Breaking: Supreme Court overturns D.C.’s gun ban.
Breaking: Supreme Court overturns D.C.’s gun ban.
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that Washington D.C.’s 32-year old law forbidding ownership of handguns is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. The decision upholds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling against the city’s gun ban in March 2007.
UPDATE: The ruling is here.
UPDATE II: While Bush administration’s official position was that the appeals court’s ruling was overly broad and would endanger federal gun-control measures, Vice President Dick Cheney broke from his own administration and publicly favored overturning the ban.
UPDATE III: In Nov. 2007, the Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Barack Obama “believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said today “that statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position.” For his part, John McCain supported efforts in 2000 to close the gun show loophole. But in his quest for the presidency, McCain signed onto a brief challenging D.C.’s gun ban.
Topic Cloud
Wow! 5-4. Closer than I would have thought.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:31 amWhy am I not surprised?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:31 amJust when Congress thought it was safe to go into the Capitol…..
June 26th, 2008 at 10:33 amand still I can’t have my switchblade…
June 26th, 2008 at 10:35 amDoes this now mean any gun nut can buy a cache of machine guns and automatic weapons?
Add this decision to the devastating legacy of George W. Bush.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:38 amDid Scalia from the Bush Mafioso write the opinion?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:40 amAs much as I loathe…LOATHE George Bush, I’m not quite sure this can be pinned on him, although he supports all this gun toting business. No…I blame the NRA and their absolute stranglehold on the American politicians that continue to buck what the people in the United States want - some semblance of sane gun control. You can probably guess that ‘Academic Exercise’ Scalia was at the forefront of this one. Probably after going duck shooting with Dick Cheney.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:42 amSo that means we all can carry in DC now and protect ourselves from Darth’s loaded shotgun.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:43 amSays a LOT about our culture, doesn’t it? We’re wallowing in all this muck and they just keep digging us deeper. How many Columbines do you have to have before somebody in the upper echelons yells, STOP!!! My take is…if you ban all guns, then only the criminals will have them, and then you’ll know who they are. Then you can get rid of THEM!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:44 amSimply stated in my opinion, this was the right decision in regard to the second amendment. In other matters the present Administration and its minions scorn our very Constitution, such as with the present FISA bill in the Senate. As a Constitutionalist, I deplore what this administration has done to the Civil Rights of every American. A definite change is needed, and hopefully it will come this November. I will be part of that change.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:45 amNashoba - you and I read the second amendment differently, but I applaud your thinking on change. Can you tell me what you mean by Constitutionalist?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:46 amAnd the terror alert was raised to orange today as Vice President Dick Cheney was seen stalking through the streets of D.C. wearing what can only be described as a sort of Elmer Fudd outfit carrying a shotgun yelling, “F#CK YOU and SO to tourists and passersby. When asked by members of the press corps his opinion on the Supreme Court ruling he pulled out two pistols, screamed YEEEEEEHAAAAAAW and proceded to shoot both guns into the air. Texas lawyer Harry Whittington was spotted cowering behind Lincolns leg in the Lincoln Memorial, shaking and crying, “I’m sorry Dark Lord, I’m sorry, please don’t shoot me again!”
June 26th, 2008 at 10:50 amWell this old crone will not get into this frey yet again, all I will say is the constitution should be the law of our land….They are merely giving or allowing us to retain one part while they take away much more…Now that I have said that think I will go buy some more bullett’s….Blessings
June 26th, 2008 at 10:50 amGeeDubs
The Constitution preserves our rights and gives us the roadmap for our country. If Political Science courses were being taught properly in every level of our educational system, the hue and cry against this Administration would ring across this land bringing Congress to its knees and causing them to bring rapid impeachment. Instead there is pure apathy, courses of government are not being taught properly. Americans have a do not care attitude about their rights granted that Constitution and when they are gone it will be too d__n late to protest.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:51 amNashoba nowa Says:
Simply stated in my opinion, this was the right decision in regard to the second amendment. As a Constitutionalist
Does this mean Washington DC is going to organize a state militia?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:51 amI used to be for sensible gun control, but after the last 7.5 years, the Patriot Act, spying on Americans, the general encroachment of the police state, I say we need to be able to own as many guns as we damn well please. The last thing we need is a populace that can’t fight back…
June 26th, 2008 at 10:52 amWhen republicans become embittered with their feeble chances this November they cling to their guns.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:53 amGeeDubs
I am a southerner of the Old School, teaching Political Science for years, I am amazed at what is taught today, “Let the Government Think for You”.
This Administration has done more to destroy the 4th amendment than any other in history.
Of course Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus too, but I will leave that for another day.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:54 amrogerse Says:
This was an expansion of freedoms, yet people will still try and make hay out of every issue.
Where have you been the past 7 1/2 years when BushCo has been systematically sh!tting on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Oh yea, you were cleaning your rifle and polishing your gun.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:55 amThe parts of the Constitution they are gutting are critical to our liberty. I never thought that owning a gun contributed to that.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:56 amGeeDubs, To me that second amendment is quite critical to our Liberty, the preservation of the Constitution in tact as a whole is what I advocate, totally and completely.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:58 amIs it time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment?
