The US Supreme Court threw out the DC gun ban as unconstitutional today. In a 5-4 decision against the ban, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority:
The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, … But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
The DC law, which was often broken, disallowed any gun ownership in the District of Columbia. Of course, the felons all had easy access to guns, so private citizens were left with an option of disobeying the law, or going defenseless. I don’t own a gun for defense, but those who wish to should be allowed, according to the Supreme Court, which has been very active the last few weeks.
A similar ban went into effect in Seattle, which must be looking very carefully at this ruling right now.
There will be more of an analysis on RightJuris. Of course, every shooting in DC will now be shown on the MSM, and blamed on this ruling.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Frightening this was a 5-4 decision. A little more individual freedom today in DC but it feels like a long-term war will be lost eventually.
I sometimes wonder if liberals even realize how much their Big Brother approach to society constricts our freedoms more and more each day.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
This should have been more like 7-2, I agree. And completely agree that the fact that guns are illegal to own in areas actually makes that area more susceptible to crime.
To quote a Chris Rock song:
“Don’t go to parties with metal detectors.
sure it feels safe inside but what about
all those muthafucka’s waitin outside with
guns…they know you ain’t got one.”
June 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
They’ll find out when some shmuck wearing a turban comes plowing through their front door and the kumbaya thing doesnt work anymore.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am
McCain – they don’t realize it becasue they are too busy blaming Bush for infringing on the rights of Al-Queda to talk freely on cell phones in their terrorist planning.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:14 am
guns don’t kill people …
it is the bullets ripping through major organs that kill people
ban the bullets … there is no 2nd amendment right to owning bullets
June 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Banning stores would accomplish the same thing.
MBT, I can’t smoke cigars in my favorite pool hall anymore, have to wear a seatbelt of all things, and I have to wait for the red hand to go away at crossing signals when there ain’t any cars coming. I’m sick of what liberal nannies are doing to liberties in California.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
McCain – J walking is a norm and has been for many years. If you drove in NYC you woudl understand – people walk in front of you while you are in the roadway, away from intersections. You aren’t convincing me on that one, buddy!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This should have been a 9-0 decision. All the more reason we need McCain in office. We can’t risk more Supreme Court judges that want to spin their own interpretation on the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear and its intent is obvious.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
McCain – pool halls and cigars go together. How can pool halls ban cigars? That’s UnAmerican! That’s like eating cereal without milk!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Lisa – will you just pistol whip whoever is attacking you then? Just wondering about the guns without bullets thing
June 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I think all this applies in two different areas.
There is the public and the private.
Although the pool hall McCain speaks of is a public attraction it is still private property.
If I want to open a biker bar that allows smoking and that being able to smoke is part of the attraction I should well be able to do so. Just as we should well be able to offer Americans their choice of smoking and non smoking establishents.
I can see how once you are in a public domain such as a city street it would be prudent to have laws protecting everyone.
I am allowed by law to own many things that can kill someone. Cars, propane tanks, fertilizer, drugs etc.
How I use them is my business unless it threatens to harm someone else.
This is why myself as a convicted felon can no longer own a fire arm or vote. Even though my crime was non violent. As a metter of fact it all stemmed from owning one joint 30 years ago.
Go figure.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Let me start off by saying that the court made the correct decision today and by the correct margin. I don’t think DC can/should ban handguns, but I do think we should ban assult rifles. 5-4 allows for other rulings in the future that are on the flip side of this ruling thus preserving the grey.
MCCAIN ad Micky, you bring up a very interesting point with all of the restrictions on personal liberties. Gun control is usually a right versus left issue, but smoking bans, medical marijuana, seat belts, and yes, crossing the street, are all over the map. I like Micky’s rule of public versus private, but then I want two things.
1. higher taxes on public-private places such as resturants so as to pay for the health care needed to treat secondhand smoke damage.
2. waivers for those not wearing seatbelts that they must sign saying they will forgo public dollars to pay for their healthcare in the future when they are in a persistant vegetative state.
Which brings up an interesting point: There are a whole bunch of other issues that are about personal liberties such as doctor assisted suicide and abortion that are totally flip-flopped (at least on the surrface).
In other words, personal liberties have not been gutted by liberals alone, and cannot be decided as black and white issues.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Beth, they do it in the movies dont they ?
They run out of bullits and what do they do ?
They throw an empty gun at a guy with a loaded gun.
Works everytime.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
:1. higher taxes on public-private places such as resturants so as to pay for the health care needed to treat secondhand smoke damage.”
