Monday, June 28, 2010
Guns / Law Supreme Court dooms Chicago handgun ban
Posted by Max Brantley on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:04 AM
The Roberts-Alito U.S. Supreme Court continues to legislate from the bench. Today, it reversed and remanded a lower court decision upholding Chicago's ban on handguns. The court said that the 14th amendment, through the due process clause, extended the 2nd Amendment gun rights from the federal level to the states.
Here's the opinion. The decision was 5-4. No need to tell you the five — Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy. They agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and local governments, but Thomas has a small disagreement on how they got there.
Questions certainly linger. How far do gun rights go at the state level? May states prohibit concealed weapons? May they prohibit open carry? May they place limits on types of weapons? The court said, as it did in the ruling overturning the D.C. handgun law, that regulatory powers remain, including, for example, limits on gun sales to the mentally ill. But that's merely what they say today in reversing years of precedent. Said the court:
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
The gun nuts, of course, will press on for ever-diminishing regulation. The logical extension of the concept of an all-powerful 2nd is no limit at all. Insane people should be allowed to carry satchel nukes.You may not require gun lobbies to disclose their spending on political issues. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand, after all? Who knows, it might become impermissible some day to criticize gun nuts. When constitutional rights conflict, one must fall, mustn't it?
FOR THE RECORD: The Arkansas Constitution's declaration on guns:
The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.
Mike Ross (and everybody else in Arkansas public life) exults (though I don't think Arkanasas law restricts gun rights in any way remotely challengeable, at least until the loonies are in charge of the armory):
WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross, D-Prescott, hailed today’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago as a victory for the Second Amendment and a “common sense ruling that reaffirms a basic constitutional right afforded to us by our Founding Fathers.”
The U.S. Supreme Court today essentially struck down the city of Chicago’s 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, arguing the protections afforded by the Second Amendment extend beyond the federal government to states and cities.
Last year, Ross led the efforts in filing an historic pro-Second Amendment amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief before the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Ross helped gather the signatures of 251 Members of Congress and 58 Senators in support of the pro-Second Amendment amicus brief, which was then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for this decision. The brief had the most signers of a congressional amicus brief in the history of the Supreme Court — breaking the record set in 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which Ross also led. The Court’s decision in Heller struck down the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban and argued the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. Today’s decision in McDonald now extends Second Amendment protection to individuals in all fifty states.
Statement by U.S. Representative Mike Ross, D-Prescott:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago is a common sense decision that reaffirms a basic constitutional right afforded to us by our Founding Fathers. As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court has now ruled the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right applicable to all the states — not just the federal government — and I commend its decision.
“I firmly believe that banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens trying to defend themselves against criminals. That is why I led the efforts in the House last year to gather congressional support for an historic amicus brief in favor of the Second Amendment, which we filed with the Supreme Court during its consideration of this historic case.
“The McDonald v. Chicago decision upholds an important part of our way of life and our heritage. It means that government at all levels — federal, state and local — cannot significantly limit law-abiding citizens’ rights to use guns for lawful purposes. This decision is a victory for all Americans who still believe in the Bill of the Rights and the Constitution.
“As an avid hunter and outdoorsman and pro-gun Democrat, I will continue to work to protect our Second Amendment rights in Congress and I will continue to oppose and fight any efforts in Washington to restrict the ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’
Statement from Blanche Lincoln:
Washington, DC—U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) today made the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the case of McDonald v. Chicago.
“Today’s ruling is a significant victory for those of us who strongly believe that the Second Amendment should protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and purchase firearms,” Lincoln said. “The McDonald decision says that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies equally to the federal government and the states, which means that state and local governments will now have to demonstrate that legislation restricting the use or possession of a firearm is consistent with the Second Amendment. Further, after today’s ruling, the Second Amendment provides Americans with a constitutional right to possess a firearm. This is a position that I share. I joined with a number of my congressional colleagues last year in signing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right applicable to the states.
“As a seventh-generation Arkansan, I know gun ownership is an important part of our state’s heritage. I have always supported the rights of law-abiding citizens to own, purchase, and carry firearms, and I will continue to defend the Second Amendment rights of Arkansans.”
Speaking of...