Is “people” singular or plural in its usage here? Today’s Supreme Court ruling says it is singular and discarded the language on “a well regulated militia”. This ruling would appear to put at risk all laws regulating weapons ownership, including fully automatic weapons, perhaps even tanks. And what about felons? Can more Virginia Tech’s be heading our way?
June 26th, 2008 at 10:59 amWhile I am no fan of cguns, I do understand the reasoning behind why our liberal Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment. They understood that educated gun ownership would keep people safe from tyranny. I support their decision to give us the right to bear arms.
Unfortunately, we’ve progressed to an age of semi-automatic machinery being sold to young people without any eduction on using weaponry in defense, rather than offense, or consideration to the consequences of taking the life of another human being.
If we wish to maintain the right for all American citizens to bear arms, we must also insist that that right comes with the responsibility to bear them responsibly. Somehow, I doubt that this is what the Supreme Court Justices had in mind in their ruling. No wonder the hand gun murder rate in our country is so appalling high.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:00 amNashoba nowa Says:
GeeDubs, To me that second amendment is quite critical to our Liberty,
And who would you shoot to keep your Liberty?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:00 amIf the Democrats would stop fighting against our constitutionally protected right to bear arms, there would never be another Republican elected.
This is one issue in which I part with the ‘left’.
Of course, most Democrats do not want to ban guns (that would only give criminals yet another black market to make lots of money in). Reasonable regulation is better. Let’s just make it possible to trace a gun back to it’s owner after it is used in a crime.
Having said that: rogerse is still a sissy coward crybaby.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:04 amrogerse
June 26th, 2008 at 11:04 amshoeless ———– The very ones that may come to deprive of us of that Liberty, if it came to it, and we may well wish to have those arms when you look at the unpatriotic “Patriot Act”. Most Americans are like sheep, they follow blindly failing to think, allowing every day more of their Rights to be taken.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:05 amWhether the DC gun ban was constitutional or not is really a moot point. Because the District of Columbia is a relatively small place, surrounded by Maryland and Virginia (where getting guns isn’t exactly a problem), a gun ban in DC was almost impossible to enforce anyway.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:05 amRantingTommy Says:
Reasonable regulation is better.
That part is in the 2nd Amenedment.
“A well regulated Militia”
A raise of hands please. How many gun owners here are part of “A well regulated Militia”?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:06 amBanning guns is as fruitless as banning drugs
It does nothing to keep criminals from getting them.
It creates a black market for them that criminals control
It removes ALL safety regulation from the market.
Look at the failure of the banning of drugs. In EVERY case, the impact of the drug in question has been made worse by banning it, and it hasn’t stopped one person from obtaining the drugs they want.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:08 amNashoba nowa Says:
…we may well wish to have those arms when you look at the unpatriotic “Patriot Act”.
Uh, the Patriot Act has been in force since 2001. You have guns. What have you done about the Patriot Act?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 amshoeless Says: A raise of hands please. How many gun owners here are part of “A well regulated Militia”?
My understanding on the addition of that line is that the Founding Fathers didn’t want us to have a standing army. They believed that if an issue were worth fighting for, that the citizens would come together to form that militia in time of need.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 amTime to buy that rocket launcher… I have a reconfirmed constitutional right to own it.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 amYou go beyond reasonable when you try to outlaw a product that has that level of demand. All you do is create black markets, you don’t get rid of guns.
Guns are illegal in England and they have a huge black market, devoid of ALL regulation and control.
They still have guns, just not legal, inspected, regulated ones.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 amFrom rogers’s militia website:
The militia is defined as: militia 1.) Military soldier, a soldier: 1a.) originally
any military force; 1b.) Later any army composed of citizens rather than professional
soldiers, called out in times of emergency; 2.) In the United States, all able-bodied male
citizens of the regular armed forces; members of the National Guard, organized Reserve
Corps and Naval and Marine Reserve constitute the organized militia; all others, the
unorganized militia.
So roger, this means, if you own a gun, you could be called to serve in Iraq. I think all gun owners should do a few tours of duty in Iraq.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:12 amI never thought that killing someone was in the best interests of protecting my property. If I had a gun and was confronted with a criminal doing harm to my family, would I use it? Of course, I’m not stupid. But at the same time, I feel very conflicted about giving people carte blanche to own the things and use them as they see fit. This ain’t the Wild West anymore, is it?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:12 amRantingTommy Says:Look at the failure of the banning of drugs. In EVERY case, the impact of the drug in question has been made worse by banning it, and it hasn’t stopped one person from obtaining the drugs they want.
Many anything verbotten and it becomes desirable. The forbidden ruit is most definitely the sweetest.
But, like drug education, we also need gun education. Education generally tends to neutralize the impact of potentially dangerous things…
June 26th, 2008 at 11:13 am# 17 citizen pain :
“…after the last 7.5 years, the Patriot Act, spying on Americans, the general encroachment of the police state, I say we need to be able to own as many guns as we damn well please. The last thing we need is a populace that can’t fight back…”
I too have lately developed a sympathy for this view. Of course the ramifications are huge and of course what could be more fundamentally “American” than the popular overthrow of an oppressive government? Of course history shows us that such an act is not uniquely American, but the permissibility of a well-armed citizenry IS pretty extraordinary which makes the prospect of a poular revolt all the more enticing and seemingly possible.
