| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Will the USSC strike down the DC gun ban?
The USSC will soon be deciding the fate of the DC gun ban in a ruling that will be historic no matter the outcome:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.
But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state’s right to maintain a “well-regulated militia,” not to give gun rights to individuals.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. “In my view, there is a general right to bear arms” that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.
Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to “keep and bear arms.” But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.
Justice Antonin Scalia, like Kennedy, described the 2nd Amendment as protecting individual guns. Justice Clarence Thomas is likely to join with them. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they believed the city council in Washington, D.C., went too far by prohibiting homeowners from having handguns.
“Why is that a reasonable regulation?” Roberts asked the lawyer defending the city’s law.
Walter Dellinger, arguing for the city, said the framers of the Constitution were concerned about protecting the right of the people to defend the state or the community. The 2nd Amendment creates “a right to participate in the common defense,” he said.
The amendment says: “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.”
Dellinger also argued that the phrase “bear arms” was a military term. He said the Washington law should be upheld because it allows homeowners to have a disassembled rifle or shotgun at home, even while it bans small handguns.
It was clear several justices agreed with this view.
Bob Leibowitz predicts a 6-3 ruling overturning the ban. SCOTUSblog has links galore on the case (District of Columbia v. Heller), as does Jonathan Adler at NRO’s Bench Memos. The legal eagles at The Volokh Conspiracy are weighing in with their opinions as well.
A decision isn’t expected until June.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
9 Responses to “Will the USSC strike down the DC gun ban?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Hmmm…
We have an individual Right to keep and bear arms. We are the Militia, “Regulated” in the day meant equipped with firearms and ammunition, and ready to meet any threat to one’s home or community, even if it’s a tyrannical government. I’m sure that more than four of the Justices are packing under those robes!
Decision not due till June? Say, if an innocent citizen gets murdered in trhe meantime, can his widow sue the city, if the court rules against D.C.(that they prevented him from carrying protection.)Just dreaming I know -but until individuals (Polititians) who deprive citzens of their basic rights suffer personally, there is absolutely no incentive for them to stop.
USSC? Sounds like they should be regulating men’s basketball! Personally, I prefer SCOTUS, which is similar to the acronym used for the President of the US (POTUS), and has the added advantage of sounding slightly dirty!
Don’t get your hopes up on this one, folks. There’s some scuttlebutt that the Justices may find that yes, teh Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but have such subject only to ordinary scrutiny. Were it subject to strict scrutiny, then the government would have to show a narrowly-tailored compelling government interest to restrict the right; if subject to ordinary scrutiny, no such test is required, and the government pretty much gets its way. the Supremes may very well affirm a right that can’t be protected in a court of law.
The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not group rights. Go read it. You won’t find any collective rights, only rights of people.
Freedom of religion and speech, the right to be safe from unreasonable searches, protection against self-incrimination – all of these are rights for every citizen, not of groups. No one in their right mind would suggest that the right to free speech is only for specific groups, not for every American.
The second amendment is no different. The argument that you only get to bear arms if you’re in the military or the national guard or whatever the anti-gun crowd is designating this week as a “militia” is frivolous. The right to bear arms is just like the right to free speech – it belongs to the individual citizen.
The Well regulation of the militia only applies to the regulation (by the states and the peoples) of the institution of the militia. That is to say the calling up or orders to stand down (typically from the governor). Well regulation in no manner implies the regulation of the tools (i.e weapons) used by the militia.
Sorry CHOW, but I think GWR has you beat. The Bill of Rights covers individual rights, plain and simple. I’m not sure what is so difficult about that to understand.
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
That’s pretty straightforward, not much gray area there and it certainly seems to be talking about the “tools”.
NC Cop, the antis have to argue that “the people” does not mean the people, that “right” does not mean a right, and that “keep and bear arms” does not mean keep and bear arms. It’s a breathtaking display of bare faced lying, and destroys any possibility of any of them arguing in good faith.
In a way, the Second Amendment argument distills the entire leftist mindset, that words mean only what it is convenient for them to mean, at that particular time the issue is under discussion.
Finally, I have never read or heard an anti explain why he or she is so terrified of an armed citizenry. There may be some good explanations, even if I cannot conceive of them. It is, I suppose, possible that a desire to disarm the people is not linked to totalitarian impulses. However I can’t imagine any scenario which would end well for individual freedom were we to cede the federal and state governments a monopoly on deadly force. All power is subject to abuse, and it is inevitable that power will always, eventually be abused. I don’t have enough faith in our leftist friends’ good intentions, honesty and integrity not to fear their demands for absolute power.
Go trawl through DU or Kos, and tell me that some of those people would not march us into camps if they could. Tally up the death toll from revolutions by the people with the best of intentions, and tell me I don’t have to be suspicious of the utopians.
No group gets absolute power over all of us, and a free and armed citizenry is an obvious safeguard against that ever happening.