-
Supreme Court members feted by key lawyer
November 16, 2011They don't call the U.S. Supreme Court supreme for nothing. Ethical rules don't apply to them. /more/
-
U.S. Supreme Court takes health care appeal
November 14, 2011The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it would hear appeals of lower court rulings on the health care reform law. /more/
- More »
Comments (61)
Showing 1-50 of 61
"satchel nukes" is a disingenuous analogy to personal arms, and you know that Maxie.
like
dislike
'You may not require gun lobbies to disclose their spending on politcal issues. ", thanks to the Dems.
Gun nuts? You're a nut for not caring enough about yourself or your family to want to protect them.
Satchel nukes is a perfect analogy, and it is an analogy: • a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects : works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature.
The questions remain: Just where DO gun rights end? Where WILL gun nuts stop? Why CAN'T an insane person carry a gun? How MANY women have to die because their gun nut boyfriend or husband had a gun? How CAN we outlaw the NRA?
Where did the crazy jump in logic come from?
Who ever has made even the slightest suggestion that free speech rights could or would be curtailed so that citizens are barred from calling for gun control?
There is debate about if the Bill of Rights are freedoms for individuals or only freedoms for militias. I can't figure where that comes from but it is a debate.
Why is there a debate that a right spelled out in the Bill of Rights can be denied by states? How is it a Constitutional Right if it can be denied citizens for no cause?
Right to vote at 18 except in Iowa.
Right to vote for women except in Utah.
Right to vote by blacks except in Alabama.
Who could argue a fairness for the three blatant statements above?
There are conditions (restrictions) placed on rights of specific citizens in specific cases. Convicted felons possessing fire arms. Minors possessing alcohol. Searches and seizures with no cause are allowable for imprisoned inmates.
Certain rights can be curtailed due to past actions of citizens but for citizens being stripped of rights not because of their actions but because of their zip code seems illogical.
So Max, throw me in the gun nut category becasue I believe if rights of citizens can be taken away for no reason then I believe citizens do not really have any rights. They are just allowed to think they have rights as long as they don't use them.
I guess you can put this Liberal in the category of Gun Nut.
IMO to restrict application of the 2nd Amendment would mean all Amendments are open for restriction. Is that what we really want?
I vote loudly NAY.
Who's Nuts? The mentally ill, or the citisens with a bill of rights and a high court backing, you don't seem to know...do you Max, I wounder how far you're wrighten vocation will take you with this eliquent bathroom fodder?
Enjoy the dissapointment,
As a gun totin' liberal I won't be carrying mine to Chicago. I do think the conceal requirement should be legally removed from carrying... if you are carrying it should be plain for all to see whether on your belt or in your autos gun rack. I want to know who's got one. And those permit holders (shouldn't need a permit at all) should be posted for all to see on the internetz.
The government should seize every gun in this country, the only exception being my nifty Glock 17.
The difference between a right & a privilege is that a right may not be taken away. Why do unborn tea-baggers not have the right to own satchel nukes?
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Iradiate Handler said what I attempted but he just did it more efficiently and effectively.
Suppose the Blacks or the Hispanics or the Gays or the Atheists were to try and overthrow our government?
The purpose of the Second Amendment -- as God dictated it to our founding fathers, because make no mistake about it, the freedom to carry a weapon is a biblical truth -- is to prevent our society from being taken over by radical minorities seeking to destroy our American Way of Life.
Drilling in the gulf was okay, until the day it wasn't. Decreased regulation on financial institutions was just fine......until the day it wasn't. All this protection we get from owing handguns will be just fine.........until the day it isn't.
We rarely do anything that is right, honest or necessary, until the train is off the tracks, the car is in the ditch, and all our oxen are in need of help. Things are pretty bad in the good ole US of A, just not bad enough......yet.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion in 1919 that limited certain free speech, making a distinction between mere speech and dangerous speech, that is FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theater. (You can shout fire in a crowded theater if there really is a fire. I wonder if someone has ever done that?) And that ruling was not a slippery slope. It's a fallacy (look it up, there are many kinds) to say that a ruling on guns would cost us our other rights. Gun nuts just want their guns. I guess they like to fondle them at night, when no one is looking.
