AP photo/Dharapak (click to enlarge)
Related Articles
-
What Supreme Court 'victories' really mean for gun rights
-
Chicago mayor considers replacing gun ban with 'expanded' D.C.-style gun laws
-
Supreme Court: Chicago gun ban falls
-
Mcdonald V Chicago
-
‘Substantive’ victory for gun owners/a>
-
Safer Streets 2010: The Supremes Affirm The Second Amendment.
-
Anti-gun hysteria follows landmark ruling in Chicago gun ban case
-
The Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth Begins
-
Statement of Richard A. Pearson, Executive Director, Illinois State Rifle Association, Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision
-
McDonald v. Chicago: Supreme Court 'incorporates' Second Amendment
-
McDonald v Chicago. A different point of view
-
US Supreme Court finds for McDonald and upholds the Second Amendment
-
Supreme Court's McDonald v. Chicago decision leaves much to be worked out
-
Ray Schoenke, the AHSA, Sotomayor, and McDonald
-
Quotes of the Day: McDonald Edition
-
Safer Streets 2010: Safer streets finally underway again.
-
Contempt of court George Wallace style
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's McDonald v. Chicago decision, the Wall Street Journal made an interesting observation:
The majority opinion does leave room for some state and local gun regulation. And the liberals could have joined the majority to help shape the opinion and allow for even more state and local latitude. So it's striking that they instead came out in full-throated dissent and refused to accept even the basic finding in Heller.
Actually, to say that the "majority opinion does leave room for some state and local gun regulation" is an understatement--Heller and McDonald, taken together, mean that every infringement of that which shall not be infringed, that somehow is found to be "presumptively lawful" at the state or local level, is no less so at the federal level.
Getting back to the WSJ article, the point it makes about the motivation of the four dissenting justices is worth exploring. Presumably, if they consider Heller a settled point of Constitutional law (and both Justice Sotomayor and nominee Elena Kagan say they do), they wouldn't object to accepting the basis of the Heller ruling, in order to gain some participation in the discussion about how much latitude state and local governments get in implementing gun laws.
The fact that they chose not to do so perhaps indicates a more ambtious agenda on the part of the Supreme Court's anti-gun wing. WSJ continues:
All of this suggests that the liberals have decided to bide their time and wait for a fifth vote so they can overturn both Heller and McDonald. This means that the matter of Second Amendment rights is far from settled, and the National Rifle Association and other advocates had better keep their legal guard up.
Not, perhaps, as far-fetched a scenario as it might seem. Guy Smith, writing for AmmoLand.com, provides this sobering analysis:
Additionally, this court decision is only as strong as future packed courts. Registered guns today become confiscated guns tomorrow if a future court reverses their opinion (and as summarized in my ancient copy of Constitutional law and Politics, Volume One, the court routinely reverses itself).
In fact, that article includes a table of all Supreme Court cases reversed, through the time of the Rehnquist court: 219.
I have had, and continue to have, serious misgivings about the Heller decision, and McDonald does little to quiet them. A reversal of either decision, though, would almost certainly be the culmination of the effort to make the Second Amendment irrelevant.
----------
Freudian slip in the Washington Post?
A Washington Post editorial seems to make a rather damning admission:
Accepting the court's holding that the Second Amendment protects a right to gun ownership in self-defense does not mean that judges should willy-nilly strike down every infringement on that right.
That sounds rather a lot like an acknowledgment that gun laws are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms--the one that, you know--shall not be infringed?
Usually, the gun prohibitionists try to claim that their "safety regulations" are not infringements--Washington Post seems not to care to hide it.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines: Sean McClanahan | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Ha! That's hilarious. The courts shouldn't go nuts and go around doing crazy things like correcting every constitutional infringement on the books. Only a leftist idiot would write such an absurd statement.
Maybe the courts should strike down a few free speech or freedom of the press rulings. Not all...just a few.
lets start here, I am among the staunchest of gun ownership proponents. But,this ruling will I think become a terrible thing in this way, most people in support of this cases decision are very much states rights advocates to this end there are some battles that should take place in our respective states. I believe that this ruling will open the gates to the supreme court making blanket decisions that we may not be rejoicing in the out come. this may be a Trojan horse decision that opens the gates for future SCOTUS courts that aren't friendly to what we consider to be correct. so while I would love to claim a victory here it is definetly bitter sweet
to sotogayor & the other dissenting "justices"...FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!
