• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Almost as fun as hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Shock troops for the Unitarian Jihad.

We still have time to mess this up!

Usually wrong but never in doubt.

Verified, but limited!

An army of rabid, anonymous commenters

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Militantly superior in their own minds…

Gastritis Broke My Calculator

Good luck with your asparagus.

We have all the best words.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Women: They Get Shit Done

Yes we did.

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

Mission Accomplished!

The Math Demands It!

This is a big f—–g deal.

Screw the Judean People’s Front. Splitters.

All your base are belong to Tunch.

We can agree to disagree, but I’m right.

Mobile Menu

  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • Pet Photos by 12/13
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • Pet Blogging
  • On The Road
  • Garden Chats
  • Pet Photos by 12/13
You are here: Home / Politics / The NRA’s Roe

The NRA’s Roe

by John Cole|  June 26, 200810:28 am| 112 Comments

This post is in: Politics

Facebook0Tweet0Email0

DC v. Heller is out:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation’s capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington’s ban violated the right to “keep and bear arms” by preventing individuals — as opposed to state militias — from having guns in their homes.

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem,” Scalia wrote. “That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

I guess the way I am reading this ruling is that it is akin to Roe v. Wade for gun rights, essentially. The right to own a gun is reaffirmed, and what remains now for gun control advocates will consist of nipping around the margins much like the “reasonable restrictions” on abortion. Is that way off base, or would a comparison to the PA abortion decision (Casey?)a few years ago be a better fit?

At any rate, Kennedy was once again the swing vote, and it seems to me that anyone who thinks this is the Chief Justice Roberts’s Supreme Court is sadly mistaken. This is the Kennedy court, because he is the only one that matters.

Previous Post: « Things I Do Not Understand
Next Post: Elitist Revisited »

Reader Interactions

112Comments

  1. 1.

    gopher2b

    June 26, 2008 at 10:33 am

    There is a lot decide on this topic (after a very quick read of the decision). First, whether the 2nd Amendment protects a right to literally bear (carry) arms (conceal and carry). Second, whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the the states. Heller only protect a federal right to bear arms and doesn’t speak to whether state or city governments can prohibit (ie Chicago has a handgun ban)

  2. 2.

    Incertus

    June 26, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Just from what I’ve read in bits and pieces, it sounds like a good decision in the sense that the personal right is affirmed, but the states are still given significant remedies to control who can own a gun and where they can be carried. I’m pretty sure it didn’t go as far as the NRA wanted it to.

    My real question is whether this will preclude federal regulation. I doubt it, just like Roe didn’t (despite all the dishonest arguments about returning abortion to the states).

  3. 3.

    nightjar

    June 26, 2008 at 10:36 am

    The right to own a gun is reaffirmed

    Actually it is a monumental decision as the first time the Supremes have ruled on the basic question of a right for an individual to own a gun versus the “militia” standard in the Constitution. From what I’ve heard about it so far, is that it leaves intact much of the other restrictions different states and cities have imposed, such as concealed carry laws and such.

    It’s also a decision I agree with wholeheartedly. Guess I’ll get flamed for that. Oh well.

  4. 4.

    whiskeyjuvenile

    June 26, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Kennedy wasn’t the swing vote; he was the strongest pro-Heller justice at oral argument.

    Heller also strongly hints that the right discussed should be incorporated to the states.

  5. 5.

    Martin

    June 26, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Sounds about right.

    States have a limited ability to restrict abortions. This seems to reaffirm that states have a similar limited ability to restrict firearms.

    Throwing out the trigger lock restriction is the only part that really bothers me. I’m not one to blame homicides on the guns, but I could do with less of this type of news.

  6. 6.

    John Cole

    June 26, 2008 at 10:38 am

    It’s also a decision I agree with wholeheartedly. Guess I’ll get flamed for that. Oh well.

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bush.

  7. 7.

    El Cid

    June 26, 2008 at 10:41 am

    We will never truly be safe until all adult Americans are required to openly carry loaded handguns at all times.

  8. 8.

    Shey

    June 26, 2008 at 10:42 am

    Not just Bush, the entire republican crime syndicate and their insane policy decisions of the last eight years.

  9. 9.

    Brachiator

    June 26, 2008 at 10:43 am

    At any rate, Kennedy was once again the swing vote, and it seems to me that anyone who thinks this is the Chief Justice Roberts’s Supreme Court is sadly mistaken. This is the Kennedy court, because he is the only one that matters.

    Great point. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on the recent habeas corpus case, and his vote in this case was obviously critical. However, the full decision has not yet been posted at the first news sites I viewed, but I find this bit from the NYT story very interesting:

    Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens differed on the clarity (or lack thereof) of the Second Amendment. “The amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second clause,” wrote Justice Scalia. “The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

    Not at all, Justice Stevens countered, asserting that the majority “stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the amendment’s text.” Justice Stevens read his dissent from the bench, an unmistakable signal that he deeply disagreed with the majority.

    In cases where the conservative majority carries the day, interested folks should check the dissents, especially those by Souter, who has taken on the role of challenging Scalia’s self-appointed authority as the interpretive mack daddy of the Supreme Court.

  10. 10.

    NR

    June 26, 2008 at 10:44 am

    “Gun control means you control your gun and I’ll control mine.” Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)

  11. 11.

    Davis X. Machina

    June 26, 2008 at 10:44 am

    …but the states are still given significant remedies to control who can own a gun and where they can be carried.

    Depends on the extent to which the new right is found to be “of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty”.

    If it is, exercise of that right becomes essentially un-regulatable.

    Nice to know that 180-some years after Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner, we’ll be paying the price for the specter of servile rebellion that hung over the young Republic for the indefinite future.

  12. 12.

    nightjar

    June 26, 2008 at 10:44 am

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bus

    Relief. Democrats with guns is teh awesome!

  13. 13.

    Crusty Dem

    June 26, 2008 at 10:47 am

    I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’ve always found the reasoning for this:

    “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.”

    equaling no limits on guns to be a bit difficult to parse. Of course, the verbage of this amendment is just terrible.

    In any case, we won’t be hearing any more complaints from the right about “activists courts”, right? RIGHT???

  14. 14.

    greynoldsct00

    June 26, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Not just Bush, the entire republican crime syndicate and their insane policy decisions of the last eight years

    Just thinking about them makes me want to lock and load…

  15. 15.

    Zifnab

    June 26, 2008 at 10:49 am

    This really doesn’t surprise or bother me. Yeah, guns are bad m’kay, but there’s no way the SCOTUS was going to get down into the nitty-gritty of establishing what a 21st century militia is supposed to look like.

    It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that the 2nd Amendment was included because the Founding Fathers recognized that if a country’s citizens were going to need to pick up arms and fight off an oppressive government once, they’d likely have to do it again. Basically, it exists to allow for the possibility of armed revolt. And that doesn’t flow if you’ve got to be part of the US Army or the National Guard before you can pack heat.

    Of course, the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment long before the invention of the tank, the hand grenade, or the bullet proof vest. So its intended purpose is seriously outdated. But the SCOTUS’s job isn’t to fix that the founders left behind. We leave that clusterfucking up to Congress via Constitutional Amendments.

  16. 16.

    Punchy

    June 26, 2008 at 10:50 am

    This is the Kennedy court, because he is the only one that matters.

    Damn you. You took my sound bite. As I’ve bitched before, why even try this in front of 9 justices? Why not put all 8 on indefinite vacation, and just have Kennedy adjudicate? After all, we all know the Scalia Cabal will mail it in, and it’s looking more like the progs will do likewise.

  17. 17.

    lutton

    June 26, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Don’t forget about Shooting Liberally

    Billed as a program “for the First Amendment enthusiast ready to move on to the Second,” Shooting Liberally is arming progressives with a new hobby…or rather, recognizing a hobby many of us already have. While the New York outing will bring mostly newcomers to Manhattan’s only gun range, the gatherings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Denver, Colorado, will feature a mix of gun-owners, experienced hunters and relative rookies. (Contact info for all the local organizers is on the temporary Shooting Liberally site — if tonight goes well, these events will become more frequent.)

  18. 18.

    RSA

    June 26, 2008 at 10:51 am

    I’m pretty sure it didn’t go as far as the NRA wanted it to.

    I agree; from here,
    a few summaries and quotes:

    But Scalia says in today’s 5-4 opinion tossing out Washington’s gun ban that the idea of licensing handgun possession is fine and that the District is free to have such a regulatory scheme.

    So licensing and regulation are still on the table. Here’s something I don’t get, though. Scalia:

    “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

    First, as an originalist, Scalia seems to be ignoring the idea of the Second Amendment making it possible for the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government. Second, his exception seems a bit circular to me–law-abiding citizens using guns for lawful purposes? He’s one of the people deciding what “law-abiding” and “lawful” mean!

  19. 19.

    Crust

    June 26, 2008 at 10:53 am

    OT, but check out tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/yoo_we_dont_make_claims_of_inf.php“>Yoo‘s testimony:

    I don’t think I’ve ever given advice that the President could order someone buried alive…

    He doesn’t think so, but apparently he isn’t quite sure. I guess he can’t rule out that maybe he did just give such advice, but forgot about it. It isn’t the sort of thing one would necessarily remember. Yet even Yoo thinks Bush is arguably deserving of impeachment. (I actually disagree with him on what are valid grounds. He thinks screwing up a war is grounds for impeachment, I disagree. I think Bush deserves impeachment based on FISA violations, torture and a raft of other things Yoo was involved with.)

  20. 20.

    Incertus

    June 26, 2008 at 10:53 am

    Relief. Democrats with guns is teh awesome!

    It’s a myth that Democrats are all pro-gun-control. The NRA and their friends make it a big deal because they need to keep the money coming in, but on the national level, the attitude has been for quite some time that local areas are far better suited to decide gun law than the federal government is.

  21. 21.

    KCinDC

    June 26, 2008 at 10:53 am

    equaling no limits on guns

    This decision isn’t close to “no limits on guns” as far as I can tell so far.

  22. 22.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    June 26, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Guess I’ll get flamed for that.

    You’ll pry my gun rights from my cold dead constitution.

  23. 23.

    gopher2b

    June 26, 2008 at 10:56 am

    “The bill has changed. So I don’t think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.”

    Ask the Iraq insurgency if its seriously outdated.

  24. 24.

    cleek

    June 26, 2008 at 10:56 am

    equaling no limits on guns to be a bit difficult to parse. Of course, the verbage of this amendment is just terrible.

    and that’s why the first 15 pages or so of the decision are spent parsing that one sentence.

  25. 25.

    furrythug

    June 26, 2008 at 10:56 am

    The Roe analog is apt in at least one respect… Scalia seems to divine a core right of “self defense” that’s not contained in the text of the Second Amendment.

    Just saying, you know, penumbras and all that.

  26. 26.

    gopher2b

    June 26, 2008 at 10:57 am

    D’oh! Wrong quote….same point.

    Of course, the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment long before the invention of the tank, the hand grenade, or the bullet proof vest. So its intended purpose is seriously outdated. But the SCOTUS’s job isn’t to fix that the founders left behind. We leave that clusterfucking up to Congress via Constitutional Amendments.

  27. 27.

    cleek

    June 26, 2008 at 10:58 am

    I think Bush deserves impeachment based on FISA violations, torture and a raft of other things Yoo was involved with.

    fuck Yoo

  28. 28.

    Cris

    June 26, 2008 at 10:58 am

    the “militia” standard in the Constitution

    I think that clause was one of the few serious lapses in judgment in the entire Bill of Rights. In my opinion, it’s an independent clause; the amendment only needs to say “The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why attempt to justify it? It has only served to open the door for infringement.

    Imagine if the first amendment started with “A vigorous intellectual discourse being necessary to the life of a Republic…” Free speech opponents would constantly lean on that clause to justify limiting any speech that doesn’t meet the requirement of the clause.

  29. 29.

    Don

    June 26, 2008 at 10:59 am

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bush.

    Actually, I don’t own any firearms, am a die-hard Massachusetts liberal (regardless of Bush) and I think this is a sensible decision. Liberals are not anti-gun, that’s really a myth. Now, some of us may be more gun-control than others, but repeal of the second amendment is a viewpoint that you’ll find only in the fever swamps. In a mainstream lefty site like Daily Kos, for example, you’ll find debate, but considerable support of this decision.

    So John, I don’t think this is the NRA’s Roe, because it’s not something that’s going to get liberals incensed. It’s not a right that, by and large, we’re interested in taking away. Unlike Roe, which is under continual assault from the right, Heller is not going to be a bete-noir of the left. It just isn’t.

  30. 30.

    scott

    June 26, 2008 at 10:59 am

    When will I be able to carry an open and loaded RPG-7?

    And if Toobin’s recent book on the Soopremes is to be believed, Kennedy is loving every minute of this. He’ll stay on the court for as long as he can since the overall dynamic of the voting block(s) won’t change in the near term

  31. 31.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    June 26, 2008 at 10:59 am

    and it’s looking more like the progs will do likewise

    To suggest Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens are progressives is really a testament to how far right we’ve moved in the last thirty years.

  32. 32.

    Incertus

    June 26, 2008 at 11:00 am

    and that’s why the first 15 pages or so of the decision are spent parsing that one sentence.

    And why we’ll be arguing about this for as long as that Amendment exists. After all, this decision overturns a couple of centuries of judicial findings, as far as I can tell.

    I’d be all in favor of calling a constitutional convention just to hash out that mess of an amendment. I’m not even all that worried about how it turns out–I just want the fucker to be clear.

  33. 33.

    Davis X. Machina

    June 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Dahlia Lithwick, for Slate

    I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today’s decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.)

  34. 34.

    ET

    June 26, 2008 at 11:02 am

    As a DC resident I don’t like the decision but I do think it was the right one. This just means I will have to worry about my idiot neighbors as much as I will the gang bangers and assorted trash who get their weapons in Virginia.