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34)
That was 2000 years ago. Today, Jesus would tell us "I come not to bring peace, but to bring an AK-47."
STFU Max. The right to have a weapon is not only a basic right of any American (minus felons) but it is also a basic human right.
I guess the ban in Chicago was working right? Wanting to call in the National Guard because the violence was so bad??
Now the people of Chicago, who were put in greater danger by the ban, will now be able to defend themselves.
I can't help it that you are scared of guns Max, but you are just going to have to get over it.
Surprised the truth would accidentally come out. According to a professed tea-bagger, God created the second amendment to keep them mud-people from getting uppity. They are not racists, they just worship one.
“All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final.” Hypatia of Alexandria
ATP, well you just cuddle up with your AK-47. I guess we can just throw all that stuff about love and new covenant since you found a single verse in Matthew that suits your needs. Just like the right-wingers hung up on selected old Jewish laws. You would think they were christians by all of the stuff they rant about but appaerently, most are just some sort of new-age Jewish. Must be that New World Order stuff that they keep scaring us with.
I guess tenderizing deer on the hoof makes up for those who failed to learn how to do a one-shot kill. Frankly, I am more scared of all of these red-neck gun toters than any driver on our highways except for the ones who also have their AK-47 in their pickem-up truck. It is always interesting on the first day of deer season to see if the deer or the hunters get more game.
No, today Jesus would say that this tea party wild and crazy person needs a good shrink. God, it would take years of major therapy. I think this is a tea party parody, right? Someone tell me that this person is making a joke.
Today Jesus would just shake his head and go back home, let the gun nuts kill everyone, then sort out the innocent. The guilty would have to work at a Wal-Mart gun counter until they saw the light.
And Big Gun (this is a cheap SHOT): That's probably all you have in your pants.
WOW...
And hey... what does the name "teabagger" mean, Max? I can't get any of you honorable people on this blog to answer that question...
I have no problem with reading the second amendment to apply to state and local governments as well as "Congress."
The mechanism for applying Constitutional prohibitions on "Congress" to state and local governments has been to apply the prohibitions, through the 14th amendment, when the protected right is fundamental to our understanding of ordered liberty. Today the Court says that, even though the second amendment only refers to "Congress" shall make no law, the freedom to own weapons is a fundamental party of ordered liberty, so "Congress" also means state and local governments. Okay.
And sure, just like freedom of speech is not absolute, this right won't be absolute. Lots of balancing lies ahead. It's what we do, constitutionally speaking.
Finally, while I can't speak for Max, I have always taken his reference to "gun nuts" to mean extremists -- we've got religious nuts, pro-war nuts, anti-war nuts, anti-abortion rights nuts, nuts of every variety. I never took him to mean every single person who has a gun, wants a gun, or believes government shouldn't be allowed to infringe the right to own guns. I've considered the reference in the context of those who threaten someone or his family because he's had the temerity to post information regarding concealed weapon permits. Extremists, in other words.
ATP, I enjoyed your parody for a good while, but it is obvious, from several posts on this thread, that some, who perhaps have not followed your comments for an extended period, fail to realize that you are not serious. Is it not time to bring the comic routine to a close? I think it is beginning to work against a satisfying blogging experience almost as much as a troll!
Arkyhog, I'm told Tea Bagging is when a male friend dips his nuts in yer mouth, I assume during a sexual escapade of some sort. Which reminds me of the first day of gym class in the 7th grade.
I went to a big new junior high and so my first gym class must have had at least 100 boys in it. I've never been athletic, so it was my first time in a gym of any kind. First mistake I made was joining some other boys in pissing in a fancy communal hand-washer. That didn't go over very well with the sadistic young coach.
After we spent the period running laps around the track, the coach told us to "get a shower, boys" and I had my first experience with mass public nudity. Right off the bat the older greasers started picking on us little fellers, us buck naked little fellers. If homosexuality had existed in 1967, we'd have been in a hell of a mess!
Just about the time the Scamardo brothers started homing in on me, a little kid in my class came out of the shower and bless his heart, he had balls the size of a Brahma bull. I've still never seen anything like it in my life.....they were HUGE! Get that picture out of my head!
