BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

People seem to be reading this but not reccing it. Hmmmm... ;)

Via The Washington Post, the AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has struck down Washington DC's three decade-old handgun ban.

Details are still rolling in and will be posted here or at my blog as I get them. They're reporting a 5-4 decision (shocker!), and I'm guessing Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.

Update 1: Just in, the decision was written by Justice Antonin "Fuck You" Scalia. Apparently the Second Amendment trumps everything else. No surprise there.

Update 2: I win! Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas joined Scalia on the opinion. But that was too easy.

Update 3: Transcript (PDF) or oral arguments from the case. (via DKos' AdamB)

Update 4: The opinion (PDF) is now available. From SCOTUSblog:

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun. While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision’s nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws — an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly. Even so, the opinion made it clear that, whatever ultimate test emerge, it probably would be a tough one to meet, at least when self-defense is at issue. As Justice Scalia put it, whatever remains for “future evaluation” about the strength of the right, “it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Update 5: Justice Kennedy's reasoning behind voting to strike down the gun ban: BEARS!

But who knew that a case testing the scope of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" would smoke out a secret side of Justice Anthony Kennedy? A side so intensely protective of his right to self-defense that he makes—as I count—four separate references to some mythical "remote settler" who—at the time of the framing of the Constitution—would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies."



Display:


Good. (1.92 / 14)

You should have the right to carry handguns in DC.  I'm happy about this decision.


Ornithological Vaccinations and Aviary Heuristics
by OVAH on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST

Uprated for TR abuse (2.00 / 6)


by parahammer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 6)

Uprated for abuse.

whothere, TRs are not for comments you disagree with.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (1.90 / 11)

I agree with this decision (or at least the gist they've provided.  I will read it over the weekend).  Regulating firearms is fine, imo, but banning them (or simple categories of them) requires significantly greater justification than they DC Ban provided.

I say this as someone who does not own a gun and intends to keep it that way.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37:56 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 4)

Um, how the fuck did I earn a TR by saying the above?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Uprated.  Looks like a sockpuppet run amok.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 3)

Uprated for abuse.

whothere, TRs are not for comments you disagree with.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 2)

Because it was OBVIOUSLY a troll comment... how dare you agree with the ruling. (/SNARK)  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 2)

Ok not overjoyed with this ruling however not all that surprised. What concerns me and I guess I don't get how a trigger lock requirement violates the second amendment. Somebody with a better understanding of constitutional law will have to explain it to me.

DC can still deny a lic. to have one. The ban did nothing nor could it from someone having an illegal handgun and lets face it these are the real problem when it comes to crime.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 2)

NOW THAT I agree with.  I don't know why the trigger lock was struck down.  THAT is where the 5 threw constitutionality out the window andacted as judicial activists.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

horrible awful murderous decision (2.00 / 1)

Think of how many more guns in DC there will be. The court just killed many many people.


by whothere on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:41:31 AM EST

Um (2.00 / 1)

There are guns in DC right now.


by parahammer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: horrible awful murderous decision (2.00 / 2)

Um, dude.  Seriously.  Dude.  You don't blame the Supreme Court for honestly interpretting the Constitution.  You blame the people who kill the other people.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:47:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll see how honest it is (2.00 / 1)

if the militia clause is ignored or the self-defense argument is invoked.


by JJE on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see how honest it is (2.00 / 1)

I've never really bought the argument that the 2nd Amendment should be considered through that lens primarily.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment may be the worst in the entirety of the Constitution (Amendments included).  People can honestly disagree as to what the hell it says.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see how honest it is (none / 0)

I am not sure how.  

