned for scoring purposes to keep people who were limited to 10 round magazines for economic reasons from being disadvantaged.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:15 pm
If quoting him won’t be too much of a giggle…
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” — Justice Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court, in his dissent to Silveria v. Locker
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/29/2008 @ 6:15 pm
Meanwhile, there was no difficulty obtaining 20 or 30 round magazines for existing designs like the AR 15 because they had been manufactured in probably the billions.
Magazine capacity limits are just stupid solutions for a completely mythical problem.
Look at Eric’s silly language “banana clips”? Starts to sound like a Monty Python skit – next, how to defend yourself from a man with a banana …
The bulk of model or type specific bans on firearms are because they are “scary” looking to those who are unfamiliar with them. Nothing more. The falsely named Federal Assault Weapons ban only banned cosmetic features or banned the ability to hang a bayonet on the end of a rifle.
Think about that – a semiauto rifle needs to be baned because …. it might have a knife attached to it. Ridiculous.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:20 pm
To expand on SPQR’s last para:
With the restriction of the hi-cap, “Wonder Nines”, we suddenly found ourselves with a large number of new .45acp handguns that held 10 round mags, and were capable of safe carry with a round in the chamber (10+1). Previously, the standard was a 1911 with 7+1 (later 8+1). But the new guns were of alternate materials and considerably lighter. For a really efficient solution, there was the 3″bbl Para-Ordinance Wart-Hog with a 10 round mag: 10+1 plus super concealability.
Why defend yourself with a questionable 9mm, when you can use the Gold-Standard: Mr. Brownings 1911 based .45acp. It worked on the Moro’s, it will put down almost anyone who is juiced; and you don’t need 10-15 rounds to do it. Even the Pentagon is looking to go back to the 45!
Comment by Another Drew — 6/29/2008 @ 6:21 pm
“However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”
Kosinski knows that these contingencies only seem improper to those ignorant of history and/or current events. See Zimbabwe.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:21 pm
SPQR in #346, that is.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/29/2008 @ 6:22 pm
What if he’s got a pointed stick?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/29/2008 @ 6:22 pm
A good point, Another Drew, the market saw a shift from high capacity 9mm to a larger capacity .45 ACP designs of the same size. Especially in new designs that did not have a pre-ban inventory of larger capacity magazines.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:24 pm
The “banana clip” was a term hung on the 30-round mag for the M-2 Carbine, the first use by our military IIRC of a curved magazine.
Though the M-1/M-2 Carbines are wonderful, light-weight weapons, they are no substitute for a full powered rifle, or the 1911 pistol most soldiers with Carbines usually carried for effective close-in work.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/29/2008 @ 6:27 pm
Glad I’m not the only one who thought of Judge Kozinski’s dissent.
It is strange that we live in a world with such a benign government – so very rare, both currently and historically – that we no longer feel the need for the very protections that make it so benign. It’s much like realising that our brains have allowed us to no longer need claws, then determining that we no longer have need of our minds, either.
Comment by bridget — 6/29/2008 @ 6:29 pm
What if he’s just happy to see you?
Comment by bridget — 6/29/2008 @ 6:30 pm
No, bridget, what I find strange are people who think that our stable and benign government is the natural state of affairs …
well, that and twits like Levi, jharp, Greenwald et al who in the very next breath are frothing about how the current administration is just like Nazi Germany.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:32 pm
Which explains most of today’s Democrats…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/29/2008 @ 6:32 pm
Bridget ##349-350,
Both good comments and, taken together, they show how well you fit in here.
Comment by DRJ — 6/29/2008 @ 6:34 pm
Sorry. I meant Bridget’s ##357-358. It appears I’m numerically challenged tonight.
Comment by DRJ — 6/29/2008 @ 6:35 pm
Requiring a permit or a license to exercise a fundamental constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. Prior restraint of the exercise of such rights is forbidden. You can’t be required to get a license or permit to vote, give a speech, write a book or join a church. After Heller, keeping and bearing arms is similarly protected conduct.
Comment by ptg — 6/29/2008 @ 6:44 pm
ptg #363…
We can only hope.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/29/2008 @ 6:56 pm
Thank you, DRJ.
SPQR: Well, maybe they froth at the mouth about Bush being akin to Nazi Germany since they cannot imagine a government being any more dangerous than the one we have now.
Drum – (laughing).
Comment by bridget — 6/29/2008 @ 6:56 pm
bridget, you would think it was a failure of imagination borne of ignorance but that is too charitable.
Comment by SPQR — 6/29/2008 @ 6:58 pm
I’m glad that the Court ruled as it did b/c like the rest of you folks I think that it’s important that citizens have the right to have weapons, including handguns. That said, the majority opinion is very sketchy. Legally, it is almost ridiculous: Scalia’s textual analysis is stretched to the breaking point to support the decision he wants to make.