  35. 35.

    Crusty Dem

    June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

    KCinDC, I’m just referring to the general NRA mentality. I don’t really have any major issues with the ruling, but I think we could probably use a new amendment to nail down what we can and cannot restrict. There’s a whole continuum or “arms” here, from knives to muskets to shotguns and rifles to handguns to semi-automatic and automatic weapons to grenades and anti-tank missles to hydrogen bombs (I’m leaving some things out). No one (even the NRA) has claimed that we have a right to all of them…

  36. 36.

    Martin

    June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Scalia seems to be ignoring the idea of the Second Amendment making it possible for the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government

    I don’t think he is. I think he’s observing that it used to be possible back when the military was pouring their own powder, but that today there is no reasonable amount of firearms that we could equip the public with that would slow down, let alone stop a modern military.

    Anyone remember the jackoff that stole a tank down in San Diego a few years back? There was no stopping him by police until he got stuck on the median. And even then it was fuck-all hard for them to get the hatch open and shoot him. And that was the police – well armed, well equipped, and trained to work together.

  37. 37.

    The Moar You Know

    June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

    John Cole Says:

    It’s also a decision I agree with wholeheartedly. Guess I’ll get flamed for that. Oh well.

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bush.

    I am largely as left-wing as it’s possible to get – I don’t appear liberal, I am liberal – and a bone of contention between most of my leftist friends and I has been my unequivocal support of the “individual” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; a right I exercise fully.

    It’s a position that has earned me a lot of abuse from fellow lefties, and I’m sure that I’ll be getting some bitter emails today. To which I can only reply:

    SUCK IT BITCHES I WIN

  38. 38.

    Punchy

    June 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

    How Scalia can take such a literal, minimalist view of the 2nd, but feels free to re-interpret the 6th and 8th (and surely the 4th, if given the chance) when Scary Brown People make him go Code Brown is nearly criminal.

    Stunning that few people call this “Justice” out on such rank and transparent duplicity.

  39. 39.

    DUDACKATTACK!!!

    June 26, 2008 at 11:05 am

    It’s also a decision I agree with wholeheartedly. Guess I’ll get flamed for that. Oh well.

    On the contrary. My blood is Blue but I hate the idiotic handgun restrictions we have in Baltimore. How well has that worked out?
    I hope this ruling will shake things up in that respect.

  40. 40.

    Kirk

    June 26, 2008 at 11:06 am

    First the narrow, specific.

    Federal law (and thus DC due to it’s peculiar situation) cannot generally prohibit a person from maintaining a handgun within that person’s residence in a ready-to-use status.

    It is not considered a general prohibition to require licensing and registration in regard to that situation.

    On the other hand, federal law can restrict and deny ownership, possession, and/or use:
    – for felons and the mentally incompetent/insane;
    – of certain types of firearms (machine guns being the specific example)
    – in certain locations (schools and courts)
    – situationally (concealed).

    The decision strongly implied these would/should be applied to state and municipality laws, but because the case did not explicitly involve them no explicit statement was made.

    As a comment and expanding off the Kennedy remark… I took the tenor of Kennedy’s questions and discussion to mean while he was generally supportive of the individual interpretation, he’d resist entirely a decision that said something like:

    “unless individually denied for cause, anyone can carry any weapon anytime.” ie, the hard-side NRA position.

  41. 41.

    Don

    June 26, 2008 at 11:06 am

    When will I be able to carry an open and loaded RPG-7?

    Not soon. Scalia specifically gives the OK to regulation of “unusual” weaponry.

  42. 42.

    David Hunt

    June 26, 2008 at 11:07 am

    You’ll pry my gun rights from my cold dead constitution.

    You should be okay, then. Bush and Cheney buried the Constitution in an undisclosed location after they killed it. No one should be able to find to pry the rights from it.

    /snark

  43. 43.

    junkiebrewster

    June 26, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Don’t forget about Shooting Liberally

    I hope they combine this with Drinking Liberally!!!!

  44. 44.

    The Moar You Know

    June 26, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Imagine if the first amendment started with “A vigorous intellectual discourse being necessary to the life of a Republic…” Free speech opponents would constantly lean on that clause to justify limiting any speech that doesn’t meet the requirement of the clause.

    I laughed. With the clause “vigorous intellectual discourse” I could bring the entire MSM to a screeching halt.

  45. 45.

    Cris

    June 26, 2008 at 11:13 am

    I am largely as left-wing as it’s possible to get – I don’t appear liberal, I am liberal – and a bone of contention between most of my leftist friends and I has been my unequivocal support of the “individual” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; a right I exercise fully.

    I’m a little frustrated by how often the controversy is framed as a matter of personal practice. I don’t exercise the right, I’ve never fired a gun that didn’t say “Daisy” on the side, I don’t allow handguns inside my house. But I believe the 2nd amendment unequivocally and unambiguously confers an individual right. I recognize the benefits of gun control, but I believe it’s unconstitutional.

    Shorter me: you don’t have to be a gun owner to support gun rights.

  46. 46.

    The Moar You Know

    June 26, 2008 at 11:15 am

    Anyone remember the jackoff that stole a tank down in San Diego a few years back? There was no stopping him by police until he got stuck on the median. And even then it was fuck-all hard for them to get the hatch open and shoot him. And that was the police – well armed, well equipped, and trained to work together.

    You are right about him not getting stopped until he got stuck; you are wrong about the hatch. Watch the video; took the officer who opened it took about five seconds to do so. I’m sure it seemed like an eternity to that cop, though, sitting on a live tank with the engine revving.

    The cop who did so had been crew on that model of tank and knew how to handle it.

  47. 47.

    Gerald Curl

    June 26, 2008 at 11:15 am

    This opinion is shocking — it does not have one reference to Jack Bauer or something Sean Hannity said. Which one of Scalia’s clerks was asleep at the wheel?

  48. 48.

    MH

    June 26, 2008 at 11:19 am

    I used to be very anti-gun, but the Bush years have changed my mind. I’m now glad we have the 2nd amendment. Pardon the pun, but I half-suspect we may have dodged a real-live fascist bullet sometime back in 2003.

    I went shooting with my uncle this past xmas. Didn’t care for it, really – I found it rather dull. But I wanted to know a little about guns so that in case I ever needed to use one, I wouldn’t accidentally shoot myself. I consider it something of a national duty to at least KNOW how a gun works and how to safely use one. Knowledge is power and ignorance is dangerous.

  49. 49.

    liberal

    June 26, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Zifnab wrote,

    It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that the 2nd Amendment was included because the Founding Fathers recognized that if a country’s citizens were going to need to pick up arms and fight off an oppressive government once, they’d likely have to do it again. Basically, it exists to allow for the possibility of armed revolt. And that doesn’t flow if you’ve got to be part of the US Army or the National Guard before you can pack heat.

    Is that just intuition? It’s a question of historical fact; do you have cites? (Preferably outside the Glenn Reynolds/new 2nd Amendment interpretation crowd circlejerk.)