However…well, it’s all very, very complicated.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:14 amYes, Nashoba, what does the Second Amendment mean, exactly? Is it a well regulated militia that the people are to keep and bear arms in, or is it the people themselves that should have no infringement on that right?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:15 amTotally in agreement there. I’m all for education of all kinds. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds Republicans.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:16 amGeeDubs Says: But at the same time, I feel very conflicted about giving people carte blanche to own the things and use them as they see fit. This ain’t the Wild West anymore, is it?
Why many of us want gun control (waiting periods, background checks, gun education, etc.) rather than gun restriction.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:16 amShoeless. nice going on your comments! Pithy!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:16 amThe system only works when it comes down on the side of the system you support.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:17 amPS - an uneducated driver is as dangerous as an uneducated gun owner
let’s not forget uneducated voters (see rogerse)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:18 amWe regulate the use of cars with licenses, education before you can get your license, fees and taxes to support the roads we drive on, why can’t we license people to use their guns, make sure we don’t give them to people like the Virginia Tech killer, and be sensible about this?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 amHi lock box.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 amSo about that intelligence assessment. The hoax seems to have permeated 16 different intelligences agencies, huh?
lax_cox chimes in to remind us he’s a cowardly republican sissy
thanks for the reminder, lax_cox
if you DO ever get educated past your fear-inducing ignorance, please let us know
June 26th, 2008 at 11:19 amrogerse Says:
This was an expansion of freedoms, yet people will still try and make hay out of every issue.
I’ll make hay by pointing out the expanded freedom of making it easier to kill people.
Should I, the supervisor, be killed by an employee angry at my request that he wear safety goggles? Should four other employees by randomly gunned down afterward?
You people speak of your “individual rights” and “freedoms” only in the context of bringing everyone down with you.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:21 amAbsolutely the correct plan.
We should do the same with drugs. License the dealers and the users alike. Provide continuing education and addiction help for the one’s that get in trouble.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:21 amRantingTommy Says: Totally in agreement there. I’m all for education of all kinds. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds Republicans.
Absolutely. The last thing we need is more fearful and ignorant Republicans with guns :D
June 26th, 2008 at 11:22 amGeeDubs, Everyday common people made up that militia, the constitutional right to arms is granted in that amendment. and for Shoeless, I would not hesitate to use my double barrel against an intruder threatening the Liberty of my family. I was raised with guns, have lived with them all of my life and was taught respect for them. I am looking at a Mississippi Rifle right now, carried during the War Between the States, and a double barrel from 1855 carried by a private
June 26th, 2008 at 11:22 amin the Confederate Cavalry, his sword hangs beneath it. I differ from most Progressives on this one issue, the second amendment.
I agree with Ranting Tommy’s posts — legalization in combination with regulation. I only have fears that it’s tougher to regulate then, let’s say, marijuana.
Would educational requirements, if in place, actually work, or would giddy new gun owners just look for ways to cut corners?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:24 amYou have a right to bear arms. The Constitution says nothing about ammunition. Ban the bullets used in handguns. No more buwwets.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:24 am——————————————————————————–
misshusseinmolly Says:
——————————————————————————–
Whether the DC gun ban was constitutional or not is really a moot point. Because the District of Columbia is a relatively small place, surrounded by Maryland and Virginia (where getting guns isn’t exactly a problem), a gun ban in DC was almost impossible to enforce anyway.
Yes, but enough about Senator Webb ;)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:25 amuneducated voters tend to vote Republican as well, and their votes have caused more damage to all of us than any of them could with a gun
always educate, always
the formula would work for drugs too:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:26 amlegalize, regulate, tax, educate
GeeDubs Says: We regulate the use of cars with licenses, education before you can get your license, fees and taxes to support the roads we drive on, why can’t we license people to use their guns, make sure we don’t give them to people like the Virginia Tech killer, and be sensible about this?
I don’t see why you shouldn’t have to attend a training course, pass a background check, and pass a test to get a gun permit. It wouldn’t get all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it would reduce the amount significantly.
And, most people who understand the consequences of pulling the trigger, might just not… Not unless, as the Founding Fathers considered, it was warranted in times of national defense or tyranny.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:26 amAlso Ranting Tommy #36. v.g.
When I lived in the UK the only permissible guns were for the shooting of game and vermin–usually shotguns and were hard to get. The police were in general unarmed, even though criminals might use ’sawn-off’ shotguns.
It’s totally different now. Not like the US of course, but trending that way.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:28 amMaybe we give out fancy bumper stickers when you complete the course and get a license. Something to show off.