Aside to ptg (#363): Of the other rights you enumerate that don’t require a license to exercise, which of them can kill another person with 1 ounce of finger pressure?
Comment by Libertarian Contrarian — 7/1/2008 @ 7:04 am
Libertarian Contrarian, you will have to expound on your “legal analysis” as the foundation for Scalia’s opinion has been well debated over the years and is very well developed. As for 1 ounce, that is a dangerously light trigger pull of anything but a specialized target rifle. I’d suggest if you have anything with that light a trigger pull, that you have a qualified gunsmith raise it up to 3 or 4 pounds.
Comment by SPQR — 7/1/2008 @ 5:08 pm
SPQR: Thanks for the trigger tip, and please excuse my casual use of 1 ounce. Of course the point re ptg still stands.
Scalia’s argument is well-developed, no doubt, but for me and most of my lawyer colleagues, it is very wobbly. He has largely developed his style of textual analysis himself, and he picks & chooses where to apply it. I’ll leave it to you to find the legal debates from both sides on-line, and I encourage you to read and weigh both sides. I really don’t have time to break down a 150-page decision here. However, a few points are worth mentioning:
1. The primary issue at bar in the present day is that of handguns, and it is inconceivable that the men of 1791 could have contemplated the killing power possessed by today’s handguns. In addition, the US of 1791 was almost entirely rural, included substantial wild frontiers, local police power was far less than it is today, and people routinely hunted for food. Ignoring those vast changes in technology and society is disingenuous on Scalia’s part. It’s just not the same country it was 217 years ago and it’s foolish to pretend that it is.
2. The cops I talked to insist that Scalia’s description of the homeowner juggling a hand gun while dialing 911 is ludicrous.
3. Scalia’s argument for disposing of the prefactory clause is a leap of textual ledgerdemain unsupported by much of anything besides his own insistence upon it. Think it through yourself and you’ll see what I mean (it’s in IIA of the opinion): it’s easy to come up with counterexamples from plain speech.
4. Scalia cites Nunn with approval, yet ignores the Nunn Court’s reliance on the prefactory clause *and* the still-primitive power of the hand guns of the day.
5. Scalia insists that the right applies individually rather than collectively. Yet despite his avowed devotion to his brand of contemporaneous textual analysis, he never examines the word “infringed”. In order to be logically consistent, his reading of the Amendment would mean that neither the Federal nor the State governments could infringe upon the right of gun ownership (and carrying) for ANY individual. Why is that not addressed? After all, this is not a case of arcane business law, this is a highly-anticipated case on an issue that the Court has not directly addressed for decades.
6. The majority opinion strikes down the DC law, but provides very little guidance for lower courts that will be called upon to evaluate other gun control laws in other jurisdictions. Two possible reasons for this exclusion: (a) The Supreme Court wants to rule on those cases itself (because it will!); or (b) They haven’t thought through the implications of this decision well enough to formulate such guidelines. Either way, it’s a bit sloppy.
Again, I agree that citizens should be able to have handguns (I do). I just find the legal basis for the majority opinion in Heller rather weak. That said, thank God Scalia wrote it – he’s a much better writer than some others (or at least his clerks are).
Comment by Libertarian Contrarian — 7/1/2008 @ 8:08 pm
The Second Amendment means only flintlocks and muzzle loaders in exactly the same way that the First Amendment means only quill pens and hand-cranked printing presses.
Comment by Drumwaster — 7/1/2008 @ 8:14 pm
Libertarian Contrarian, you have a long list of arguments but they are amazingly frivolous. For instance, #1 is a strawman entirely. #3 is just false, there is a large amount of scholarship behind the textual analysis that you seem to think you can wish away. #5 – besides being a non sequitur – is a basically false claim entirely, are you just pretending to have read Scalia’s opinion?
And #6 clearly presents an issue that is not before the court, that of incorporation. It is an issue that would be inappropriate to decide as there is an absence of jurisdiction given that the case is for the District of Columbia and state laws are outside the case and controversy.
Comment by SPQR — 7/6/2008 @ 7:21 pm
Nice snark about Scalia’s clerks writing his opinions. You have a link for that assertion, no?
Comment by steve miller — 7/6/2008 @ 7:23 pm
Steve Miller, clerks often write pieces of opinions. But anyone who wants to snark that Scalia can’t write an opinion by himself is just an idiot who has not read Scalia’s many opinions over the years and noticed the consistent style.
Comment by SPQR — 7/6/2008 @ 7:30 pm
I’ve read The Brethren & therefore suspect that some justices write their own, and some let their clerks write the opinions for them. However, as you point out, the opinion sounds like Scalia, not his clerks.
Comment by steve miller — 7/6/2008 @ 7:33 pm