  50. 50.

    RSA

    June 26, 2008 at 11:21 am

    I think he’s observing that it used to be possible back when the military was pouring their own powder, but that today there is no reasonable amount of firearms that we could equip the public with that would slow down, let alone stop a modern military.

    Ah, thanks for that perspective; I hadn’t thought of it.

  51. 51.

    liberal

    June 26, 2008 at 11:21 am

    cris wrote,

    I recognize the benefits of gun control, but I believe it’s unconstitutional.

    Hmm…last I checked, the Amendment didn’t have strikes through the words “well-regulated”.

  52. 52.

    scott

    June 26, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Bush and Cheney buried the Constitution in an undisclosed location after they killed it. No one should be able to find to pry the rights from it.

    I have it on good authority that on Sep 12, 2001, the Deserter In Chief and Vice President Deferment walked over to the Archives building, had the Constituion and Bill of Rights taken out of their hermetically sealed mayonnaise jars, took a runny shit, then used the documents to wipe their asses. Then flushed them down the nearest toilet.

    I read that on the internets so it must be true.

    I still want my loaded RPG-7.

  53. 53.

    dr. bloor

    June 26, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Punchy Says:

    How Scalia can take such a literal, minimalist view of the 2nd, but feels free to re-interpret the 6th and 8th (and surely the 4th, if given the chance) when Scary Brown People make him go Code Brown is nearly criminal.

    Stunning that few people call this “Justice” out on such rank and transparent duplicity.

    Oh, it happens all the time; he just doesn’t give a fuck about what anybody else thinks in general or thinks of him specifically.

  54. 54.

    mymassivecock2xu

    June 26, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Crusty Dem Says:

    I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’ve always found the reasoning for this:

    “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.”

    equaling no limits on guns to be a bit difficult to parse. Of course, the verbage of this amendment is just terrible.

    In any case, we won’t be hearing any more complaints from the right about “activists courts”, right? RIGHT???

    Forgive me for any harshness, but anyone who thinks that the text of the second ammendment restricts the right to own weapons to only active members of the militia is not only not a constitutional scholar but knows nothing about military history either.

    Look at the actual schedule of militia training exercises from our founding at it is abundantly clear that they expected militia members to already be quite familiar with the use and maintenance of firearms before they ever joined. There is NO WAY at all that a person could be expected to start their firearms training upon joining the militia and be at all competent or effective with them if they ever had to fight. Training a few hours for 1 day a month is simply not enough to build a skill base. Its only enough to keep old skills from getting too rusty. Add on the fact that most militia training was focused on teaching people to maneuver and fight as a team – not to shoot their guns – then you see the absolute ignorance behind the idea that the authors of the second amendment expected firearms experience to be restricted to militia duty.

  55. 55.

    liberal

    June 26, 2008 at 11:24 am

    DUDACKATTACK wrote,

    My blood is Blue but I hate the idiotic handgun restrictions we have in Baltimore. How well has that worked out?

    Obviously no local gun-control regime has any hopes of succeeding.

  56. 56.

    Face

    June 26, 2008 at 11:25 am

    Scalia specifically gives the OK to regulation of “unusual” weaponry.

    Did he point to his pants when he said this?

  57. 57.

    scott

    June 26, 2008 at 11:26 am

    I hope they combine this with Drinking Liberally

    A couple of years back, the city of St Louis tried something like this. They wanted to get 20-something hipsters to relocate into the city proper so they figured they’d combine a drinking get-together with gun lessons and shooting. Figured it would make the usually-surburban white boyz and girlz feel “safer” when asked to move into a city their parents fled because of yunnowho who lives there.

    I don’t recall how that little program ended up.

  58. 58.

    Sloegin

    June 26, 2008 at 11:27 am

    Heller will be very similar to Roe in that *nothing* gets settled by it. Inherent ‘right to self defense’ shares many similarities to inherent ‘right to privacy’. Regardless of which way you swing on it, it’s sloppy legal reasoning being applied to an even sloppier original amendment.

    This thing is gonna be like a a big game of Pictionary, aka “fight in a box”. Expect Con Law battles for the rest of our lives. Roe’s only been maligned and challenged for 35 plus years now. Heller is gonna enjoy a similar run.

  59. 59.

    Martin

    June 26, 2008 at 11:27 am

    took the officer who opened it took about five seconds to do so.

    Ah, you’re right. It was hard to work out what was going on – and they spent a long time up there.

    I remember watching it happen. It was when chases started to become a recreational sport here in SoCal. First time I’ve seen the video since then.

    The cop who did so had been crew on that model of tank and knew how to handle it.

    Pretty fortunate, that.

  60. 60.

    rawshark

    June 26, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Incertus Says:

    Relief. Democrats with guns is teh awesome!

    It’s a myth that Democrats are all pro-gun-control.

    Its not a myth, it’s how the right works. They are pro-gun so if you’re not with them you must want the exact opposite, no guns on earth. Its the same with all issues.

  61. 61.

    dr. bloor

    June 26, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Face Says:

    Scalia specifically gives the OK to regulation of “unusual” weaponry.

    Did he point to his pants when he said this?

    And was he wearing a kilt at the time?

  62. 62.

    Martin

    June 26, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Did he point to his pants when he said this?

    Scalia doesn’t wear a kilt, you know.

  63. 63.

    scott

    June 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

    And was he wearing a kilt at the time?

    And did he have anything on underneath?

    Ut oh, that just raised a mental image I don’t think I wanted.

  64. 64.

    RSA

    June 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Oh, I forgot to comment on the post title:

    The NRA’s Roe

    I’m glad to see someone finally call out the NRA on being a bunch of effete, champagne-sipping caviar eaters.

  65. 65.

    ThymeZone

    June 26, 2008 at 11:37 am

    This is the Kennedy court, because he is the only one that matters.

    He’s the Deciderator?

  66. 66.

    Cris

    June 26, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Hmm…last I checked, the Amendment didn’t have strikes through the words “well-regulated”.

    See my earlier objection to the first clause. On the other hand, I will acknowledge that the presence of the clause does clarify the intent of the amendment, but the wording does not imply that the right to bear arms is allowable only for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.

    As Incertus and Crusty Dem and others have observed, the amendment is a grammatical trainwreck.

  67. 67.

    west coast

    June 26, 2008 at 11:40 am

    Civics 101: The Constitution limits the government, not the citizen.

    Anyone else find it entertaining that the 4 who got things right with regards to habeas got it wrong here, and vice-versa?

  68. 68.

    Tsulagi

    June 26, 2008 at 11:46 am

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bush.

    Yeah. During one of the Republican debates, the candidates were asked who among them owned guns. I was a little surprised that only three or four said they do. Of those, only one said he had two weapons. Had to laugh as I was thinking I can arm all of you tards and I’m supposed to now be the Dirty Fucking Hippie.

    You should see some of emails circulating around about Obama and 2nd Amendment. Pretty much like Obama is the greatest threat EVER, the stealth Muslim will take away your guns! Kinda doubt this SCOTUS decision will slow them down.