Come on...do your hands like this ____________________ and then widen them up about 4 more inches and you'll get some idea of how big this kid's balls were.....ohmagod!
I lost track of Big Balls, but wherever he is today, he's got the biggest balls in town and there is no way anyone has ever Tea Bagged those mothers....rest assured!
Now....about gun nuts. They're a scary bunch. Forget about balding guys and their new Corvettes, nothing says small penis like a man in love with his gun. Most gun nuts are probably safe, but now and then one walks into a church or a school or the headquarters of the Arkansas Democratic Party and starts killing everything that moves. That's very worrisome to say the least, but those crazies are a very small minority in the world of gun ownership and they do what they do due to a lack of sex, too much time alone and too much Fox News.
Since this will be the longest thread of the month or year, I just want to get on record that I think everyone not crazy should have a gun. I have several guns I don't love and when in danger I will pull them out, dust them off and shoot you if you scare me enough. I already know I'm a lousy shot so I won't just fire off one round....I'll empty the chamber, so be warned.
I don't think Barack Obama is coming for my guns, but if he ever does I'll start blasting away because I think a free nation stays free as long as the "small people" have guns. I don't think about it much, I go years without seeing my guns. I don't like guns, even my own. But we need them to protect us from the people who pay into Blanche Lincoln's slush fund and NOozman's too.
Our country has a gun addiction and this thread will prove it by the end of the day. Too bad we can't be sensible about all things, I sometimes wonder if we're scared to live in a great country....might be boring as hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bcBOfgSnk0…
*Warning! If giant testicles scare you, skip this link!
Well, I guess I'm a gun nut. I'm also a free speech nut. I'm also a personal privacy nut.
Religious freedom nut? Guilty. Do what you want without gov't interference? I'm all about it, as long as you're not hurting someone else.
So, if believing that a specifically enumerated right mentioned in the Constitution is *actually* a right and not just a quaint idea makes me a nut... I'll wear that label with pride.
If that makes power-hungry statists like Max hate me, then I guess I'll just console myself as much as I can. Ok, over it.
Wow, that was easier than I thought.
So, to any and all of you who seek to suppress *ANY* of my personal rights - no matter what your excuse for doing so - let me exercise my right of free speech and throw out a huge "F U" ! I'll also throw in a few meaningful hand gestures while I'm at it.
It didn't work for the Klan, and it won't work for you either.
Ah, sweet freedom. I love it!
One wonders if Messrs. Pryor, Causey and Whitaker, and Mdmes. Lincoln and Elliott will join Mr. Ross' exultation.
"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."
Second Amendment to U.S. Constitution as adopted in the Bill of Rights,December 15, 1791
Why is it that Courts can completely overlook the modifying or preceding phrase when applying this right?
The Militia of the time was every able-bodied man over the age of 15, or so I'm told. Our resident history scholar, Cato, can clarify this. Militias were formed around the various state governments.
Clearly the term "bear" implies a military meaning. Why didn't the founders use the terms "keep and use" or simply the term "possess?"
And about the term "free State." That was the big issue of the period. How much power would states concede to the Union? Was it they intended for each State to be able to defend itself from foreign or domestic (Indian) attacks? Or, is it that the Second Amendment establishes statism for the Union?
Who and what is the "free State" in the Second Amendment?
“I've considered [Max’s] reference [to gun nuts] in the context of those who threaten someone or his family because he's had the temerity to post information regarding concealed weapon permits. Extremists, in other words.” -- TAP
My thinking, too, TAP. I shall never forget Max’s comment in the March 12, 2009, issue of the Arkansas Times: “I’ll say this about fear. I never had much until I got crosswise with some concealed weapon fanatics.”
Death, I wonder why everyone doesn't come out and say that everytime you talk about the TeaParty people; it makes everyone understand where the thinking is when the word "teabagger" is mentioned here. I don't believe everyone who uses the word "teabagger" has the balls YOU do, Death...
For you citizens who are worried about nuclear satchels, this is a quote from the affirming decision by Alito today:
"We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."
I have to wonder how many of you out there have had a loved one blown away by a nut with a gun?
How many of you out there have had to witness a young wife bury her husband simply because he went off to work one day at an honest job to support his family?
How many of you out there have had to comfort a child whose father has been murdered in one of the most brutal ways possible?
The man who killed our loved one was a twice convicted murderer, having served two separate prison terms for only a total of 6 years. Then, when later convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, he served only 6 months before being returned to his life where he was once again able get his hands on a variety of weapons, one of which he then used to kill two more men. This third conviction should have been enough to lock him up and throw away the key, and had that been the case, two innocent men would still be alive, would still be with their families. But no, the third strike law was not considered applicable on that conviction because the first two murders were committed before that law was in place. Guess no one gave any thought to making that law retroactive in order to protect the innocent lives that might be lost by allowing a murderer to go free and again get his hands on more guns.
Now, there are some who will say that if only one or both of these men had been carring a gun, the outcome might have been much different. They could have protected themselves against this gun nut, and perhaps it would have been the nut who was laid dead.
But I have to ask...is that the kind of society you want? Where everyone MUST carry a gun just to go about their daily lives where they 'might' encounter some nut with road rage, or any other unhinged or pissed off person who was allowed to have a gun? And how many trigger-happy 'Barney Fife' idiots would that produce? That's a fine line. Why is it that the nutjob's rights are more protected that the rights of the innocent people who might cross paths with them? Is it not in society's best interest as a whole to apply some logical, common sense regulations on gun ownership? Not to mention the punishments on those who cannot abide by those laws and regulations.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if we had a little more stringent requirements on gun ownership, if it was just a little harder for the nuts and the criminals to get their hands on a gun, if we weren't a society so hellbent on glorifying the 'right' to own every kind of weapon imaginable, maybe my family member, and hundreds of thousands of other innocent people, would still be alive.
We are required by law to register our vehicles. We are required by law to pass a test in order to have a license to drive that vehicle. We are required to be legally registered in order to exercise our 'right' to vote. We have millions of laws governing the rules and regulations we must live by in order to be a responsible society. And yet there are some who think that it should be a free-for-all on gun ownership. No rules, no licenses, no registrations.
I am so sick of hearing about the 'rights' of gun owners. The Second Amendment (written over two hundred years ago) was never imagined to apply to the kind of sophisticated weapons available today. And just what's so hard to understand about "as part of a well-regulated militia"?
This is yet again something we refuse to learn from our own experience, let alone all the other countries that are quite successful in their attitudes towards and restrictions of gun ownership within their societies. The United States has nearly 20 times more gun related deaths each year than any other country. Doesn't anyone else see something terribly wrong with that?!
Re teabaggers. The first Tea Party rallies frequently featured people tossing teabags as a symbolic gesture. Some came to rallies in hats with dangling teabags. Hence, the term. It also, unbeknownst to most, at least at first, is a slang term for a sexual act. Seems to me it's political correctness run amuck to object to the use of a perfectly good shorthand grounded precisely in practices by people to whom the term refers merely because it might have another meaning. When is an ass a donkey and when is an ass an ass?
Ah, since eLwood yanked my chain, allow me to swiftly relay background on those wonderful units of militiamen who sent the Redcoats fleeing in fear from every village, farm and engagement, at least according to myth and Holllywood. (Washington detested the militias, who had a history of breaking and running. He once commented "they weren't worth the bread they eat." They would fight for their own neighborhoods but move them a few miles and they mostly broke and ran).
Briefly, following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, with its Second Article that a "well regulated militia........., a Militia Act was passed providing for the enrollment of every free white male citizen of the United States between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. But it was no federal force since enrollment and organization was separate in each state.
The Militia Act remained a statute until Congress passed the Dick Bill in 1903 which divided our citizenry into two classes - the Organized Militia (the National Guard) and the Reserve Militia, which included all other male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. NG organizatoin, armament, and discipline were to be the same as that of the Regular Army. Pay was granted for summer camps and other activities: target practice, drill and instruction periods were to take place about every two weeks. Regular officers were detailed as instructors.
There's more but that's the gist.
And....let me remind all the good readers and contributors, all the rights listed and not listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. None. They are all limited. We do not have absolute freedom of speech; we do not have absolute freedom of religion; we do not have absolute freedom of the press, we do not have absolute freedom from searches and seizures, we do not have absolute freedom to bear arms. All are limited. We draw the line somewhere with these rights. That's what the debate should be about: where to draw the lines.