I dunno, just an idea. It sill works better than removing ALL regulation by banning them.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:28 amAccording to the Second Amendment, we must all be in the militia now if we have the right to bear arms. Bush can send everybody to Iraq!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:30 amshhhh, don’t anyone mention to lax_cox that his mom just TOLD him it was a S&W. It’s really just a BB gun. shhhhh
scared ignorant republican with a gun, kewl, you’ll probably shoot yourself in the foot (like you do here with every post)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:30 amlock_box Says:
——————————————————————————–
I can keep my Smith & Wesson home protection system in place. You still have the right to not own a gun.
— Sure but what about my switchblade. So are you gonna puss out on the national intelligence assessment? If you do I will declare you pussy for life…
June 26th, 2008 at 11:32 amRantingTommy Says: We should do the same with drugs. License the dealers and the users alike. Provide continuing education and addiction help for the one’s that get in trouble.
In London, once upon a time, the doctors were the dealers, and you could get a prescription for regulated amouts of government controlled drugs (including heroine). As a result, they had very little drug related crime or addiction. Then, our government talked them into instituting a complete ban on drugs. The end of their drug regulations meant an onslaught of drug related crimes and addictions, just as we see here… Bans don’t work. Regulation does.
And while we are at it, wouldbe nice to do the same for parenting…
June 26th, 2008 at 11:32 amSo if the “right to bear arms” means that it is unconstitutional to ban certain types of arms then surely the prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” means that the torture of terrorist suspects is unconstitutional? Oh, but Scalia want us to believe that “punishment” was not taking place at Guantanamo et al. What were they being “punished” for he asks.
A common definition of punishment, according to the webster dictionary is not only “suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution” but also “SEVERE, ROUGH, OR DISASTROUS TREATMENT.”
Sorry Scalia, your high LSAT score doesn’t preclude the rest of us from common sense.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:34 amIndeed, RT. It would cut down irresponsible use. I don’t want to make the mistake of throwing the few bad apples at your good ideas.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:34 amlock_box Says: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
This is actually an argument in favor of gun control and education… Michael Moore put it in his movie ‘Bowling for Columbine’ as a progressive argument.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:37 amThe founders didn’t take up arms against a foreign nation. They fought a war against their own government’s military.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:38 amThe 2nd Amendment is a reflection of that; it’s not just to favor a local militia, so that no one can own a gun when there is a standing army.
The founders feared having to fight against the standing army. Thus, the 2nd Amendment.
Women, children, and old men all owned guns, as they needed to protect their farms and hunt. They were not, however, part of any militia.
I don’t believe the founders would conclude that people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns because we have a national army to protect us. I believe they would conclude we should have the right to own guns to protect us from that army, as sometimes, armies don’t act in the best interest of those they are sworn to defend (see Zimbabwe).
You still have the right to not own a gun.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Gee, thanks for forcing your crazy views on us, neocons. We’re in an increasingly tough spot — needing to buy a gun in order to fend off the uneducated pro-gun nuts. Fighting fire with fire, anyone?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:41 amMiles Tougeaux Says
June 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Time to buy that rocket launcher… I have a reconfirmed constitutional right to own it.
__________________________________________________________
I’m not nearly as concerned about your right to own a rocket launcher as I am a billionaire’s right to have a missile silo with a nuclear warhead in his back yard. After all, the second amendment doesn’t spell out any limitations on “arms”.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:41 amlock_box Says:Clearly a lopsided stat needs to be addressed! Its a good argument.
I totally agree. It’s just not like you to make a valid argument, which is why most people here treat you as irrelevant.
So, why do you think our rate is so much higher than those other countries?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:41 amForgive me if someone has brought this up already, but I find it interesting that the same Justice who wrote in this decision:
the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.
Is the same Justice who just last week wrote that upholding the right of habeas corpus for detainees “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed”
Am I the only one who sees the rank hypocrisy?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:42 amralph:
no offense, but I always find it funny when people point out “rank hypocrisy” among neocons.
sometimes I think perhaps “hypocrisy” and “neocon” will someday be synonymous.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:44 amralph the wonder llama Says: Am I the only one who sees the rank hypocrisy?
Excellent find! Totally hypocritical - such a traditional, selfish Republican trait.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:45 amralph the wonder llama
June 26th, 2008 at 11:49 amNice to see you. Check it out over on the Think Fast, lock_box is about to explain how 16 different intelligence agencies all got caught up in the global climate hoax. Well either that or they are going to accept being “pussy for life”
As a gun owner and sportsman, I agree with this decision.
But, I do believe gun owners should be required to take and pass an I.Q. test. That way we can be ensured that only the liberals will be armed.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:50 amBecause these are activist judges, very simple. They have an ideology and they are bent towards this ideology instead of staying true to the constitution.