  69. 69.

    Nick

    June 26, 2008 at 11:49 am

    rawshark Says:

    Incertus Says:

    Relief. Democrats with guns is teh awesome!

    It’s a myth that Democrats are all pro-gun-control.

    Its not a myth, it’s how the right works. They are pro-gun so if you’re not with them you must want the exact opposite, no guns on earth. Its the same with all issues.

    And even then, the right, well, at least the President they seemed to worship, supported extending the Assault Weapon Ban…

    Saying the right is necessarily “pro-gun” is as bad as saying the left is “anti-gun”.

  70. 70.

    myiq2xu

    June 26, 2008 at 11:51 am

    BTD says the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias.

    I told him that as of today, that is not the law.

    Scalia said so.

  71. 71.

    myiq2xu

    June 26, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Yeah. During one of the Republican debates, the candidates were asked who among them owned guns. I was a little surprised that only three or four said they do. Of those, only one said he had two weapons. Had to laugh as I was thinking I can arm all of you tards and I’m supposed to now be the Dirty Fucking Hippie.

    I recall when Nancy Reagan said she had a nice “lady-like” pistol.

  72. 72.

    CFisher

    June 26, 2008 at 11:57 am

    Scalia seems to divine a core right of “self defense” that’s not contained in the text of the Second Amendment.

    Not that he used it, but the ninth amendment would apply, IMO.

  73. 73.

    Pasota

    June 26, 2008 at 11:58 am

    the states are still given significant remedies to control who can own a gun and where they can be carried. I’m pretty sure it didn’t go as far as the NRA wanted it to.

    I haven’t read the decision yet, but from what I’ve read about it, it may be significant setback for the NRA true believers.

    All the commentary focuses on Scalia’s upholding the right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense or hunting. The 2nd-Amendment fundamentalists, though, always emphasize the right to bear arms as a Constitutional check against government tyranny. Their big fear are the “gun grabbers” who want to register all guns as the first step toward confiscating them, and I haven’t seen anything about this decision prohibiting gun licensing and registration.

    Of course, that rationale for the 2nd Amendment would be hard to reconcile for the same party that says, if the government tells you to do something — even if it’s wrong — we should all agree it’s something you need to do. (Read: telecoms, if that was too obscure a reference.)

  74. 74.

    rawshark

    June 26, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Nick Says:

    rawshark Says:

    Incertus Says:

    Relief. Democrats with guns is teh awesome!

    It’s a myth that Democrats are all pro-gun-control.

    Its not a myth, it’s how the right works. They are pro-gun so if you’re not with them you must want the exact opposite, no guns on earth. Its the same with all issues.

    And even then, the right, well, at least the President they seemed to worship, supported extending the Assault Weapon Ban…

    Saying the right is necessarily “pro-gun” is as bad as saying the left is “anti-gun”.

    And they hated him for it. Just like they hated him for taking sides outside the family in the immigration amnesty plan.

  75. 75.

    redbeardjim

    June 26, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Original Intent! Everyone has the right to a muzzle-loading musket.

  76. 76.

    rawshark

    June 26, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Nick Says:

    rawshark Says:

    Incertus Says:

    Relief. Democrats with guns is teh awesome!

    It’s a myth that Democrats are all pro-gun-control.

    Its not a myth, it’s how the right works. They are pro-gun so if you’re not with them you must want the exact opposite, no guns on earth. Its the same with all issues.

    And even then, the right, well, at least the President they seemed to worship, supported extending the Assault Weapon Ban…

    Saying the right is necessarily “pro-gun” is as bad as saying the left is “anti-gun”.

    And they hated him for it. Just like they hated him for taking sides outside the family in the immigration amnesty plan.

  77. 77.

    eyelessgame

    June 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    My personal theory – which is worth what you pay for it – is that the reason the 2nd Amendment was phrased like it was was that the author intended (hoped?) it would be revisited if the justifying clause ever became obviously outdated.

    Suppose we had an amendment that read “A reliable supply of Wood being necessary to the Construction of a Seagoing Vessel, the right of the Navy to grow and harvest Trees shall not be infringed.” It would be clear from the text that the Navy has the right to grow and harvest trees, period. But it also seems to me that if we ever stopped making ships out of wood, we should write a new amendment dealing with the new reality — and that this would obviously be the intent of the author of the original.

    I agree that the 2nd Amendment clearly says that people have the right to bear arms, and as such the SC ruling was constitutionally correct. The Amendment also gives a justification that one may argue is no longer relevant. (One may argue it. I am not taking a position.)

    Of course, given the political power of the Naval Forestry Commission NRA, there won’t be any constitutional convention discussing any repeal or modification of the amendment.

    Note that just because the justification is outdated it does not follow that guns should not be constitutionally protected. Many people will argue that owning guns is a positive, vital, life-affirming, erection-enhancing activity, and that for one or more of those reasons it should have constitutional protection.

    The thing that seems clear is that (a) gun ownership has constitutional protection, and (b) the specific justification for its protection given in the constitution may be outdated.

  78. 78.

    lutton

    June 26, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    I hope they combine this with Drinking Liberally!

    That’s called New Years in Philly. :)

  79. 79.

    pharniel

    June 26, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    worst part of the assult weapons ban was that it was a protectionist bit of shit.

    sure, you couldn’t purchase an ak anymore, but the american made rip off? strangely not on the list..

    honestly, i’d like to see the government have to prove why anyone shouldn’t have access to a firearm, instead of now, where essentially various ‘poll tax with the serial numbers filed off’ are used to ‘regulate’ gun owner ship.

    but then i’d also like to see ‘right to self defense’ as an amendemnt to the constitution.

  80. 80.

    Doug H. (Fausto no more)

    June 26, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Ask the Iraq insurgency if its seriously outdated.

    You’ll pry my Improvised Explosive Device from my cold dead hands!

  81. 81.

    RSA

    June 26, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Suppose we had an amendment that read “A reliable supply of Wood being necessary to the Construction of a Seagoing Vessel, the right of the Navy to grow and harvest Trees shall not be infringed.” It would be clear from the text that the Navy has the right to grow and harvest trees, period. But it also seems to me that if we ever stopped making ships out of wood, we should write a new amendment dealing with the new reality—and that this would obviously be the intent of the author of the original.

    Actually, we have a real example in the Seventh Amendment:

    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  82. 82.

    Cris

    June 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Twenty dollars!

  83. 83.

    eyelessgame

    June 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    yah, that “twenty dollars” really sticks out like a sore thumb. (I’m not a constitutional scholar. Have we done anything about that? Or is it still $20 that requires a jury?)

  84. 84.

    Paul L.

    June 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    akin to Roe v. Wade for gun rights

    But it is not based on the “penumbra” of the Constitution.

    And even then, the right, well, at least the President they seemed to worship, supported extending the Assault Weapon Ban…

    Unlike the President who signed the Assault Weapon Ban that the left seemed to worship.
    …
    Until he criticized the Obamessiah.
    And if Bush is willing to sign a new Assault Weapon Ban, why don’t the Democrat push it again, now that they control Both houses of Congress.
    It can not be that those brave souls fear the evil Gun Lobby.