Cripes...if everyone everywhere is going to be armed (because all the pro-gun fanatics keep on telling me *all* the criminals are, and that's why they need theirs), can the Times come up with a list of some safe places for me to take my business?
A powerful and I’m sure a very painful post, HardHeadedWoman. Most people here can sympathize with you and your family, but very few can empathize; and therein lies a major part of the problem.
Hardheaded
Are citizens allowed only those rights which none abuses?
If one person is caught speeding do the police charge all drivers a fine?
No, there is the problem with the "some abuse it, none can have it" rules.
Sorry for the loss you suffered but the criminal Justice system is the culprit in the instance you cite. Twice convicted of murder and back out in society is the problem. You describe a sociopathic killer (three is not a coincidence) and I would doubt lack of a gun would stopped the chain.
Tough, one strike and your out gun laws are needed, not since some can't, no one can laws.
A sincere thank-you to Cato for good historical background on what militias were at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted -- and to eLwood for pulling his chain. More light, less heat!
Nothing like a gun or abortion thread to bring out the...NUTS. Sheesh, you'd think that a woman's right to choose and the right to carry assault rifles were the only two issues facing the country. Obama hasn't done one thing to curtail gun use (as far as I know) and all I've heard from 'former' Monkeyboy fans is how 'Obama's gonna take their guns.' Every politician has to kiss the NRA's ass...over and over again; and most reasonable attempts to regulate certain weaponry are met with the same ole howls of Constitutional mayhem.
I'm, at least, trying to divvy up my 'nuttiness' between several 'interests.'
(Liked your history lessen, cato; ! sometimes forget how wrong 'conventional talking-head wisdom' can be.)
I must retract and apologize for my comment about Jesus carrying an AK-47.
With his genetics and that armament, he'd look exactly like someone in the Taliban. That is treasonous imagery.
Better make it a Colt .45. With ivory grips. But I can't decide if the hammer is filed down for a quick draw from the hip or if he's carrying it concealed in the small of his back.
Hey, what about one of those over-the-shoulder rigs, with a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun? Do not test MY personal savior.
(As brief background on me, free market principles tell us that higher quality products will drive lower quality products from the market. My pure libertarian conservatism, founded on the words of Jesus, Rand and Palin, is preferred by real conservatives 2 to 1 over the limp-wristed, liberal-coddling and just plain dumb "conservative" posts found here in the past.)
Constitutionality aside, I suspect that nobody except law-abiding citizens like Mr. Otis McDonald (the petitioner in the case) was much deterred from owning handguns by the Chicago ban. Criminals don't need no stinking permission to carry and use handguns.
Still, I get the point of what Chicago was trying to do. Criminals probably don't buy their guns at Wal-Mart. They probably break in when people like Mr. McDonald are away from home and steal them. Or buy them from people who break in and steal them. I guess the idea was to try to impact handgun proliferation.
As I said above, the decision is okay by me. Maybe the right of armed self defense *is* deeply engrained in our national consciousness of liberty. And I guess we all realize there is a price to be paid for that liberty -- I'd bet that for every Chicago resident who successfully defends home or family with a handgun there will be several more who lose those handguns in burglaries to criminals who use the weapons to rob and kill innocents. (It's rank conjecture on my part, I know, but it makes sense based on the relative number of "burglary: guns stolen" vs. "intruder killed" police reports I see around here.)
In any case, interstate commerce in stolen and illegally purchased firearms probably is so great that a local measure wasn't much more than symbolic, anyway.
The decision says citizens have a right to be armed "for lawful purposes." The interesting thing to me will be watching. Are there any lawful purposes for which Durango's Glock won't do, and for which he'll need, maybe an M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon? Any lawful purposes for which anyone needs 750 rounds per minute? Maybe that depends on whether you take ATP's point (parody, I know) about the country being overrun by illegals and minorities and such.
But we'll get to see. And I suspect the Lou Holtz rule will apply: nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems.
Thank you, Durango. You're absolutely right.