People can honestly disagree about what it should say but it is pretty clear what it actually does say.  Your right to bear arms is directly related to the ability of the gov't to raise a militia.   Strict constructionalist Scalia basically added a few sentences to the 2nd Amendment that were not there.  He could have found a ninth amendment right to defend yourself and ruled the DC ban unconstitutional but instead he choose to tie it all into the second amendment.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see how honest it is (none / 0)

And there are many constitutional scholars who agree and many who think you are wrong.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see how honest it is (2.00 / 2)

Sure, it's weird and vague and perhaps distorted from the original intent. But considering the right to privacy only exists in the "penumbra" of other more clearly delineated rights, I'm not one to dig in my heels about interpreting other rights.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see how honest it is (2.00 / 1)

Which is why there should be a stated right to privacy added to the constitution.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll see how honest it is (2.00 / 1)

There is nothing about self-defense or hunting in the 2nd Amendment.  Scalia & Co. should have invoked the ninth amendment and stated that you have a right to hunt and defend yourself by using a firearm.  The DC ban infringed upon those rights.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But (2.00 / 2)

The DC ban allowed for the ownership of rifles and shotguns, just not handguns. The ban did NOT infringe upon a citizens 2nd Amendment OR 9th Amendment rights. Citizens COULD bear arms. The ban controlled certain types of guns.

I'm pretty shocked and depressed by both the SC ruling AND by Democrats defending it?

I hope Obama makes a statement about this. he HAS come out strongly in the past in favor of cities' rights to ban certain types of arms to reduce violence, crime and the murder rate.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But (2.00 / 1)

Respectfully, I hope you understand that there are Democrats who do not support strict gun control and they are neither evil nor Republicans for that opinion.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The DC law wasn't that strict though? (none / 0)

It did still allow for gun ownership? It allowed for both the self-defense and the recreational ownership of certain types of guns and banned others.

I never said anyone was evil OR Republican?

I guess I would hope that ALL Democrats would support gun regulation where it makes sense to lower crime rates / murder rates?


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DC law wasn't that strict though? (none / 0)

That's even worse though.  What gives the government the right to tell someone what they can keep in their house in their own private space?  If its in the house, the government shouldn't have the right to regulate.  Once it comes OUT of the house, THEN they have the right.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:48:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you about the DC ban not infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights.  The 9th amendment is another story however.  The DC ban said that rifles and shotguns had to be disassembled.  A disassembled rifle isn't much good as a weapon of self-defense.

 


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm no expert on the ban but (none / 0)

The wording I saw said that they must be registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled OR equipped with trigger locks.

I know nothing about guns... but common sense tells me that anyone with a gun SHOULD keep it unloaded and with a trigger lock? No?


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm no expert on the ban but (none / 0)

yes, you could throw the gun at your attacker.  


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm no expert on the ban but (2.00 / 1)

I am not firearm expert either, and I can't imagine I will ever have a gun in my home, but I don't live in a gang-infested neighborhood in DC.  If I did I might think the best way to defend myself and my family is to have have a loaded weapon readily available.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:23:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm no expert on the ban but (2.00 / 1)

of course the chances of accident with the gun killing someone in your home is far more likely than you using it for self defense.


by whothere on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm no expert on the ban but (2.00 / 1)

That may be true but it isn't a legal argument against gun ownership.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess we just have to agree to disagree (none / 0)

I can't even fathom writing what you wrote.

"the best way to defend myself and my family is to have have a loaded weapon readily available"

I do live in NYC... and I'd never in a million years keep a loaded, ready to go weapon anywhere near my family!


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess we just have to agree to disagree (2.00 / 1)

The role of the parent is very important, as with many problems in our society, parents unwillingness to be parents is a problem here, not a firearm used for self defense.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess we just have to agree to disagree (2.00 / 1)

That is your choice to make.  What does it have to do with the Constitution?


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Asking the question right back at you (none / 0)

What does requiring safety locks and that guns be unloaded have to do with the Constitution?

I'm not saying that people don't have the right to bear arms... but I'm saying that the Constitution doesn't imply that all of our rights should never be tempered or legislated upon? To me, requiring gun registration, background checks and certain obligations for responsible gun ownership are all absolutely appropriate.

For what it is worth, Obama HAS come out in favor of "common sense" laws to control guns in urban areas. He does seem to trust local governments to temper and regulate the right to bear arms as needed to serve and protect specific urban communities.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Asking the question right back at you (2.00 / 1)

This case was strictly dealing with handguns.  I don't know if you have ever been robbed, but you don't stand back to back with the criminal and take 10 paces. I understand that for hunting rifles etc., but not for handguns.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So (none / 0)

You basically seem to be of the opinion that it is 100% OK for everyone to be wandering around urban areas with a loaded, unlocked handgun just in case they are robbed?

And yes, I've been mugged once and viciously attacked by a Rottweiler once here in NYC. My apartment has been robbed and I've had 2 cars stolen. I know all about urban crime.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (2.00 / 1)

Everyone, no, that is silly.  People that get a license and can legally own a gun should be allowed to have it.  Most urban areas don't have concealed weapon laws so they cant just "wander around" anyway.  Law abiding citizens should be able to be armed to the limits of the law.  


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Asking the question right back at you (none / 0)

What does requiring safety locks and that guns be unloaded have to do with the Constitution?

The gov't is regulating how you are legally allowed to defend yourself.  The SCOTUS ruled that those types of restrictions infringe upon your right to defend yourself.  

You seem to be looking for absolutes here but there aren't any.  Keeping a loaded weapon, without a trigger lock, in your home is a bad idea 99% of the time.  1% of the time it may be a reasonable risk to take.  The SCOTUS has ruled that an individual has the right to chose for himself when it is or is not a good idea to have a loaded, unlocked handgun in your home.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But (none / 0)

"The ban did NOT infringe upon a citizens 2nd Amendment OR 9th Amendment rights. Citizens COULD bear arms."

By that logic, allowing anyone to own a trebuchet (but no other type of arm) satisfies Amendment II.


by Collideascope on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Ninth Amendment? (none / 0)

The 9th is hopelessly vague and is the bastard stepchild of the Constitution.

Also, the 9th reserves rights to "the states" and "the people".  Rights reserved to "the states" imply that the states (or DC) can do what they want without Federal interference.  And rights reserve to "the people" mirrors the wording of the militia clause in the 2nd amendment and supports a collective right.  The 9th Amendment would not be a sound basis for striking down the DC gun ban.


by JJE on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: horrible awful murderous decision (none / 0)

Most murders are with non registered guns, this ruling will have no effect on most crimes one way or another.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: horrible awful murderous decision (2.00 / 1)

I think that is  rather large assumption.
This from Reason:

Nor is it clear that the firearm death rate--which includes suicides and accidents as well as homicides but excludes deaths caused by other means--is the correct way to measure the success of a policy (gun control) that presumably aims to achieve a net reduction in deaths, not merely a change in the mixture of methods. Nine out of the 10 states with the lowest overall murder rates--Vermont, Iowa, Utah, Montana, Maine, Wyoming, Hawaii, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Hampshire--have relatively loose gun rules. States with relatively strict gun control do look better in the overall suicide rankings. Presumably suicide is the reason why a state like Montana, which ranks near the top in gun ownership, 44th for murder, and first for suicide, comes in third on the VPC's list of states with the highest gun death rates.

Read entire post here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126342.h tml


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: horrible awful murderous decision (none / 0)

Murder is not suicide.  I stand by my original statement.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And the Millionaire's Amendment. (none / 0)


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:50:29 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Good ruling.


by Bobby Obama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

Ben Smith brought up a super interesting point. Might this ruling actually take the gun issue off the table? It would be remarkably difficult for a President to do anything to take away guns with a Supreme Court ruling like this.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

Not in a million years. Who knows what kind of bills the NRA will push now that the supreme court has made up a right. You can bring guns to schools, the white house, congress, churches anywhere you want because you have right to a gun.


by whothere on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Calm down.  You have no basis for any of that.  Making it illegal to outlaw an individuals right to own a gun seems no different then what has been practiced for the last 100 years.  This was the right call.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

You have absolutely no idea, do you?  Might wanna try, oh I don't know, reading the effing opinion before you formulate your own?