  85. 85.

    ThymeZone

    June 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    The gun laws that matter are the ones that affect behavior and use, not ownership.

    If you doubt this, try carrying a firearm into the Supreme Court building.

  86. 86.

    jenniebee

    June 26, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bush.

    That’s it. We need a Constitution party.

  87. 87.

    b-psycho

    June 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    People on the left need guns more than the right-wingers, IMO.

  88. 88.

    PaulW

    June 26, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    My problem with today’s gun ownership ruling is that I don’t see the Court defining the part about “well-regulated militia”. All I’ve seen is just “people have a right to own guns.”

    It also would have been nice to have Scalia or one of the other judges affirm that just because people have a right to own guns, that it’s still against the law for people to shoot anybody they want. Just to make that abundantly clear, ’cause some gun owners don’t get that, yknow?

  89. 89.

    flyerhawk

    June 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Wouldn’t this be more pro-gun version of Casey v Planned Parenthood with Miller playing the role of Roe?

  90. 90.

    libarbarian

    June 26, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    It also would have been nice to have Scalia or one of the other judges affirm that just because people have a right to own guns, that it’s still against the law for people to shoot anybody they want. Just to make that abundantly clear, ‘cause some gun owners don’t get that, yknow?

    Fuck.

    Now you tell me.

  91. 91.

    "Fair and Balanced" Dave

    June 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    I guess the way I am reading this ruling is that it is akin to Roe v. Wade for gun rights

    With all due respect John, the analogy to Roe is not a good one for a number of reasons:

    1. At its core, Roe restricted the government’s control over an woman’s body–there are still such things as the War on (Some) Drugs (but that’s a subject for a different thread).

    2. Heller will not have a national impact to the extent that Roe did. I don’t know how many cities or municipalities have gun bans similar to the one in DC that Heller overturned by I don’t think there are that many.

    3. For all the NRA’s fear-mongering, the number of people who want to ban all guns is really quite small and they have no real clout within the Democratic Party. By contrast, the people who want to overturn Roe and make all abortions illegal is a large and extremely powerful voting block within the Republican Party.

    You’ll read and hear some crowing about this decision from the wingnuts for a couple of days but overturning Heller will never be a political rallying point for the left the way overturning Roe has become for the right for the right.

  92. 92.

    Brachiator

    June 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Punchy Says:

    How Scalia can take such a literal, minimalist view of the 2nd, but feels free to re-interpret the 6th and 8th (and surely the 4th, if given the chance) when Scary Brown People make him go Code Brown is nearly criminal.

    Stunning that few people call this “Justice” out on such rank and transparent duplicity.

    Yeah, it’s pretty bad. The first pages of Scalia’s decision tries to firmly establish the argument that the only way of ever looking at the Constitution is based on what the text meant to the founders. By contrast, Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the habeas corpus case began with the historical foundation of the concept of habeas corpus, not with narrow textual readings.

    Later, Scalia gets inconsistent, invoking textual interpretations from the 1820 through the 1850s, which is well after the founding. Still, I can just see some in the right wing falling all over themselves to congratulate Scalia on reinforcing the concept of “originalism.”

    Oddly enough, I agree with much of the majority decision. I just think the means by which Scalia tries to justify it is weak.

    liberal Says:

    Zifnab wrote,

    It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that the 2nd Amendment was included because the Founding Fathers recognized that if a country’s citizens were going to need to pick up arms and fight off an oppressive government once, they’d likely have to do it again. Basically, it exists to allow for the possibility of armed revolt. And that doesn’t flow if you’ve got to be part of the US Army or the National Guard before you can pack heat.

    Is that just intuition? It’s a question of historical fact; do you have cites? (Preferably outside the Glenn Reynolds/new 2nd Amendment interpretation crowd circlejerk.)

    Scalia’s opinion provides some clear historical perspective on this. English law restricted the crown’s ability to disarm the populace (at least Protestant males), and this chip-on-the-shoulder attitude with respect to authority informed the way that early Americans looked at their right to bear arms.

    Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed….

    Shorter: even the Robin Hood legends are based on the idea that a free people have a right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against a hostile state and to provide for their own protection, to feed themselves, etc. Longbows, handguns, not much difference.

  93. 93.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    June 26, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Good. Jesus Christ on a crutch I am sick to death of the issue. Plenty of us liberal folks own several fine weapons for our own purposes. We just don’t generally get out panties in a knot every time the NRA or some pencil-neck Right Wing pansy starts shrieking like a WATB about the gummint coming to get our guns.

    I’m much more concerned about FISA, warrantless wiretaps, torture etc.

    I think you will be surprised how many people here pack. Most of us only really appear liberal because we hate Bush.

    I don’t hate him. But he and his gang of war criminals should be hanged, but I don’t hate him. I don’t spend much time hating anyone or anything. (OK, except ketchup on hot dogs! Now that should be punishable by flogging or something like that.) But I’m feeling ya, bro. I probably wouldn’t invite him over for lunch either.

  94. 94.

    Tzal

    June 26, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    After one of my con law classes I asked the professor why we didn’t discuss the second amendment. He answered that there just wasn’t a lot of law on the subject. There wasn’t a body of jurisprudence on the second amendment that can be traced back to a specific decision or event in a way that made the second amendment amenable to academic study. Well, there is now.

    Whether or not you agree with the decision, we are witnessing a rare, profound, moment in American history. And that’s pretty exciting.

  95. 95.

    Pasota

    June 26, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    This opinion is shocking—it does not have one reference to Jack Bauer or something Sean Hannity said.

    I’m in the middle of reading the opinion now, and the following struck me:

    “It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms … There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: … it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; … it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”

    Somebody confiscate Scalia’s tee-vee please. Was the Founding Fathers’ original intent really to vouchsafe the right to hold a criminal at bay while dialing a telephone? I mean, is it reasonable to assume that these visionaries did not anticipate hands-free bluetooth technology?

  96. 96.

    Paul L.

    June 26, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    For all the NRA’s fear-mongering, the number of people who want to ban all guns is really quite small and they have no real clout within the Democratic Party.

    BS. Democrats/Progressive know that Gun Control is a losing issue and are hiding their true statist desires. So, Sen Feinstein has no real clout?
    20/20 hindsight:

    It was Feinstein who attached the gun bans to the Clinton-Schumer crime bill in 1994. It was Feinstein who told 60 Minutes television: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.”

  97. 97.

    PeterJ

    June 26, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Anyone remember the jackoff that stole a tank down in San Diego a few years back? There was no stopping him by police until he got stuck on the median. And even then it was fuck-all hard for them to get the hatch open and shoot him. And that was the police – well armed, well equipped, and trained to work together.

    I blame Grand Theft Auto.

    —

    Not sure what in the 2nd amendment prohibits me from owning a Davy Crockett or the modern equvivalent of an 18th century mortar or howitzer.
    (Except maybe the term ‘arms’, but it’s obvious that a milita would have needed some cannons too)

    And I’m not sure why it’s wrong to prohibit ex cons from voting but it’s right to prohibit them from owning firearms.

  98. 98.

    Brachiator

    June 26, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Paul L. Says:

    akin to Roe v. Wade for gun rights

    But it is not based on the “penumbra” of the Constitution.

    Well, Scalia goes on a bit about the 2nd Amendment and self-defense, even though this is not in the text itself. Must be in the “penumbra.”

    And even then, the right, well, at least the President they seemed to worship, supported extending the Assault Weapon Ban…

    Unlike the President who signed the Assault Weapon Ban that the left seemed to worship.

    Scalia’s decision implies that assault weapons (however you define them) and other stuff not hand guns or small arms equipment can be regulated.

    We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right…

  99. 99.

    Xenos

    June 26, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    M

    y personal theory – which is worth what you pay for it – is that the reason the 2nd Amendment was phrased like it was was that the author intended (hoped?) it would be revisited if the justifying clause ever became obviously outdated.

    The amendment is written the way it is because it was written by a committee. Half of the people on the committee wanted right to keep and bear arms to be held by militia members, the other half insisted that the right to bear arms should be held by citizens, but wanted to make sure that states could keep guns out of the hands of Indians, black people, and other threats to the PTB.

    The language then gives the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, and makes clear that this right derives from the need for militias, and so, implicitly, does not necessarily apply to those domestic enemies of the state who ought not necessarily benefit from the right to be armed.

    A little legal realism goes a long way to explain things in American history.

  100. 100.

    Pasota

    June 26, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Not sure what in the 2nd amendment prohibits me from owning a Davy Crockett or the modern equvivalent of an 18th century mortar or howitzer.

    The reasoning goes that 18th-Century militia weapons were the same as ordinary household weapons. Therefore, the 2nd Amdendment’s reference to militia “arms” means the ordinary household weapons of today, even though such weapons did not then exist and are virtually useless for modern military purposes:

    “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

    I.e., let’s not reality intrude upon our preordained outcome.

  101. 101.

    Pasota

    June 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Scalia seems to divine a core right of “self defense” that’s not contained in the text of the Second Amendment.

    Just saying, you know, penumbras and all that.

    True. This is another striking aspect of the decision. We’re going to see more “self-defense” litigation arising directly out of this case. The right to resist unlawful arrest comes to mind.

  102. 102.

    pharniel

    June 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    so let’s chaneg it to ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’

    and while we’re at it change 10 to have soemthing like ‘the right to privacy from every zealous spammer and government snoop shall not be abriged’

  103. 103.

    "Fair and Balanced" Dave

    June 26, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    BS. Democrats/Progressive know that Gun Control is a losing issue and are hiding their true statist desires. So, Sen Feinstein has no real clout?

    I guess just like your hero George W, you can deduce a person’s true feelings by looking into their soul?? But I guess you’re onto us and we’ll have to stop warming up the engines on all those black helicopters

    If you’re looking for me to defend DiFi, you’re barking up the wrong tree. As far as I’m concerned, she’s already on my shit list for her “Yes” votes on the Iraq War Resolution, and the confirmation votes for Mukasey as AG and John Roberts for Chief Justice, and most recently she voted for cloture on the obscene FISA bill.

    And I stand by my original statement. The hardline gun-banners are, for all intents and purposes, a non-entity within the Democratic Party (most of them probably voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004) while the abortion-banners are one of the most–if not THE most–powerful political blocks within the Republican Party.

  104. 104.

    Dreggas

    June 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Somebody confiscate Scalia’s tee-vee please. Was the Founding Fathers’ original intent really to vouchsafe the right to hold a criminal at bay while dialing a telephone? I mean, is it reasonable to assume that these visionaries did not anticipate hands-free bluetooth technology?

    Scalia is right here and I am sure everyone is wearing their blue tooth when someone breaks into their home. I have fired rifles and pistols as well as shot-guns. The reality is for home and self-defense a pistol is far, far superior to any other firearm. It has nothing to do with what’s on Scalia’s TeeVee.

  105. 105.

    Paul L.

    June 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    The hardline gun-banners are, for all intents and purposes, a non-entity within the Democratic Party

    The following hardline gun-bannering Democrats.
    like Senators Biden, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer and Lautenberg?

    “Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.” — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

    or
    Chicago’s mayor Daley, Washington DC’s Mayor Fenty and New Orleans’ Mayor “chocolate city” Nagin who had the NOPD confiscate Guns during Katrina.
    Still say they are non-entities in the Democratic Party.

  106. 106.

    Chuck Butcher

    June 26, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    All this ruling does is affirm about 180yrs of history. The idea of a collective right appeared around the 1970s to back the idea of bans. It does not appear in the hisorical record and particularly not around the Framing.

    What you are going to find is that blanket or extreme restrictions are going into court rooms and will be over-turned. Licenses that limit to the powerful and connected will be gone as will NYC’s ban.

    As far as military useful weapons, explosives are out, but the M16 certainlly isn’t. You do have some rough hoops to jump through – including a provision that the govt can inspect your machine gun at any time (byebye 4th).

    As for lefties and Democrats and firearms I am:
    Democratic County Vice-chair
    State Delegate
    Vice-Chair Gun Owners Caucus Democratic Party of Oregon
    Personally known and respected in quite a few power centers as a left Democrat
    A former US Rep candidate (primary)

    A note of serious consequences, having fired a weapon does not mean any level of competency with it.

  107. 107.

    Pasota

    June 26, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    The reality is for home and self-defense a pistol is far, far superior to any other firearm. It has nothing to do with what’s on Scalia’s TeeVee.

    Which is a great argument to bring up in the legislature when deciding which types of guns to control in the real world today. But I’ll wager that the ability to dial a telephone — a freaking telephone — played almost no role in the Framers’ original intent in drafting the 2nd Amendment. (Recall that the case is about the right to bear specifically handguns.)

    And the holding-a-gun-on-the-bad-guy rationale comes straight from Scalia’s tee-vee, if not his ay-ess-ess.

  108. 108.

    Scott H

    June 26, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    While I agree with the outcome, I must argue that bad Justices don’t write good decisions. Please, go read some of that crap the gems. That Scalia and his Boyz happen to have come down on the side of individual rights is purely coincidental. This will become one of those Undead Issues that we will never hear the end of the whinging over.

  109. 109.

    Dave_Violence

    June 26, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    The right to gun ownership is explicitly in the US Constitution. This is a civil rights victory for the whole US of A. Excellent!

    Now, if Senator BO supports this and he is sincere and the NRA believes him and the individual, law-abiding citizens do as well, he will be President BO, easily.

  110. 110.

    grumpy realist

    June 26, 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Considering that this decision got made right after that nut shot and killed quite a few people in that plastics factory, I find it quite interesting.

    Unfortunately, there’s no way to add a clause “except keeping arms out of the hands of angry idiots who go postal and kill a large number of people around them.”

