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."

Tags: guns, Supreme Court, Washington DC (all tags)

Comments

84 Comments

Good.

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

by OVAH 2008-06-26 06:34AM | 0 recs
Uprated for TR abuse

by parahammer 2008-06-26 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Good.

Uprated for abuse.

whothere, TRs are not for comments you disagree with.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-26 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-26 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

Uprated.  Looks like a sockpuppet run amok.

by fogiv 2008-06-26 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

Uprated for abuse.

whothere, TRs are not for comments you disagree with.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-26 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by jsfox 2008-06-26 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:53AM | 0 recs
horrible awful murderous decision

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

by whothere 2008-06-26 06:41AM | 0 recs
Um

There are guns in DC right now.

by parahammer 2008-06-26 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: horrible awful murderous decision

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 2008-06-26 06:47AM | 0 recs
We'll see how honest it is

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

by JJE 2008-06-26 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll see how honest it is

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 2008-06-26 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll see how honest it is

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.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll see how honest it is

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

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll see how honest it is

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 2008-06-26 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll see how honest it is

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

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: We'll see how honest it is

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.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:00AM | 0 recs
But

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.

by twinmom 2008-06-26 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: But

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 2008-06-26 07:11AM | 0 recs
The DC law wasn't that strict though?

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?

by twinmom 2008-06-26 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The DC law wasn't that strict though?

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.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: But

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.

 

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
I'm no expert on the ban but

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?

by twinmom 2008-06-26 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm no expert on the ban but

yes, you could throw the gun at your attacker.  

by Brandon 2008-06-26 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm no expert on the ban but

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.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm no expert on the ban but

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 2008-06-26 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm no expert on the ban but

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

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:38AM | 0 recs
I guess we just have to agree to disagree

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!

by twinmom 2008-06-26 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess we just have to agree to disagree

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.

by Brandon 2008-06-26 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess we just have to agree to disagree

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

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:38AM | 0 recs
Asking the question right back at you

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.

by twinmom 2008-06-26 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Asking the question right back at you

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.

by Brandon 2008-06-26 07:53AM | 0 recs
So

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.

by twinmom 2008-06-26 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: So

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.  

by Brandon 2008-06-26 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Asking the question right back at you

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.

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-26 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: But

"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 2008-06-26 09:48AM | 0 recs
The Ninth Amendment?

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 2008-06-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: horrible awful murderous decision

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

by Brandon 2008-06-26 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: horrible awful murderous decision

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

by jsfox 2008-06-26 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: horrible awful murderous decision

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

by Brandon 2008-06-26 07:00AM | 0 recs
And the Millionaire's Amendment.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-26 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

Good ruling.

by Bobby Obama 2008-06-26 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by vcalzone 2008-06-26 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by Brandon 2008-06-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

glad we're keeping things in perspective here.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-26 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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...

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-26 08:05AM | 0 recs
ugh

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)

by sepulvedaj3 2008-06-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

God help us.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-26 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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

by rfahey22 2008-06-26 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 07:46AM | 0 recs
I agree

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

by twinmom 2008-06-26 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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

by Brandon 2008-06-26 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

"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.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-26 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by WashStateBlue 2008-06-26 08:10AM | 0 recs
Not necessarily. Gun control has been a very

mixed bag for the Democratic party.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-26 08:55AM | 0 recs
kind of an answer

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 2008-06-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: kind of an answer

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

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: kind of an answer

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 2008-06-26 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: kind of an answer

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.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: kind of an answer

its not a women's issue.

by Brandon 2008-06-26 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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?

by LordMike 2008-06-26 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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 2008-06-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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

by Makey 2008-06-26 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

wat is obamas position on the ruling?

by gladiatorsback 2008-06-26 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by X Stryker 2008-06-26 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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.

by John in Chicago 2008-06-26 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban


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 2008-06-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Court Overturns DC Gun Ban

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....

by John in Chicago 2008-06-26 10:21AM | 0 recs
Heavily tax & regulate ammo

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 2008-06-26 09:01AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads