Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Real Soon

2008-06-26

Hat tip Drudge. I fear for the Second Amendment. Get ready.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

That the Court has left this to the last day of its term suggests that they'll find that the 2nd applies only to militias and is limited only to states. Justice Kennedy will swing with the other four liberal justices, and no doubt he'll find some 'emerging international consensus on gun control' to satisfy him.

If this is the way the ruling goes, I expect a new constitutional amendment to be introduced in Congress if Republicans have brains (hah) it will be filed the very next day and debated in, say, mid-October. And I can imagine Obama trying to get out of the way.

And if a new amendment isn't filed in the Congress, look for states to step up and propose such an amendment by calling for a new constitutional convention (via Article V). That would make politics very interesting.

Posted by:Steve White

#18 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me it means that the framers are first stating the fact that the individual states need militias in order to survive. These militias need to be created at a moment's notice, and in order to do that the people need to be able to have arms in their house and know how to use them. People can't learn how to use them overnight, so they need to be able to play with them when they want to, too. I'm pretty sure that the framers knew that when everyone has a gun that there were going to be problems, but they also probably knew that the benefits would outweigh the problems. They probably knew without thinking that good people were going to use them to defend themselves from bad people because that would be a good practical use for them. The framers lived in times that demanded that they think practically, and probably did not envision that as life got easier that people would create problems for themselves to solve as liberals seem to like to do. They probably thought the second amendment was self evident except to the most profoundly challenged, who wouldn't be populous or influential enough to screw things up, so they stopped there. Had they been long-lived enough to see what we are dealing with today, they would probably be shooting every liberal they could find until things normalized again.

Posted by: gorb 2008-06-26 19:03

#17 Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law thats less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

- Mike Soraghan

Posted by: Frank G 2008-06-26 13:08

#16 Moot Point - we WON this one!

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-26 11:53

#15 You right OS - the states determine who goes to any Consitutional Convention.

But I can't help to think that they would send 'professional career politicians' - much like the current crop of crooks in congress. And often after a long 'election' in their state involving lots of organization (read: Democratic or Republican party) and money.

Personally I don't trust either party to touch the constitution.

I shudder to think who my own state (Washington State) would send. ?Baghdad Jim (McDermitt)? Comrade (Patty) Murray? Why not the idiots elect them to Congress they may well elect them to a Consitutional Convention.

In any case its a moot point (thank god). Could have been real bad if Kerry had been elected last time.

Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-06-26 11:30

#14 Thankfully, Kennedy decided to go with what is IN the constitution this time.

Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-26 10:53

#13 Quotes from the opinion:

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

the most natural reading of keep Arms in the Second Amendment is to have weapons.

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Posted by: Seafarious 2008-06-26 10:31

#12 In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Asshole

Posted by: Frank G 2008-06-26 10:25

#11 5-4 (guess who the 4 were...uh huh) protecting OUR self-defense right. YEAH!

Posted by: Frank G 2008-06-26 10:24

#10 The great Karnak predicts, the court couldn't reach a decisive decision, so they punt to Congress for 'definition' which will then engage in a multi year legal process again for another court to clarify as they read the tea leaves as to what they can pull off in arranging a dictation when omens are favorable. Heh.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-26 09:39

#9 Either way, it is long past time for the SC judges to be held accountable to the people. They need to have term limits and be able to be voted in and out by the people.

Bunch of black robed tyrants at the moment.

Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-26 07:39

#8 I expect a ruling that affirms individual rights. I expect the struggle has been over the degree of applicability re: the 14th.

Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2008-06-26 06:54

#7 Sounds like the 2nd has 2 clauses

1) Well regulated Militias to protect the state
2) People have the right to bear arms

I think if it was only militias, it would say only militias have the right to bear arms.

Posted by: Black Charlie Unamp8314 2008-06-26 02:47

#6 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Posted by: Black Charlie Unamp8314 2008-06-26 02:46

#5 If I had to guess, I'd say "narrowly drawn ruling that holds for the individual right while leaving the door open for some degree of local &/or state regulation". The liberal wing's not stupid enough to push through a decision that would dramatically increase the odds that not only McCain would get elected, but also deliver both houses of Congress back to the Trunks.

Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2008-06-26 02:31

#4 Congress can do NOTHING to a constitutional convention - its called by and run by THE STATES. It is a federalism mechanism for the states to correct the central government when the feds become too power heavy and unable or unwilling to act properly by putting amendments to the States through the Congress.

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-26 01:20

#3 As I recall a constitutional Convention would basically put the entire constitution up for grabs. They can make any changes they want and force it to the states as a 'package'.

Can you imagine a consitution written by the current Senate and House leadershit? Ried? Murtha? Queen Nancy? Even the Repubs would make a mess out of things.

And yes I mean both parties.

Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-06-26 00:54

#2 Usually each justice gets to write at least one opinion. Scalia is the only one to not do so yet. IF Scalia is writing the Heller opinion, then it will be a good result.

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-26 00:51

#1 An oligarchy will not be accepted to run this country. Period. Even Ruth 'Buzzy' Ginsberg isn't stupid enough to think it can, regardless of Kennedy's mutterings about international law. I expect DC v Heller to be 6-3 for individual gun rights. It will be an extra hot 4th if not.

Posted by: Muggsy Gling 2008-06-26 00:43

00:00