Gun Lover's Delight
As expected, the Supreme Court decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right and, in so doing, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the DC gun ban in the Heller case. As the Washington Post reported, Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns:
The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.So the Court went further than the Administration even wanted. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. It's a res ipsa loquitor, if I ever heard one.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact. (Emphasis added).
And there's one more touch I just love. As SCOTUSblog observes, in A constitutional right to a gun:
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.So, no guns in the courthouse. Big surprise. See Guns in the (Court)House. So, it's OK for shoot 'em ups on the city streets, but we have to make sure Scalia is safe.
5 comments:
I see your point, but this isn't exactly a 'gun nuts' ' dream come true.
The Supreme Court quite specifically said that licensing of guns was constitutional - a decision which goes straight in the face of many 'gun rights' advocates. ("DC Gun Ban Nixed - Second Amendment Defined (Finally!)")
I don't think either side is going to be particularly happy with this ruling.
Our long and growing longer history in Iraq continues to PROVE that gun violence is not the fault of legitimate gun owners, but rather, insurgents and Al-Qua'edenese forces that have illegally obtained guns and commit crimes with them. It is as true in Washington DC as it is in Baghdad.
This decision is a victory for Constitutional scholars like myself, and for legitimate hunters, collectors, and gun enthusiasts across America.
Dr. Ted Baehr
Truthfully, it was a quick post about the Heller decision merely to say "I told you so" about the Court's decision to find an individual right to own a gun, but be sure not to say you could carry one into the courtroom. I couldn't resist commenting on the irony of that, since Scalia specifically noted the distinction in his opinion.
Beyond that, I haven't had a chance to read the nuances of the opinion yet. However, as I said before, all the case does is determine that there is a constitutional right to own a gun. Even if they had ruled otherwise wouldn't have changed things much, since the state can still permit/regulate guns, as it does now. And if you live in states like PA, you're pretty much free to own a gun with minimal restrictions. That was not likely to change regardless of the outcome of Heller.
"Constitutional scholars" must be thrilled with Justice Scalliwag citing a "historical narrative" as justification for his blockheaded decision.
If a "liberal" justice said that, you'd be yelping about "judicial activism" for pulling something out of the Constitution that isn't there.
And using Iraq as an analogy is slightly more than laughable. There's a WAR going on ther because of an invasion and an occupation.
To Dr. Baehr: Are you the Dr. Ted Baehr who is "the founder and Publisher of Movieguide® and Chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission ... whose life’s purpose is to be used of God to redeem to values of the media while educating audiences on how to use discernment in selecting their entertainment?"
Post a Comment