DC gun ban will likely be toast
|
|
One thing I’ve learned from listening to Supreme Court arguments: If a judge has appointments from Carter and Clinton, we should thank the Lord they weren’t more of them
The arguments to overturn Washington DC’s ban on guns was instructive to see where the court is and if Hillary or Obama get to handpick some, where it might go.
DC said that to call the right to keep and bear arms an individual right was a “libertarian ideal.” It’s all about militias, says he. “It’s not the text of the Second Amendment, which is expressly about the security of the State; it’s about well-regulated militias, not unregulated individual license.” No militia, no guns.
Or at least no handguns. Rifles are no problem, as long as they are unloaded, disassembled, have a trigger lock, and the person about to shoot you in your bedroom is a gentleman about it and lets you do all that before shooting you. It’s handguns that are banned.
Chief Justice Roberts, whose existence makes up for almost anything George W. Bush may have gotten wrong, had this query about how reasonable is DC’s gun ban.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it’s a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that’s been considered especially — especially dangerous. The
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it’s all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?
Ouch! Justice Breyer, the aforementioned Carter/Clinton appointee delves into idiocy.
BREYER: You had to keep powder upstairs because of the risk of fire. So today, roughly, you can say no handguns in the city because of the risk of crime.
As if the criminals are going to just say “Aw shucks. It’s illegal for me to have a handgun. Looks like I’ll have to find a legal weapon to kill people with.”
Thank Reagan for Scalia!
JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, can they consider the extent of the murder rate in Washington, D.C., using handguns?
MR. GURA: If we were to consider the extent of the murder rate with handguns, the law would not survive any type of review, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun.
Finally! an hour and a half of argument and someone finally said it. The handgun ban makes people more vulnerable to crime. If it did anything to stop crime, DC wouldn’t have the crime statistics its had in the 30-year gun ban.
Although it’s risky to judge a SC case from oral arguments, there sure seemed to be 5 easy votes to overturn the ban and maybe 2 to at least lean.
Hopefully, conservatives who are following this case and who are not planning on voting for McCain will think about the damage that could be done if Clinton or Obama is allowed to be in office for four or eight years. With a couple more liberal judges on the court, ridiculous laws like D.C.’s handgun ban could be upheld. The threat of liberal judges being appointed is reason enough for me to vote for McCain.
It’s easy for Justice Scalia, who has never lived in a dangerous neighborhood to make such ivory tower pronouncements.
Unfortunately, this case will not be decided on the Constitution, or on the Framers’ intent, but rather on the view of a few conservative activist judges.
Ah, as if Roe v. Wade was “decided on the Constitution, or on the Framers’ intent”
Sorry, Ragnar, but the Framers saw an armed populace as the best way to protect liberty and property.
Sorry, 200 years of Supreme Court rulings have consistently failed to find an individual right to gun ownership. It will take activist judges to overturn all that precedent.
As for the Framers, depends on who you look to. Consider the opinions of Jefferson (original Republican party) v. Hamilton/ Adams (Federalist) and their thoughts on a standing military, etc.
On Roe v. Wade: First, there was no precedent that didn’t support their decision (look to the preceeding years expanion of the individual’s right to privacy/ liberty). Then actually read the opinion, you’ll find (whether you agree with the outcome or not) that the Court went to the privacy/ liberty interests contained w/in the Constitution.
But, then, conservatives are never interested in following the law, or Stare Decisis when they disagree with the outcome. (Which is, ironically, the conservative’s own definition of activist judges…).
I should also add, as for Roe v. Wade my personal inclination is to federalism. While I find the holding supportable, the preferable solution would have been for the Supremes to not get involved. Some states had already legalized abortion when they took the case.
But, that said, there is also an argument to be made that a woman’s right to an abortion should not be dictated simply by the state within which she resides (and her access to $$ to afford to travel to a state where abortion is legal).
Believe me, Ragnar. I know the Roe opinion. And they held that the privacy right was only compelling up to a certain point, and then decided when that point would be.
So your attack on “conservatives” is baseless, but is your own Stare Decisis.
Funny, though, when it’s abortion you’re so high on individual rights, but when it’s citizen gun ownership, you can’t seem to find any individual rights.
That’s what happens when one reads the Constitution with only the left eye.