And Citizen, I'm not saying that all guns should be taken away from the citizenry. What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with some very strict requirements on gun ownership, as well as some equally strict restrictions on the kinds of guns that should be available to the general public.
The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill something or someone. Why would a hunter need an automatic weapon or 'copkiller' bullets? Why would an individual (non-hunter) ever need a high-powered rifle with a scope just to lock it away in some cabinet that's already stocked with an arsenal of weapons? And what about those people who aren't responsible enough to keep their guns locked up and out of the hands of those who definely shouldn't have access to them?
This country has had a longstanding love affair with guns. And thank you, Cato, for pointing out that we do indeed place limits on the so-called 'rights' given to us by the Constitution. Gun ownership is one area where those limits and restrictions are most important. Lives depend on it.
I'm just saying that it's time to exercise some NEW common sense measures when it comes to our attitide towards gun ownership. And we also need to find NEW ways to keep the millions of guns out there out of the hands of the criminals and nutjobs. It's far too easy to get a gun in this country, both legally and illegally, and I think we need to work very hard to find ways to correct that. Had we already managed to do that, my loved one would still be alive.
All of those who must have their guns to "protect us from the evil government" need to realize that no matter how big your gun are, the military has one bigger and theirs come with a high speed delivery system.
". . . Why is it that Courts can completely overlook the modifying or preceding phrase when applying this right? . . ."
Big "L,"
You forget that mandatory first-year law student course that isn't listed in the catalog. You, know "How to swallow a camel in a single gulp and choke on the most miniscule gnat when it benefits your client or your pocketbook."
Supremes Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia had it tattooed where you can't see, but they won't forget! It ". . . will be just fine . . . until the day it isn't. . . ." as CiCi so astutely predicted.
HHW
Thanks for your contributions. Sensible regulation and effective crime deterrence and solution have always been my point, not gun confiscation or prohibition. The nuts (who are indeed a subset of gun owners) see just about any regulation as an infringement (even such crime-fighting tools as placing tracing elements in explosives). The court SAYS it sees things differently. We shall see.
Max, thanks for the explanation on "Tea-baggers". Now I can envision people tossing teabags instead of having other terrible thoughts going through my head.
In the '50's and '60's, there were many people in Arkansas who deemed life, liberty, rights, immunities and privileges meant what THEY thought, not what the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment stated. Everyone who fought against these elite racists were deemed crazy, trouble-makers, and uppity. Thank God the Constitution won out.
The elitists in Arkansas who consistently refuse to "allow" citizens to possess their Second Amendment rights are no different than the state legislature who passed Arkansas's current gun laws (in the 1870's) to keep newly freed slaves from arming themselves. That group of lawmakers did not trust the black man with his rights, and the current group doesn't trust Arkansas's citizens with theirs today.
The McDonald ruling is the second step in restoring Arkansas's right to bear arms, same as the Northern states allow their citizens to bear arms. The "black codes" of Arkansas must finally be removed.
I know better than to ask a rational question, but really, Arkyhog, please enumerate what was "restored" in the way of Ark. gun rights.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
Okay, Max, how about this for a rational question. How is it that the "The Roberts-Alito U.S. Supreme Court continues to legislate from the bench." ? Is it not their job to render decisions on the Constitutionality of the laws of the land? They found the Chicago law, like the DC ban, were Unconstitutional. How is it judicial activism to find FOR the Constitution, Max?
Author Archives
-
Monday night line
You're on. I'm off.
- Dec 19, 2011
-
The coaches come and go
Football news today: * KFSM now reporting as legit talk that has filled chat boards all day — that Hog defensive coordinator Willy Robinson is getting the boot.
- Dec 6, 2011
- More »
Event Calendar
-
Re: The long march is on; today's flavor — Santorum
“I'm sure you still have freedom from religion.”
Is this why atheists are banned…- on February 8, 2012
-
Re: The long march is on; today's flavor — Santorum
Brummett today, nails some of it real gud:
if Santorum is the alternative,…- on February 8, 2012
-
Re: Vets center followup
It is frustrating that people posting continue to equate people diagnosed with mental illness as…
- on February 8, 2012
Top Commenters
Blogroll
Site Index
News
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
Entertainment
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings
This Week's Cover
Quick Links
Special Publications
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
