Thursday, June 26, 2008


Supreme Court overturns DC gun ban.

UPDATE: The Hill reports:
The 5-4 decision handed down Thursday is the Supreme Court’s first major Second Amendment ruling in nearly 70 years. It declared unconstitutional a D.C. law on the books for more than 30 years.
About doggone time, too!

UPDATE II: Associated Press:
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.
The ruling is online in PDF format. Comment by Allahpundit:
So as I understand this, you have a right to own a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle or some other weapon you’d buy either for home defense or hunting, since that’s how a colonial-era militia operated. Live by the originalist sword, die by the originalist sword.
Very good, very good. Looks like a solid victory for the Second Amendment. Wonder if it guarantees your right to shoot a child rapist?

UPDATE III: This ruling ends many years of secret civil disobedience in DC. For years, I have advised women in Washington to ignore the ban and carry a "lady gun" (e.g., a small .32 automatic) in their purse. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six," as they say. Given the notorious incompetence of DC police, the chances of a woman in the District actually getting busted with an unlicensed pistol are probably smaller than the chances of her getting raped and murdered.

Hugh Hewitt says this court decision is good news for Mitt RomneyJohn McCain.

UPDATE IV: Justice Stevens, in his dissent, relies heavily on Joseph Story's Commentaries. This is bogus, first of all, because the Commentaries are not the Constitution. Story was not present at the Founding (he was only 10 when the Second Amendment was ratified) and did not have complete access to all the debates surrounding the Second Amendment, or to the papers of George Mason, the principle author of the amendment. So for Stevens to cite Story as authoritative and superior to the plain "shall not be infringed" of the amendment itself, is pretzel logic.

Secondly, in other contexts, liberals like Stevens routinely disregard the essentially conservative views of Story. If it were up to Story, certainly the court would never have invalidated the death penalty for child rapists. Stevens' citation of Story as the ultimo dictum on the Constitutional is thus profoundly dishonest.

Some creme broulee, sir?

UPDATE V: One of Michelle Malkin's readers makes this observation:
Prediction: Unlike the 5-4 Boumediene vs. Bush decision [the Gitmo case], which the MSM hailed as "landmark" [and] "historic" because it rebuked Bush, this 5-4 decision will be spun as a decision by the "conservative" Supreme Court, which was "controversial," "fractured" or "splintered." Anything to cast doubt on the decision.
Indeed. I've never understood why so many of my journalistic colleagues, who treat the First Amendment as if it were divine writ, nevertheless despise the Second Amendment and gun owners. I suspect it's mainly because nowadays most journalists are a bunch of neurasthenic wimps who've never won a fistfight.

"Today's decision marks a new era for gun rights in America. By protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families. . . .
"Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families. Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year."
-- Bob Barr
Libertarian Party presidential nominee
and National Rifle Association board member
No word yet on what Obama thinks about Justice Scalia and those four other hillbillies bitterly clinging to their guns.

1 comment:

  1. Someone has to tell me where D.C. got the idea that they could ignore the constitution to begin with. And the four judges that voted against this? They have no right to be speaking on behalf of this country of the constitution they are supposed to uphold and protect.