    Am just waiting until the NRA actually manages to get rid of all restrictions on concealed carry…and we have yet another idiot go bonkers with a gun at a mall. Lots of “well-armed citizens” doing their “patriotic duty” trying to take him out….except they won’t know who the nut is, shoot at their helpful neighbors also trying to act as Good Citizens….and then the police will take out EVERYONE who is holding a gun and shooting, because they won’t be able to tell the difference between the baddies and the goodies.

    What fun! Pass the popcorn….

  111. 111.

    Paragon Park

    June 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

    the most significant thing about Heller is that it didn’t establish a standard of review by which to judge firearm regulations.

    Clearly, the majority rejects the deferential rational basis test, but in addition to stating it was not reaching the issue of standard of review because in its opinion the DC ban would fail even the rational basis test (a questionable assertion to be sure) it was rather inscrutable in addressing Breyer’s dissent. It seems to agree with Breyer that strict scrutiny is not appropriate or workable but then argues less than coherently about the limitations on balancing tests regarding enumerated rights.

    I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean because ALL of the established standards of individual constitutional rights v. government regulation review involve balancing. Moreover, other than an absolutist approach (which Scalia also clearly rejects saying the ruling does not prohibit all regulation) I cannot conceive a principled method of review that did not involve balancing competing interests.

    The lower courts are going to hav difficulty applying this decision to regulations that are not extremely similar to the DC handgun ban because the opinion offers so little real guidance as to how to conduct reviews. On assume the Court will eventually recognize some form of intermediate scrutiny but that could be years away.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Here and There » Blog Archive » Kneejerking the Supreme Court Gun Ruling says:
    June 26, 2008 at 11:23 am

    […] John Cole draws analogies to Roe v. Wade. I’m no scholar of the court, but that seems fitting. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Miss Bianca on Election 2020 Open Thread: The Best Knows the Best (Dec 14, 2019 @ 10:53am)
  • Baud on Holiday Prep Open Thread (Dec 14, 2019 @ 10:53am)
  • MattF on Holiday Prep Open Thread (Dec 14, 2019 @ 10:52am)
  • Jay on Holiday Prep Open Thread (Dec 14, 2019 @ 10:51am)
  • Kathleen on Saturday Morning Open Thread: Plan Your Calendar (Dec 14, 2019 @ 10:51am)

Support Our Site


Shopping Amazon via this link helps Balloon Juice...a lot

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year

Featuring

John Cole
Silverman on Security
Impeachment Hearings
Anderson on Health Insurance
Dear WaterGirl

Calling All Jackals

Balloon Juice Meetups
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Site Feedback
Balloon Juice News

Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
55m 1205865100336418821

New Post added at Balloon Juice - Holiday Prep Open Thread -https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/12/14/holiday-prep-open-thread/

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: New Post added at
Reply on Twitter 1205865100336418821Retweet on Twitter 1205865100336418821Like on Twitter 12058651003364188211Twitter 1205865100336418821
Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
6h 1205795190830772224

New Post added at Balloon Juice - Saturday Morning Open Thread: Plan Your Calendar -

Balloon Juice | Saturday Morning Open Thread: Plan Your Calendar

MAJOR UPDATE: Demonstrations called for TUESDAY NIGHT! The vote on Articles of Impeachment is imminent. Join one of nearly 500 demonstrations nationwi...

www.balloon-juice.com

Reply on Twitter 1205795190830772224Retweet on Twitter 1205795190830772224Like on Twitter 12057951908307722243Twitter 1205795190830772224
Retweet on TwitterJohn Cole Retweeted
tressiemcphd avatarTressie McMillan Cottom@tressiemcphd·
10h 1205728637477179392

This is glorious. Glorious. https://twitter.com/yorkwhitaker/status/1205726859939303425

This is glorious. Glorious. https://t.co/rEQBKDN4Na
York Whitaker@YorkWhitaker

I love this app.

Reply on Twitter 1205728637477179392Retweet on Twitter 1205728637477179392292Like on Twitter 12057286374771793922392Twitter 1205728637477179392
Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
13h 1205689726155591680

imagine caring what cenk uygar thinks... about anything

Reply on Twitter 1205689726155591680Retweet on Twitter 1205689726155591680Like on Twitter 120568972615559168029Twitter 1205689726155591680
Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
13h 1205687690873724928

so just act normally?

Boing Boing@BoingBoing

Top Florida Cop instructed officer to act like a “white supremacist” when engaging Black suspect https://boingboing.net/2019/12/13/top-florida-cop-instructed-off.html

Reply on Twitter 1205687690873724928Retweet on Twitter 12056876908737249281Like on Twitter 120568769087372492829Twitter 1205687690873724928
Retweet on TwitterJohn Cole Retweeted
AllieGoertz avatarAllie Goertz@AllieGoertz·
15h 1205658316933750785

Now promise you’ll never drive your dad’s car drunk again, Matt. https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1205644969513537542

Matt Gaetz@mattgaetz

If it’s any comfort...I can promise you’ll never have my last name. https://twitter.com/alliegoertz/status/1205627060258926592

Reply on Twitter 1205658316933750785Retweet on Twitter 12056583169337507851212Like on Twitter 120565831693375078521071Twitter 1205658316933750785
Retweet on TwitterJohn Cole Retweeted
NicoleHockley avatarNicole Hockley@NicoleHockley·
23h 1205524335873671169

Seven years ago started as a normal Friday morning.
After getting Dylan and Jake on the bus, I did chores until I left for an exercise class. While driving to class, I felt a sharp pain in my stomach, so bad that I almost pulled over to the side of the road, convinced I was...

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Seven years ago started as
Reply on Twitter 1205524335873671169Retweet on Twitter 12055243358736711697721Like on Twitter 120552433587367116926848Twitter 1205524335873671169
Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
13h 1205682458034917377

New Post added at Balloon Juice - Do The Right Thing -

Balloon Juice | Do The Right Thing

I said this earlier on the twitter thing, and I want to say it here: Even if he is not convicted in the Senate and even if Dems pay a political price,...

www.balloon-juice.com

Reply on Twitter 1205682458034917377Retweet on Twitter 12056824580349173774Like on Twitter 120568245803491737710Twitter 1205682458034917377
Retweet on TwitterJohn Cole Retweeted
Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
22h 1205551193977708545

Even if he is not convicted in the Senate and even if Dems pay a political price, impeaching Trump is the right thing to do because he’s a criminal who broke the laws. When everything is as broken as it is now, all you can do is do the right thing and hope for the best.

Reply on Twitter 1205551193977708545Retweet on Twitter 120555119397770854584Like on Twitter 1205551193977708545288Twitter 1205551193977708545
Johngcole avatarJohn Cole@Johngcole·
13h 1205679820052615169

shorter Matt Bevin- “Fuck you Kentucky have some murderers"

Reply on Twitter 1205679820052615169Retweet on Twitter 120567982005261516912Like on Twitter 120567982005261516955Twitter 1205679820052615169

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2019 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!