That's not what even Scalia said.  I don't think it was dicta either, though I have to read the opinion in its entirety to get there.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

glad we're keeping things in perspective here.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, and when Gay Marriage is legal, the next law is people marrying their pets?

Anyone married their beagle in CA yet?

This sounds like Republic hyperbole to me?

Besides, the NRA is not some multi-headed behemouth people make them out to be?

Yes, they can BLOCK a lot of legislation, but, you will not see them try to force through AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL the kind of thing you suggest?

"You can bring guns to schools, the white house..

The Whitehouse?

Yeah, I think the Secret Service is going to let people pack while touring the WH?

Jesus...


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:05:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ugh (none / 0)

scalia dont like it
balks at case law
borks his main dawg

scalia dont like it
fuck the case law
guys got chutzpah

- Scalia dont like it
Fordham Follies 2008
(to the tune of rock the casbah)


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

God help us.


by Democrat in Chicago on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:30:20 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

It seems like there is something that every group can live with in the opinion, which notes that certain restrictions are lawful.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Which is pretty much Obama's stated position.  He has said before (and its on his website) that as a Constitutional scholar he concludes that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, though that right is subject to "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions and regulations.

That's also my position and has been for years.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Stevens opens his dissent with the statement:  "But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

I'm still slogging through the decision, but I'm uneasy with it.  I don't see it as clear-cut as some seem to think it is.


by katpee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Should be interesting to see Obama's approach to this decision. Gun control was one of the pillars that supported the Democratic party and Bill Clinton's advantage among women, how Obama responds to this will give an indication of how important he thinks women are to his coalition.


by souvarine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST

I agree (none / 0)

Come on Obama... do the right thing. Make me like you, trust you, believe in you!


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Um, his support of women, or the lack of it, does not and should not inform his opinion as to what the Constitution says.  

I think I need to write a diary on this topic, frankly.  I keep seeing people inject policy arguments (how they think things should work) into Constitutional debates.  Policy is unbelievably important, but if we're debating what rights the Constitution affords us, policy is absolutely not the point.

What does the Constitution say?  What did the Framers mean when they said it?  

These are core issues that cut to the bone of our democracy.  The Constitution exists to limit the powers of government.  If the Constitution was meant to prevent this ban then whether or not women support it has nothing to do with whether or not the Supreme Court ruled correctly.

Senator Obama used to teach Constitutional law.  He gets this.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

Perhaps, but his reading of the Constitution will inform us of how well aligned he is with the way many women read it. It will also tell us if he interprets the Constitution the way the conservatives on the court do, or the way the liberal justices do.

Obama the State Senator reliably read the Constitution as allowing fairly expansive regulation of arms. The question is how does Obama the Presidential candidate read it.


by souvarine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

This is not a women issue, lets not add artificial divisions.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 4)

I frankly tire of the notion that there is, or should be, a "liberal" or "conservative" way to read the Constitution.  

When it comes to those questions I actually agree with the "conservative" approach to interpretation (generally, as I have some very strong exceptions) despite the fact that I disagree with conservatives on nearly every policy issue there could be.

I prefer the way that Chief Justice Rehnquist reasoned and analyzed to the way that Justice Breyer does.  I might agree with the policy goals Justice Breyer has (and I'm quite glad he's on the bench), but I don't like using policy as a prime factor.

Policy should be considered, yes, but in the margins of such core debates.  You have to start with the text.  You don't finish there, obviously (which is why I generally find Scalia's "scholarship" to be worse than even Thomas', as Scalia basically reads the text and is done), but the words themselves, followed by the intent (if you can figure it out) should be where you start.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.  There will be times we have to overrule obvious provisions.  However, there needs to be an overwhelming public agreement to do that, and frankly the amendment process is far superior.

My political temperment and my legal temperment are not identical.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

As the diarist points out it is easy to predict this court's splits. Maybe you would prefer that split described as a Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer reading versus a Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito reading? I am interested to see if Obama prefers the SSGB reading on this issue or the RSTA reading.