Now supporting gun rights because they say it’s enshrined in the constitution but at the same time oppose fair trials for prisoners and most likely support the government spying on their citizens. It’s all along ideology lines…the system is broken. There is no constitution in their mind unless it supports their ideological views.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 amInteresting decision. Scalia, who spends most of his time getting his shorts in a knot over his fellow justices using legislative history to interpret statutes, purports to rely upon contemporaneous statements and pre-second amendment state and colonial statutes to justify his opinion. Pretty serious horse trading must have been necessary to get to five votes however as he then goes out of his way to opine as to the constitutionality of all kinds of restrictions that weren’t directly before the court (something the supremes almost never do) such as concealed weapons, restrictions on guns in or near schools and government buildings, etc. I doubt that will have the desired effect of keeping every state statute and local ordinance out of court however. This just converted the federal court system into the superlegislature for gun regulation matters — kind of a right wing (or perhaps more accurately libertarian) Roe v. Wade. Nice to see in some ways that the right leaning justices finally found something they like in the Bill of Rights. We may need this after the erosion of civil liberties the executive and legislative branches have achieved over the past 7.5 years but I can only imagine what some of the goofier Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees, especially down south are going to do with the decision.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 amNashoba: “Everyday common people made up that militia, the constitutional right to arms is granted in that amendment. and for Shoeless, I would not hesitate to use my double barrel against an intruder threatening the Liberty of my family.”
That’s a common and understandable argument.But that argument is dependent on a specific environment, ‘probable cause’ and self-defence. Just becasue you might use a guyn in a repsonsible and justifiable mannner in a specific set of circumstances doesn’t mean everyone will. ANYONE could threaten “the liberty” of your family in public, away from your house. What defines your “liberty”. And what then?
If MY notion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is the unmitigated right to independntly defend myself when ‘threatened’, preserve my ‘liberty’ and pursue my own happiness rwagrdless of others, well then ownning a gun givves me the means to do that very effectively ( absent any controls). And if my views are informed by the idea that it’s every man for himself, that Government is inherently bad and that I’m the judge of all things regardless of others then a gun allows me to absolutely exercise my ‘rights’–not as a ctizen, but as an individual mind you–seperate from the community.
And when it comes to the intruder scenario, how;s your double barreld shotgun going to stack-up against an M-4 on full auto with an M-203 40 mm grnade launcher attached, weilded by a fellow 2nd Amendment fan?
By all means have your gun–just bear in mind it isn’t the gun alone that keeps you safe and maintains your “liberty”.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:51 amTwo threads below this, some Troll was asserting that the SC was “too liberal”. With the electronic equivalent of a straight face.
What a country of outdated cowboys!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pmWe are the most violent society on the face of the earth. That includes all of the members of the axis of evil and Russia, the home of the goulog, etc. and still under conservative leadership we continue to go backwards.
No one needs a fully automatic weapon. The thompson fully automatic has been illegal since the 33’s.
Now we have regressed to the 1850’s where everyone has a weapon strapped to their waist. Great place to raise children.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pmAnother point to contemplate for those who consider the decision to be an expansion of rights/counterbalance to the threat of tyranny, the majority makes clear that a law prohibiting gun ownership by a convicted criminal survives second amendment scrutiny. That sounds good in theory and usually will be in practice but let’s face it, when you have a government that defines “enemy combatant” as someone who the executive unilaterally decides is hostile to the government regardless of citizenship, it is a short jump to finding a way to disenfranchise opponents by railroading them into court. Not trying to be paranoid and not even sure I disagree with the net holding of an individual right to bear arms — the text of the 2nd amendment is less than clear. Just interested in how large a pandoras box this opens.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pmTrippleKick Says:
People like you will assure bans on guns eventually.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pmTrippleKick Says:
Score one for the constitution!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
June 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pmOops. finger slipped…
TrippleKick Says:
Score one for the constitution!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
So this means the total score of the last 7 1/2 years is 1000/1 against the constitution?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pmSo, does this mean that Pres. Bush will honor the Constitution and STOP sending people through a metal detector when he has a public appearance?
Why does Pres. Bush hate people who carry weapons and want to shake his hand?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pmTripplekick
“Regardless of your personal views on gun ownership, its clearly one of our constitutional rights.”
So I assume you have not followed the many years and discussions as to the ambiguous nature of the second ammendment and its interpretation. It isn’t clear at all despite your suggestions to the contrary
June 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pmTriplekick, I’m wondering what steps you have taken to protest the abuses heaped on the Constitution over the past seven and a half years?
June 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pmAbout the argument that the illegalization of weapons would mean more weapons out there: what do you think is easier to obtain at any shop, a legal thing or an illegal thing? If illegal drugs were easier to obtain, having any 7/11 some in their shelves you think there would be more or less drug addicts out there? Think of tobacco. Restringting its selling to minors produces more or less minors smoking? Of course minors will seek any mean to obtain a cigarette, but if it is harder, they’ll smoke less, not more. Same with weapons.
About the UK going the weapon (USA) way, well, its their option, most probably aggraveted by the Iraq debacle. They’re coming too paranoid lately. They’re installing a great number of security cameras at the streets. They had a great problem with gangs of youths well before 2001. The incident of the brazilian killed at the underground (seven bullets in the head) by security forces simply because he was brown was too much. And the police hasn’t even apologized. Not that their way is the best. We have suffered also terrorist attacks (not only from Al Qaeda fans), but the general attitude of the public here is in no way so crispated. Probably has something ado with the personnal culture, so alike between the USA and the UK, and more different in relation with us.