Or from your case, the right eye…
The simple fact is that the Supreme Court has NEVER, that is never, nada, hasn’t happened, found an individual right to gun ownership in the Constitution.
PS - Nice personal attack oh the of the regular personal attack whine.
I love the whole abortion vs. gun ownership debate.
Last time a read the Constitution, there was a definite “Right to bear arms” clause. I didn’t see with either a “right to kill my baby” or a “right to have money to go to another state cos I prefer their laws” clause.
(Which by the way, I have found in our society $$ is rarely a reason to not cross state lines. Working in social services, I see many “poor” people migrating back and forth to Florida, going to California, Texas, S. Carolina, etc. Our current system makes it very easy to move to or travel to a different state.)
When the left sees “Right to bear arms,” it goes into parse mode cause that can’t mean what is seems to mean.
It also overlooks right to life and own property and the right to protect your life and property with a handgun. If you don’t have a right to protect your life or property, do you truly have these rights?
But when it comes to abortion, let’s overlook state rights and find a Constitutional “right to privacy” that allows a very strong federal government to impose laws on every state.
It would make more sense to me to find that if you took every 33rd letter in the Constitution and it spelled out the “it is every woman’s right, no matter her age, to have an abortion as it is her body after all.”
What is the big deal if I want to keep a handgun under my pillow any way? We have laws against killing people. If handgun owners illegally kill people, use handguns to commit crimes, or allow their children to play with loaded guns, arrest them. We have laws that allow them to be arrested and jailed under these circumstances.
On other interesting aside—it is much more expensive to buy and own a handgun, transport it across state lines, than it is to leave state and have an abortion, especially since one state does not recognize your pistol permit from another state. So if I want to take my NY gun to VA, I need two permits.
So, Ragnar given your quote “But, that said, there is also an argument to be made that a woman’s right to an abortion should not be dictated simply by the state within which she resides (and her access to $$ to afford to travel to a state where abortion is legal).” does this convince you we should have a federal right to bear arms?
Ragnar, noticing your leftist bent is “a personal attack?”
What a wuss you’ve become….
You know what the real difference is between the right and the left on the right to bare arms?
It’s location. There is a reason the vast majority of support for the individual right comes from rural America and the opposition from urban America.
I personally have no problem with guns. My uncle and grandfather were hunters, I’ve been hunting, I love shooting skeet, and I’ve been shooting since I was a kid.
What I am getting at is that the difference is location. When I’m on my family farm in Pennsylvania, or up north in Michigan, I generally don’t worry about getting shot - unless it’s the beginning of deer season and the hunters are trigger happy/ possibly plastered… But, I’ve also lived in some big cities. Detroit, downtown Norfolk, and DC both back 12 years ago, and now. Unlike livining in the suburbs or on the farm, I do worry about getting shot here. In each urban setting I have lived in there have been shootings and murders not far from where I’ve lived.
Necessarily these facts have impacted my beliefs. I would be willing to wager a bet that if many who are now anti-all gun control were to live in a neighborhood with gunfire every night, and bodies found every morning, their perspectives would change as well.
Understand that the last thing I want is to ban all guns. I just want to ban all handguns and cheap small semi-autos. Anything that is easily concealable and can only be used for killing a man. Rifles, even semi-auto rifles are fine. They can’t be concealed and are generally more expensive.
Ragnar, the founders didn’t want their arms for the right to hunt.
About location: I once worked in a convenience store in downtown Portsmouth. One of the clerks who worked with me wore his pistol both when he was working and when he visited the store.
While I did not fear being shot there, I must admit a few of the more unruly customers were much better behaved when he–and his gun–were in the store.
If you fear being shot, you need not fear the responsible citizens carrying registered firearms. Rather you should fear those who will carry easily concealed firearms whether or not it is legal to do so.
I never seem to see this story on the news:
“Gun shop robbed today…..”
Not to make a point (or that it even makes one), but i just couldn’t resist Brian’s bait:
GUN SHOP ROBBED
Osage Beach gun shop robbed
Plum gun shop robbed
200 Guns Stolen From Midland Co. Gun Shop
Many Weapons Stolen From Manassas Gun Shop
Way to go, Jeremy. Compare that to the number of convenience store robberies and get back to me.
Hey, convenience stores are convienient for everyone, shoppers and robbers alike :).