But more broadly I worry that Obama agrees with you, and that he will choose justices who do not push back against the conservative bent of the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. Your view of Rehnquist is probably where we part ways. Bill Rehnquist was a high-school friend of my father's, I had the privilege to meet him when he was elevated to Chief Justice at a memorial for my father. I have a lot of respect for the man, but I find his Supreme Court opinions atrocious. He relied far too much on word-play and carefully avoided addressing underlying issues, since his position on those issues was often antithetical to the meaning of the Constitution.


by souvarine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

You are right... but as much as R v W was basically a decision that came down to the government not interferring in people's personal lives and home, as did the decision overturning sodomy bans, this goes on those same lines... its in someone's home.  The government shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can have in your home.  Now, I do disagree about the strike down of the safety procedures... just not the ban in general.  I feel this way about drugs, Sex (as long as it is between consenting adults) medical history, etc.  Its not the government's place.  Now the moment the person brings the gun into PUBLIC, THEN I am fine with there being all sorts of rules.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

"But more broadly I worry that Obama agrees with you, and that he will choose justices who do not push back against the conservative bent of the Rehnquist and Roberts courts."

I couldn't disagree more.

What are you basing this in, your intense dislike for Obama, noted by your long posting history here?

Or some writing or emperical data, on Obama's judicial philosophy?

Do you KNOW anything about Obama's background at U of Chicago?

Based on his relationships at the Law School, his best confidants are guys like Cass Sunstien, more in the mold of Souter then Kennedy, CERTAINLY not Scalia or Alito?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunste in

Anyone interested in Obama's take on USSC rulings should search for the HuffPO endorsement by Cass of Obama, where he sites numerous conversations he has had with Barack on consitutional issues?

My take is just the opposite of yours, he will NOT go for Requentist types, but for guys like Cass.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

WOW... I'm shocked I'm going to say this but I agree with you.   I feel also that the intent of the Bill of Rights especially was to limit government interference on civil liberties.  If public opinion is STRONG enough, there is a way to change the constitution (I mean HELL they BANNED ALCOHOL BY AMENDMENT!).  I don't like that this strikes down the security stipulations as I feel that is irrelevant to the argument... the 2nd amendment say that you can bare arms, but doesn't say anything about laws governing the same manner of storage.  But the overall ban I think goes overboard... just like Abortion and Sex, I don't like the government getting involved in telling me what I can and can't do.  One of the reasons I was happy to see that idiotic Fois Gras ban in Chicago overturned and why I am against mandated smoking bans... If the citizens don't like smoking they won't go to the restaurant and the owner will lose business.  Leave that kind of thing up to the owner.  And yes, as to the Fois Gras, I know there is the disputed argument on whether it hurts the bird (and there is much evidence on BOTH sides of that) but again, educate people on why they shouldn't eat it... passing a banning law is overstepping of governmental authority.

Sorry for the tangent, but good post.  A plus MOJO.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 2)

Other than overturning the DC ordinance, it's unclear how much the opinion actually changes the status quo.  You can argue for sensible restrictions on gun use/ownership today just as you could yesterday.  I'm sure he'll argue that communities should have the authority to develop sensible policies based on their experience, which is basically what he's maintained all along.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Exactly... This doesn't seem to over turn reasonable limitations just outright bans.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

Another urban myth...

There is NO overwhelming demographic shift that says women favor Gun control and men do not?

It's distributed, as are a lot of issues, along geographic lines more then anything else then in urban and very blue states.

Poll women in purple states, and you will get a different take on right to bear arms?

Obama should not change his stance on gun control one whit, based on this ruling?

Nor will he either condemn this opinion?