And well, the idea of the people of the USA uprising in arms against the government is really hard to believe. People tend to idolize their institutions and Presidents, even if they’re antagonically opposites in policy views, and don’t want to rock the boat, or simply are too lazy to uprise in great numbers, or is against its mindset. I don’t know. But popular uprisings or demonstrations like the ones in France or Spain or Germany against the Iraq war, or the far rightists Sarkozy government, are hard to believe in the USA. Maybe demonstrators are looked as “kooks”.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pmTrippleKick Says:
Evil,
Yes *finally* the govt. got something correct. The constitution has been ignored and perverted for a long time now. Regardless of your personal views on gun ownership, its clearly one of our constitutional rights. Obviously the Sup. court agrees. You can’t be outraged that only some constitutional rights are being stomped on. You must protect all of them. Consistency is the key to being taken seriously.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
False premise. Laws (including the USA Consitution) are men’s inventions. The many ammendments (we are speaking of one here) are patches over the original document. So coherency isn’t a plus. It’s fair against unfair, then correct versus incorrect. And frankly, I, with many statistics at hand, can claim that the 2nd Ammendment is an outdated one, not necessary in the modern world, because the USA has already a Military and National Guards (state militias) to protect them. And well, the indians and British will not invade back the “colonies”.
In the case of an hypothetical fight between the Federal state and the populace, well, the Fed has A-bombs, fighters, tanks, etc, remember? What is the point of having a S&W if you’re bombed from 30,000 feet above? And, if you don’t know, in the case of revolts and uprisings, the military tends to split and, some side with a side, and the other with the other side.
Again, I don’t see the point of an overextended weaponry among the citizen. It only brings the occasional (or not so occasional) gun nutz who starts shooting their office coworkers because someone stole his stapler.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pmTrippleKick Says:
You can’t pick and choose which constitutional rights others should have.
Sorry, but The People can do whatever they want with their Constitution. If a greater share of voters and/or SC judges say that weapons MUST be banned, therefore scraping an outdated Ammendment, you can kick and scream as much as you want, because Democracy is about the will of the largest share of people (or their representatives). No matter how much you love your toy.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pmSpecially in cases where your “toy” is designed only to harm people, with no other purpose. Save me the “security” discourse, please.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pmBy the way Evil, a reminder that my inalienable rights are given to me by my Creator, not by man. Man didn’t give me my rights and man cannot take them away.
Sorry, but what Commandment is “Thou shall have a weapon”? The Eleventh? Was in the third stone tablet, who was destroyed when Moises let it slip while heading for its tribe, after receiving them?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pmHe may be crazy but he ain’t stupid. He knows that folks who would like to shake his hand are undoubtedly as insane he is.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pmI’ve got to agree with triplekick on this one: The 1st amendment isn’t anymore important than the 2nd. And just becuase the 3rd Amendment is about as antiquated as it gets, doesn’t mean it should be either removed or re-written.
Plus, where is everyone getting this wildly exagerated notion you can go buy a fully automatic weapon now? The gun ban was in reference to hand guns. And its not like DC’s law worked anyway:
According to CNN,
June 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm“There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.”
God is a gun nut?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pmAnd, BTW, rights in a society are granted if they don’t harm other people’s ones. I don’t have the right to rob because I’m doing harm to the owner. I’m not allowed to kill because I’m harming the right of my victim to live.
Therefore, I have no right to own a gun freely, because I harm the right of my neighbour to live without the fear of a gun owner at the next door, who can discharge his weapon, even by mistake, and hit me or my relatives.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pmEvil Spainard:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pmMoses was high on some weird plant at the time. He may have forgotten the one about the guns what with his altered state of mind and all
The relevant word in the 2nd Amendment is not ‘militia’ but ‘regulated’. Gun ownership is a right, but, by the words of the Bill of Rights, it’s a Regulated right.
It should be cleear to a fifth grader that gun registration, safetry standards for guns, mandatory safety training and/or restrictions on carrying them concealed in public are not in violation of the spirit OR the letter of the highest law of the land.
But every time anybody tries to regulate that militia, the NRA screams bloody murder.
To argue that, because a well-regulated militia is important, bearing arms should have no regulation is so nuts it has to be dishonest.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pmdim wit Says:
And its not like DC’s law worked anyway:
According to CNN,
“There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.”
Without a number stating the increase in the whole USA, or a comparative with a similar city without handgun ban in the same period, or a comparation with the population increase, your statistic doesn’t mean a lot. It can be interpreted also as an almost stable rate of gun-related murders along 30 years. Also, the statistic doesn’t mention if the guns were acquired in the State of Washington, in the neighbouring states, or in any other state.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pmdbadass Says:
Evil Spainard:
Moses was high on some weird plant at the time. He may have forgotten the one about the guns what with his altered state of mind and all
June 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Well, I know for sure that Moses got his ideas from a burning bush (dang, can any good idea come from a Bush on fire?), but nowhere states what type the bush was. Maybe cannabis?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pmDoesn’t answer my question.
The reason I bring it up is because you sounded pretty self-righteous when you said to Evil Spaniard:
You can’t be outraged that only some constitutional rights are being stomped on. You must protect all of them. Consistency is the key to being taken seriously.