The decision today only opens the door for gun owners to have a basis for future lawsuits from state to state before Obama packs the court and reverses these decisions. The NRA will tout this as a great victory but it is just the beginning of a long hard fight that will take a decade to reverse the damage done to the second amendment and remember that any politician who is against the second amendment in it's most liberal interpretation is a basic traitor to this country. The four justices are in my opinion traitors to the ideals our founding fathers fought for and they are looking to turn America into a limited if not full blown dictatorship. The American people need to rise up and find a way to remove these people from their life time positions in disgrace if they continue to disregard the words and meaning of the Bill of Rights, the Amendments, and most importantly the Constitution. We are fighting for our country against traitors in Washington D.D. and the courts.
It'd be funny the obsession with guns in the USA if you weren't all shooting each other so much.
Guns play no part within a civilised nation, certainly not in a democracy. Particularly as the ones most clinging to their guns are the ones least likely to protest true injustices.
lets start here, I am among the staunchest of gun ownership proponents. But,this ruling will I think become a terrible thing in this way, most people in support of this cases decision are very much states rights advocates to this end there are some battles that should take place in our respective states. I believe that this ruling will open the gates to the supreme court making blanket decisions that we may not be rejoicing in the out come. this may be a Trojan horse decision that opens the gates for future SCOTUS courts that aren't friendly to what we consider to be correct. so while I would love to claim a victory here it is definetly bitter sweet
The Washington Compost shouldn't have "the right" to comment on any of this. Couldn't the government send some troops over there to shut them up?
Only one comment for those in DC. Remember Lexington and Concord, Remember what the British tried to do and remember what happened on April 19, 1775.. Don't believe it could happen again????? Are you willing to risk it? Is your socialist utopia worth the risk? I think the American people are sick and tired of your power grabs, of your infringements on they're God given individual rights. The American people stood up to Tyranny before. We will again if necessary....... Remember and learn from history or you are surely doomed to repeat it. BTW if you don't like US gun laws go live where Nathan lives, sounds like they have room for a few more village idiots there, and when you go be sure to take along the idiot that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave too.
Nathan... Your comment "Guns play no part within a civilised nation". Do you mean "civilized" countries like the former NAZI Germany, USSR, and China? The leaders of those countries disarmed their citizens so they could exterminate 100s of millions of dissident. Is that your idea of a "civilised demoracy"? No for me! I want to live in a free society where FREE SPEECH is protect by the teeth of the 2ND AMENDMENT! You may not own a gun, but I'll keep mine and lay my life down to protect YOUR and MY right to free speech. God Bless America!
Nathan old buddy, you are correct, and if we ever achieve a civilized society I will quit carrying a weapon as insurance against the small but real threat of violence against my person and the lives of my family.
And by the way, thank God the United States is not a democracy. We are a republic. Democracies, as the founders were well aware, inevitably collapse once the dependent class realize they can vote themselves ever increasing benefits without the need to actually work for them. Which is exactly what we see happening to many of the countries in the EU today, the entitlements expand to consume every available resource without restraint.
Justices can be removed from office through the impeachment process. Works the same way as a presidential impeachment. Where Congress brings up the charges and the Senate tries them.
Yea, but then they'd have to do the hard work and actually come and take them cause there's a bunch of us that won't participate in any turn-ins or registration schemes.
Anyway, we'll probably need to start actually using them this weekend following Obama's announcement tomorrow night that his administration is going to uni-laterally grant amnesty due to the urgency for "comprehensive immigration reform" and, as usual, trust us we'll secure the border LATER AGAIN.
If enough other patriots were to demonstrate their commitment and travel to the border area to join a citizen's militia/minutemen organization, I'd leave post haste to join them. But I'd need to see evidence that thousands of american patriots were headed to the Arizona/Mexico border. Strength in numbers or "size matters" in things like this. My guess: most all are just talkers not action takers.
Nathan: I'll loan you one of my handguns if you promise to look down the barrel and perform a trigger check before verifying the chamber is cleared. And, if you live in the U.S., do yourself and true americans a favor and move to your favorite "civilised" country. If you're NOT an American, then please just S T F U and go away. It's NONE OF YOUR fuggin' business.
The NRA did NOT WIN this victory. They forced themselves into a suit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation. The NRA deserves little if any credit for this SMALL victory.
Send future donations to the SAF because they were instrumental in winning both the Heller and McDonald decisions at the Supreme Court AND they already filed suit against some localities that have unconstitutional laws in effect across the country.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!