He should comment that the court has ruled, and he will study the opinion.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not necessarily. Gun control has been a very (2.00 / 1)

mixed bag for the Democratic party.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

kind of an answer (none / 0)

Obama's reaction (reported by Reaper0Bot0):

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

is pretty ambivalent. It appears to be an endorsement of Scalia's opinion, but I can't say that he is rejecting the Stevens or Breyer dissents. My take is that he is voting present on another issue important to women.


by souvarine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of an answer (none / 0)

It's the same position he's taken on the Constitution for ages.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of an answer (none / 0)

But not the same position he took on the DC gun ban, which, in the primaries, he supported and agreed was constitutional. In this statement he does not say that he agrees, with Scalia, that the DC ban is not constitutional, but neither does he does he repeat his prior position that the DC ban was constitutional.

So for me it is hard to divine any position at all in this statement.


by souvarine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of an answer (none / 0)

But not the same position he took on the DC gun ban, which, in the primaries, he supported and agreed was constitutional.

Whether or not Barack Obama thinks the law is constitutional was relevant in the primaries because the status of the law was up in the air. Now, it's irrelevant because the Supreme Court has struck down the law. Whether or not Obama agrees with the ruling, the ruling is how it is.


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kind of an answer (none / 0)

its not a women's issue.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

That was along time ago...  Sadly, that day is long past...  the NRA has taken over the discourse on this topic, and won over many "security moms".  gun control hasn't been an issue in over a decade, and probably won't be for a decade more... after this ruling results in hundreds of more people gunned down in the streets in cold blood....

I'm convinced now, that as of this ruling, that me or one of my family members will be shot at some point in our lives.  We live in a barbarous nation, don't we?


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 1)

I'm not quite as passionate about the issue as you are. I live in a big city, I have been shot at (the bullet only grazed me), and we own more than a handful of guns (though no handguns). I don't think this ruling will increase my chances of being shot again, given where I live.

This decision does make it more difficult to control  the flow of guns bought out of state. Which means that we will not be able to reduce my chances of being shot again. Or, for that matter, reduce the number of people who are shot in the crossfire here. Scalia's affirmation of an individual right makes it more difficult for the police here to hold a person for possessing a handgun.


by souvarine on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

Do people now realize how important to get in a democractic president?


by Makey on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

wat is obamas position on the ruling?


by gladiatorsback on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

I've long sympathized with DC's position, but felt that it wouldn't hold up constitutionally. Most importantly, I hope the ramifications of this ruling don't extend to assault weapon bans.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (2.00 / 2)

Its always been a tricky area. But facts are facts. And one important fact is that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with non-registered firearms.

I do not own a gun, nor do I have any interest in owning one. However, as a person who has always been extremely skeptical of our governments desire and ability to protect us, I've always supported the right to bear arms.

If you could somehow rid the world of guns, I'd be all for it. But as long as people are running around with unregistered firearms, then the responsible folks who want to protect themselves and their family should have a right to bear arms -with reasonable restrictions of course.

The real problem that needs to be addressed is the legal loopholes that make it possible to circumvent the background checks and registration process - e.g. buying guns at gun shows.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:57:15 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)


Getting Virginia to restrict how it sells guns would do a lot too.  That state "supplies" the whole Northeast with guns used in crimes.

Btw, it would be nice if you removed your abusive TRs of yesterday.


by killjoy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban (none / 0)

What are the VA laws regarding gun sales?

Not sure what you're referring to regarding "abusive TR's". If you're referring to my HR's on Juno, LatinoVoter and rankles, well, those aren't going anywhere. They're all well-deserved.

If you're referring to the TR I gave you 2 days ago, that was for saying "[Obama's] free to lie about being a liberal when he's not.", because that's a lie.

Obama has never said "I'm a liberal", and in fact has shunned the label when others try to apply it to him. Of course I'd prefer he say "I'm a liberal and proud of it" and then proceed to think exaclty as I do about the issues, but that's just not gonna happen. Which is probably a good thing, if we want him to win in November....

But I went ahead and removed the TR I gave you anyway....


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heavily tax & regulate ammo (2.00 / 1)

What good is a gun without ammo?

I read the 2nd amendment; it appears to be all about bearing arms, but it doesnt specifically mention or imply ammunition.

Why not control/regulate ammo?  just a thought.


by dcrolg on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.