It strikes me that if you can take such a high-sounding tone about Constitutional rights, you must have expressed some outrage over the marginalization of the Constitution over the past seven years, no?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pmI’m sure that will give you great standing in court if you’re ever determined to be an “enemy combatant”.
Oh, that’s right — you won’t ever get to court.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pmEvil Spainard
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23468364/
June 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pmEvil,
First of all, DC is not a state.
second, this argument has to be one of the weakest arguments i have ever seen on TP:
Automobiles are far deadlier than guns. By your notion automobiles should be illegal because they cause a “fear” in some people and that “fear” harms their rights. A plane could fall out of the sky and hit my house. Should planes be illegal too?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pmThat may be true, and it may be poetic, but it has no practical application to our law and our society. The Declaration of Independence is not the source of our law. It was just that — a declaration of independence from the British crown.
The Supreme Court does not consider challenges to the Declaration of Independence.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pmTrippleKick Says:
Evil,
I respect your opinion although I disagree. Although this may be a tangent, you may want to refresh your reading of the Declaration of Independence. The American Philosophy of rights being endowed by your Creator is so beautiful and so correct. I’m not talking about gun ownership here per se, I’m talking about human rights and what not. Some of the things you said about rights being taken away have concerned me. No man, no schlep government may ever take away something that they didn’t give me in the first place. Anyway, peace. I promise I’ll be careful with my H&K USP. Btw, I have been through
TrippleKick, it’s not my idea that governments must take the rights of the citizens. When I reread my post, I realized that it could sound really authoritarian, specially in this context, and speaking with USA people (I say this because the rethoric used in this thread and others to defend the “right” to have weapons is very restricted to the USA and some other countries, not a greater share of them in the first world, not willing to demean you or your country here, simply stating a fact). But realize that the weapons ownership right is a highly fabricated and abstract one, loaded with rethoric through all the history of your country, and having it stated in your Constitution (letting aside whatever the interpretation is) doesn’t mean that it’s a “good” one, no matter if it’s the oldest of the world, said with all the respect. I’m trying only to demystify the issue.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pmGeeDubs Says:
Says a LOT about our culture, doesn’t it? We’re wallowing in all this muck and they just keep digging us deeper. How many Columbines do you have to have before somebody in the upper echelons yells, STOP!!! My take is…if you ban all guns, then only the criminals will have them, and then you’ll know who they are. Then you can get rid of THEM!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:44 am
That’s what they said about Prohibition and Americans still drank in droves, like they’d still go get and purchase guns in alleys and dark, dank rooms. Comprehensive gun control laws won’t and never will work like what you have stated above. If you create an Eminent Domain-system of seizing arms from civilians, you’re asking for armed confrontations. If this is ever going to work, there has to be a huge non-partisan effort that bridges the major gap and tensions that already exist and that the government is going to put strict policies and controls on the purchase and use of firearms, that political bodies like the NRA will obey by the legislation.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pmpbg,
you’re right:
the problem with DC’s law was it outright banned the ownership of handguns. DC residents could own other types of guns (rifles, shotguns) provided they followed certain regulations. Hence the difference between a ban and a regulation.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pmunbelievable Says
June 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
[Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries]is actually an argument in favor of gun control and education… Michael Moore put it in his movie ‘Bowling for Columbine’ as a progressive argument.
____________________________________________________________
And Michael Moore had another point along with that, which he stressed even more than the gun control argument. He compared our homicide statistics with those of Canada right next door. Canada has far fewer homicides than we do proportionate to the population, yet they have about as many guns.
Why?
Moore made the argument that we have a lot more FEAR on this side of the border. It’s not the guns, it’s the fear that’s turning us into crazed trigger-happy vessels of volatility. Canadians enjoy their guns for hunting and sporting purposes, but they don’t feel the need to own them to protect themselves from other people who have them. Heck — Moore illustrated that many Canadians don’t even lock their doors.
So why are we afraid? Basically, we are told to be. From politicians trying to control us to marketers trying to sell us a home security system. And everybody in between who has something to gain from our fear.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
TrippleKick Says:
Evil,
I respect your opinion although I disagree. Although this may be a tangent, you may want to refresh your reading of the Declaration of Independence. The American Philosophy of rights being endowed by your Creator is so beautiful and so correct.
That may be true, and it may be poetic, but it has no practical application to our law and our society. The Declaration of Independence is not the source of our law. It was just that — a declaration of independence from the British crown.
And the God “endorsement” was common in the legal documents of that era. Therefore, to add force against the King’s wishes, who was King “by God’s graciousness”, Founding Fathers had to give the Constituion an “equal standing” to King’s edicts.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pmdbadass Says:
Evil Spainard
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23468364/
June 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
I knew it! At last, the demonstration! :D
June 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pmWell, my comment at
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Is awaiting moderation. Don’t know why. I’ve seen many posts far harder and/or insulting, including cuss words, than mine.
