Has it really been one year since the United States Supreme Court in a disappointingly narrow 5-4 ruling struck down the Washington, D.C. handgun ban and affirmed once and for all that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to own a gun that has no connection with militia service?
For some, it appears the ruling never happened at all. Even now, gun prohibitionists are loathe to acknowledge that they were wrong about the Second Amendment; that their own hostility toward the private ownership of firearms had led them to conclude – largely by misinterpreting and deliberately misrepresenting the high court’s 1939 ruling in U.S. v. Miller – that the Second Amendment protected only some mythical “collective” right of the states to organize a militia. My colleague, Daniel White, offers an analysis of the ruling here.
The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals.” - Edward M. Kennedy, June 15, 2009
As Justice Antonin Scalia so wisely noted in his majority opinion, “Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.”
Yet here’s Dennis Henigan, vice president for Law and Policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence holding forth in a July 2008 opinion piece published by the Cato Institute insisting, “My view is that legal historians will regard the Heller decision as a prototypical misuse of judicial power to advance an ideological agenda.”
And just the other day, Senator Edward M. Kennedy sent a letter to a man in Olympia in which the ailing Massachusetts anti-gunner stated, “The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals.”
For many years, gun prohibitionists have been deceptive, disingenuous and downright untruthful about the history of individual gun rights in this country. One need only recall the intellectual dishonesty of Michael Bellesiles, author of the now totally discredited Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture to understand the nature of the beast.
My view is that legal historians will regard the Heller decision as a prototypical misuse of judicial power to advance an ideological agenda. - Dennis Henigan
It seems perhaps ironic that the gun control lobby’s crushing defeat came almost 132 years to the day in 1876 that George Armstrong Custer led his troops into a massacre on the hillsides overlooking the Little Bighorn River in Montana.
As I noted in Wednesday’s column about the new anti-gun book from Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson that vilifies gun owners as a bunch of insurrectionists, gun haters simply cannot get over the fact that their cornerstone argument in support of restrictive gun legislation, up to and including outright bans, had been built around a prevarication, which they had perpetuated.
On this one-year anniversary of the landmark Heller ruling, it is sadly clear that gun prohibitionists are as determined as ever to re-write history and live in denial. Of course, what they really want is to deny gun owners their civil rights.
To paraphrase Barack Obama, these gun prohibitionists have become bitter, clinging to their gun control agenda as if it were a religion.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
Comments
I'm not an activist at all but I saluted the Heller vs DC ruling a year ago and was very pleased with it. Since then and after reading the entire text I realized it ruled only on a razor thin slice of the issues involved. Still, it was landmark law.
Now a year later there are those still in denial and those naive folks yet driving legislation every week for more and more gun control. How sad. They must be flaming about all the huge and steady demand and sales of guns and ammo all across the country.
I hope they never are faced with a mass killer psycho one and wishing there were someone with a gun to stop the crazed killer. Then again I'd bet they'd still want to ban all guns worldwide. They're stuck in their delusions. Like those still stuck on Elvis.
If all guns were magically beamed out of existence they would be rapidly replaced worldwide immediately.
Hurrah for the one year anniversary of the Heller decision. I want more similar court decisions. Let freedom ring.
The Heller decision was a breath of fresh air (albeit a narrow one) from the Supreme Court and I applaud them for it. Now the anti-gunners are busying their next arguement, you know the one that includes the statement, "Heller allows gun ownership in Washington, D.C. only and NOT in any of the states." I know (and you know) that this argument is unbelievably weak but it is coming none the less!
Dave, you really aren't suprised are you. It's always bad when a decision goes against them but give them a little victory from a judge in a decision that should have never been made then it has nothing too do with judical law making.
Bruce in Md..........
The anti's only argument: LIES!
The mythical "collective right" was totally annihilated when ALL NINE JUSTICES agreed it was a right of individuals -- unfortunately only 5 were smart (or honest) enough to realize this meant that DC was violating Heller's rights.
Even the advocate for DC admitted the "collective right" was going nowhere in the first few moments of the oral arguments.
Collective right, militia only, blood in the streets, shootouts over minor traffic accidents, lies one and all and that's all the anti gun crowd have are this litany of the same tired old lies. And as we educate the public in spite of themselves the tide is turning in our favor. The lies become more strident and thus more obviously false to the casual observer.
And our job in the gun community is to calmly rationally continually point out what disingenuous fools the anti gun crowd are to continue to foist such lies on the public.
" To paraphrase Barack Obama, these gun prohibitionists have become bitter, clinging to their gun control agenda as if it were a religion."
That's funny, they accuse us of clinging to our guns! Ha!
See, what they are really clinging to is the last vestiges of gun control. They've seen a complete reversal on gun control laws in the states over the past 20 years. It has been a CONSTANT thing.... gun control laws are loosening.
Support for gun rights is at an all-time high. Gun sales are at an all-time high. Permit requests are at an all-time high. The number of people that own and carry is at an all time high. The number of politicians that outright will not support any gun control measures are at an all time high.
There is a pattern here.
It is the perfect storm, but not as people imagined it would be... it's not gun owners that are in trouble... but those that want to take them away.
The anti's are in for a desperate fight to hold onto what they have left. :)
Dave,
In the Heller ruling the Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that the right to own a gun exists side by side with the right to regulate the sale, possesion, and carrying of guns.
The court ruled "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
The decision then went on to list a variety of specific, constitutional, regulations - including licensing and registration.
The Second Amendment is not an absolute right. Guns can, without a doubt, be regulated.
There was a recent NYT article about how the Heller case doesn't mean anything to the anti-gunners. I'm afraid the NYT is right. The US judiciary for all practical purposes is a tool of the cosmopolitans, and they will ALWAYS rule that your RKBA is meaningless where it counts. They will never rule against Chicago's gun ban, against gun registration, against laws against carrying. For the gun controller, gun bans are "reasonable," as the Chicago Tribune once claimed in an editorial.
"Support for gun rights is at an all-time high. Gun sales are at an all-time high. Permit requests are at an all-time high. The number of people that own and carry is at an all time high. The number of politicians that outright will not support any gun control measures are at an all time high."
Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. In the same way that more cars on the road means a greater need for traffic regulation, more enthusiasm for guns should actually be sending us the signal that it's time now more than ever for appropriate regulation. Bearing arms comes hand in hand with responsibility, as was always assumed in legal history that led up to the second amendment and modern American gun legislation. It has its roots in 13th century English common law, when the king both allowed and required all freemen to bear arms to defend the sovereignty of the crown. However, the right was very limited, and, ironically, a lot of people didn't WANT to bear arms. Times change, I gues
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!