Why, when the patrons are there at their own will ?
And where is the proof that second hand smoke is harmful to the extent to warrant such taxes ?
But I have to say. It sure as hell seems like everytime someone is trying to nanny me its the left.
Global warming initiatives that stump my rights, what is considered not PC or hate speech, smoking bans, taxation, indoctrination in our schools. I could think of more.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
YoungDem – they did leave the door open for particularly dangerous weapons ban – I assume that assault rifles would fit in there too. I agree with you on that one.
The court also amazingly stated that gun lock requirements for weapons that are used for self-defnese are also uncosntitutional – I don’t know what to think of that.
Licenses they left alone.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Beth – lisab doesn’t need a gun – she pistol whips them with a backpack! She has a good record of that too! Thankfully.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
YD, it is unsettled whether smokers cost taxpayers more or less for healthcare and other services. Smokers live shorter lives which save an awful lot of social security checks (and doctor visits for that matter.) If all we are worried about is tax dollars, my hunch is that we should be cheering on smokers and giving restaurants tax-credits for allowing them.
Your #2 is a red-herring. It leads to discussions about why we don’t ban radios in cars, and why we don’t require crash helmets and fire-proof clothing. The bottom line is that liberties are being restricted by the liberal nanny state in more and more obtrusive ways. There is always an argument for doing it, of course.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Red herring or not, you made the point that you would rather not be required to wear a seat belt and I would rather not pay the consequences via higher health insurance premiums, higher care insurance rates, and higher taxes on fire dept services.
And another piece of evidence about things being all over the map…in Georgia, it was the republican house and republican Gov that passed the total smoking ban.
What is the opposite of a liberal nanny state? Anarchy? Seriously, there has to be a term for the opposite that is just as loaded as liberal nanny but I’m failing here.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
sorry about all of my typos recently…this computer sucks…I meant to type CAR insurance rates
June 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
YD, obsession with form enslaves the liberal mind. Worry about the substance of your thoughts here.
The opposite of the liberal nanny state is what Mills proclaimed: “the individual is sovereign” which has been codified as the “sovereign individual” theory by people who like to thusly codify things.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
as i read the chicago sun,
not for news but for fun,
what do i see
that makes me laugh until i have to pee?
yet another nut with a gun,
but wait a minute, it’s a nun!
a nun with a gun,
looking to have a little fun,
with a crook,
who mistook,
this little nun with a gun,
for a librarian with a bun?
and though he tried to steal her book,
because at heart he was a crook,
it was the nun with the gun
that decided to make him run,
much like an albino from the sun,
by threatening to shoot him in the bum!
who was it but sister mary finn,
who had no tolerance for laziness or sin.
and who alas and alack,
had a habit,
and a knack,
for hitting lisa with a whack,
on lisa’s hand with her rule
for daydreaming while in school.
not about nuns,
with guns,
or librarians with or without buns,
but of hawaii and the sun …,
and of playing in the sack,
as the teenage wife of tom selleck!
but i am beginning to suspect
that i digress,
and this poem now is such a mess!
so allow me please to redirect.
as you think upon the day,
and begin to fear your vote has no sway,
just think about this november.
for though i do not like to judge,
it was kennedy it seems who would not budge,
(and he was a reagan appointee if i remember).
and how you may wonder is this all connected
nuns with guns? has lisa lost all perspective?
perhaps, but sister mary finn you may rest assured
that lisa was only day dreaming because she was bored
it was not as you suspected
that she did not keep her virtue as you directed
for in high school at least,
lisa avoided the double backed beast
though in massachusetts i often felt lonely and neglected
i kept pristine what you said all catholic girls should keep well protected
and when i went to college i took with me my virginity,
which was no small achievement for that vicinity
and as i close please don’t think i’m a snob,
its just i have a lot of time on my hands with my part time summer job.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
McCain – why did the spam filters allow “thusly codify” in? It sounds like something naughty which shouldn’t be discussed on a family site!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Rugged individual” would also be the antithesis of nanny liberal.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
lisab – you crack me up – i thought you were going to weave a mugger and a backpack into your sonnet….
June 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The original settlers in our country damn near all starved to death untill they were given individual sovereign rights to self and property.
What Bradford ( seperatist leader in 1609) and his community discovered was that under communal or nanny type authority the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone
else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
This realization is responsable for one of the main rights given to us in our constitution.
Once the government can return to dictating what we can and cant own or cant do with our own property we are coming dangerously close to everything that went wrong during the original settlements