OK, TP, do what you want with your board but, at least, include a short text to explain why (more than generical “Not allowed by the Terms of Use). As of now I don’t know if some word is automatically blocked, or the post sounded specially offensive, or what.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pmOk, now we just need to be able to issue permits to attend church and have a registry of all churchgoers. Also, we need strict regulation of the press and speech. Of course people still have the right to free speech, but communities must also have the right to control and regulate it to their liking.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:49 pmJohnson, the reason Americans like guns is historical: for over a thousand years in Europe, a peasant, a freeman, or any sort of non-aaristocrat could not own a weapon. Hunting was poaching. And of course, owning land was just about impossible.
Then along comes the New World, where anybody could own land, hunt to his heart’s content with his own gun. That’s why so many Europeans started going native: minus the fancy clothes, the Native American warrior was living, in essence the life of an aristocrat.
After getting these aristocratic privileges, we’re supposed to give them up after a couple hundred years just because of some worry warts?
Gun ownership has nothing to do with feeling safe, or defending against government tyranny (like that would work)–it has todo with feeling like a nobleman. No wonder it’s so intense, or has little to do with the facts on the ground.
But that’s also why it’s crazy. And it’s why ‘cowboy’ is a term of revulsion and derision in the rest of the world.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:49 pmIt has to do with feeling like a free man.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pmFTFY
And Alejandro: the First Ameendment talks about not making any law in restriction of speech, press, assembly, or religion–while the Second Amendment speaks about bearing arms in the context of regulation.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pmShould a convicted criminal have the right to own a gun? The constitution protects a criminal’s right to say what he wants, worship God as he conceives it, associate with others (we’re not talking probation) and publish his views. If you equate gun ownership with First Amendment rights, then a man who knocked over a liquor store with a sawed-off shotgun, after he’s done hid 15 to 20, has a right to own a gun in the same way.
It’s nonsense. Bearing arms is a regulated right. Like voting. Like running for office. That’s why bearing arms is in its own amendment and in its own language rather than being in the list in the First.
johnsom Says:
My my my, so you leftists are against American citizens having guns in their own home, locked and loaded. Hmmmm, now I wonder why.
We Americans like guns. Where are you guys from?
Why aren’t you in Iraq, where you cvan play with your gun all day and all night?
And, I am from Colorado, remember a place called Columbine? One of the NRA’s prouder moments, right?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:17 pmAlejandro, you really think that? That having a gun makes you feel free?
Free from what?
Free to do what?
Freedom from anybody giving you any lip?
Freedom to shoot–what?
Do you really think that if the government wants to come for you, that having a gun will keep you free? From a government with Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Apache attack helicopters?
Do you think that having a gun allows you to be free of anything in ordinary life that someone without a gun is subject to?
If you feel that it’s a gun that makes you free, then you have an insufficient appreciation for the Constitution and the generations of people–like Tom Paine, like Thomas Jefferson, like Frederick Douglass, like Abraham Lincoln, like Susan B. Anthony, like Maartin Luher King Jr., and like Russ Feingold, who are fighting for your actual freedoms.
Wake up, my friend. Your freedom is under attack, and if you think your gun will save you, you’re wrong.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:28 pmOh, I realize now what was the problem with my moderated post. There, let’s see if changing a word makes the magic:
Evil Spaniard Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
——————————————————————————–
dim wit Says:
Evil,
First of all, DC is not a state.
second, this argument has to be one of the weakest arguments i have ever seen on TP:
Therefore, I have no right to own a gun freely, because I harm the right of my neighbour to live without the fear of a gun owner at the next door, who can discharge his weapon, even by mistake, and hit me or my relatives.
Automobiles are far deadlier than guns. By your notion automobiles should be illegal because they cause a “fear” in some people and that “fear” harms their rights. A plane could fall out of the sky and hit my house. Should planes be illegal too?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Sorry, but yours is the weakest one I’ve heard. Weapons are designed for kill and maim. Automobiles are designed to transport people and goods. The correspondence weapon-tool is the more laughable I read in the gun threads.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pmrogerse Says:
civilians are the unorganized militia
That doesn’t sound like a “Well regulated Militia” to me. They had better turn in their guns.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:03 pmPresident Bush said: “I applaud the Supreme Court’s historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms.”
it’s about the ONLY constitutional right he seems to support…but when Big Brother comes a-calling, you know that this quote will be thrown out the window…
June 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pmSure.
The inability to own a gun.
Free to own a gun.
Freedom from being owned by someone who breaks into my house with a weapon.
Someone breaking into my home and threatening me.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:18 pmSo far it’s working in Iraq.
So George Bush is fighting for my rights by violating them?
June 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pmCan you fight for my freedom while taking it away?
And yet there are many many many laws that restrict speech, assembly, religion, and press.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to find the nearest free speech zone.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:23 pm“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
June 26th, 2008 at 6:28 pmI’ve been wanting to make this point for a long time; unfortunately misshusseinmolly @ 71 beat me to it:
I insist on my right to bear nuclear arms — or if they happen to be too heavy for that (I wouldn’t know, having never seem one) at least to pull a nuke behind me on a little red wagon whenever I’m in a dubious neighborhood. Betcha no one would mess with me then!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 amNo law will stop this man from getting a gun. But, the fifth amendment already spells this out. The felon can be deprived of life, liberty, or property after due process of law. I mean, he already can’t vote in many areas.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am