Constitution Is Big Winner in D.C. Gun Case
The spirit of liberty that animates the Second Amendment has survived today's narrow decision in D.C. v. Heller.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
In response to Justice Stevens’ complaint that “hundreds of judges” have relied on the anti-individual rights interpretation of Miller, Scalia shot back: “their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Then, adopting the interpretation urged by lead counsel Alan Gura is his brilliant brief for Heller, the majority opinion states: “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.” This language — along with language a few pages later implying that an automatic M-16 rifle can be banned — indicates that the federal ban on civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after 1986 is still constitutional; but a renewal of the expired federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which outlawed about 200 cosmetically incorrect sport-utility guns either by name or by generic description, might be unconstitutional.
As for the constitutionality of other gun controls: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The word “commercial” in the last sentence could suggest that there might be constitutional problems on some laws which applied to non-commercial arms transfers. (However, there are few federal laws on non-commercial transfers, other than criminal penalties for transferring guns to prohibited persons.)
The majority opinion also affirmed the validity of bans on gun carrying in “sensitive” locations such as schools and government buildings. The language may imply that a total ban on gun carrying in ordinary public places is unconstitutional. But Heller does not attempt to answer the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments, and most carrying restrictions in public places are created by state and local governments. For now, Heller limits only the federal government — and entities such as the D.C. City Council, whose powers are granted by the federal government.
D.C. and its amici had argued that a handgun ban was alright because people could still have long guns for self-defense in the home. But the majority observed: “There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
The D.C. law also required that rifles and shotguns as well as grandfathered pre-1976 handguns be locked or disassembled at all times in the home. D.C. and its amici conceded that a ban on using guns for self-defense in the home would be unconstitutional, but argued that the locking law contained an implicit exception for self-defense. Justice Scalia pointed out that when the D.C. law had been challenged in an earlier case (McIntosh v. Washington, 1978), the D.C. Court of Appeals (D.C.’s equivalent to a state supreme court) had pointed to the requirement that all guns in the home be inoperable as one of the features of the law.
While the majority opinion argued at length with Justice Stevens’ dissent on the text and history of the Second Amendment, the engagement with the Breyer dissent was shorter. Breyer wanted courts to perform an ad hoc balancing test on the merits of gun bans or gun controls, and he thought that there was enough social science in support of the handgun ban — although he conceded that there was a good deal of social science on other side, too — that the handgun ban should be upheld.
Justice Scalia accurately noted that the Breyer approach would negate the very decision to enact the Second Amendment: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”
Today the law-abiding citizens of D.C. regained their right to defend themselves in their home, and to use the most suitable defensive arm for that purpose. But the bigger winner today was the Constitution itself, vindicated by a majority decision which was faithful to the Constitution’s text, and to the spirit of liberty which animated the American people who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment.
Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, in Golden, Colorado. He was one of three lawyers at the counsel table who assisted Alan Gura at the oral argument on March 18. His brief for the International Law Enforcement Trainers and Educators Association was cited four times in Thursday's opinions.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
60 Comments
Ed Wallis:“The Dirty Dozen” A book I recommend to all. Even (especially?) Bradley and Navarette. heh
GOD BLESS AMERICA
This is a step “forward” only in the sense that too many steps backwards have been taken - whether in regard to…lessee, only recently: foreign terrorist holding (Boumediene - sp?), death penalty in the context of raping a child in your own family….
Umm…GEE…and that’s only in the last week or so.
If America is to become the greatest country it can be - and it ain’t so bad so far - we gotta cherish and utilize - that is to say, NOT TRASH - our basic, core, FORMULATED BY AND INHERITED FROM OUR FOUNDING FATHERS values which make us all, in the final analysis, Americans.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:33 am Major Bill:Well said Mr Kopel, well said.
The forces of Liberty and Justice have prevailed against those of darkness and tyranny.
God (or Goddess) Bless America!
What a nice 4th of July present!
Sincerely,
Major Bill
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:14 pm jack rogers:I don’t know who is more verbose, the author of this post or Ed Walls. Either way, you both sound like the lunatic majority who made this ridiculous decision. I wonder when we’re going to evolve beyond this crazy second amendmendment and make a law that makes sense — and one that saves lives.
Maybe Congress can enact a new law, allowing teens to carry sidearms into the classroom. Then, we can stop worrying about how to eliminate gun tragedies in schools. The kids can just defend themselves.
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:15 pm Kirk Parker:Ed Wallis,
Indeed, this decision–though certainly welcome–is not so much a step forward as halt in a long, slow slide. Though happy in the outcome, I’m quite displeased at the narrow margin.
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:32 pm Fidel, MD:Congratulations to Mr. Gura, and you and all the amici for a job well done.
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:38 pm Fidel, MD:Mr. Rogers, while I wouldn’t call either post you refer to ‘verbose’, I would call your post ’supercilious’, you twit.
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:40 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:Dunno about teens, but forcing universities to allow sane, law-abiding adults to carry firearms on campus would have saved an awful lot of people over the last few years.
Just as the freedom of speech is not unlimited (you’re not free to lie or shout “fire” in a crowded theater, or publish obscene pornography), freedom to bear arms may very well not be unlimited either. However, in both cases, the bar to regulation should be pretty damned high.
Jun 26, 2008 - 12:40 pm Marsouin:I am a life-long DC resident and am not holding my breath. As I have told friends and acquaintances for a couple of years now, DC gov’t will muster every creative force to mitigate any positive USSC decision. Therefore, I expect to see very little if any change. I just need to move out of this Banana Republic.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:04 pm Roy M:Aren’t the decisions in Boumediene and Heller both steps in the same direction?
One protects those who are accused of being illegal combatants from being imprisoned for as long as the Government likes under condtions that make it unlikely that they will be able to properly defend themselve.
The other stops the Government removing the means for people to defend themsleves in their home.
They are both are both steps to protect liberty.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:06 pm Jeff:Perhaps we can evolve past the Second Amendment when criminals no longer pursue their hostile intents.
Then again, we can find ourselves in a similar situation as the Brits, trying to craft a legislative solution to deal with a rash of knife crimes.
Why stop with knives? Perhaps the carrying any sharp object over 2″ long, blunt objects weighing more than eight ounces, or cords exceeding 10″ in length should likewise be banned as they can all be used to harm or kill someone.
Of course we should perhaps license or ban the instruction and participation in combative sports such as karate, boxing, judo and wrestling since they promote physical dominance over the weak, meek, and untrained.
Meanwhile, I’ll be thankful that today, there were 5 sensible justices sitting on the Supreme Court.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:10 pm JorgXMcKie:Good thing for jack rogers that even idiot opinions are protected under Free Speech. I suppose he wouldn’t mind similar restrictions to his First Amendment rights as he apparently wants to apply to the Second.
When I was going to high school, during hunting season at least half of the vehicles in the parking lot, both faculty and student, had a shotgun in them, and probably one-fourth of those also had a pistol. I’m wracking my brain, but I don’t remember a single shooting occurring at my high school between, oh, say 1880 and now. Not. One. All those teenagers, all those guns, and not one shooting. Actually, not a single discharge of a weapon at all, to my (admittedly somewhat limited to 1955-present) knowledge.
I’m sure jack will find that hard to believe, since he obviously *knows* that teenagers and guns lead to massacres.
Like I say, though, even idiotic expressions are allowed under Free Speech.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:38 pm Mark:While I am happy that the 2nd Amendment was defended and upheld I am really very dissapointed that there are 4 SCOTUS ‘JUSTICES’ that believe the simple statement allowing citizens to defend their life and liberty (and those of other citizens family or not) could be so hard to understand.
Do we REALLY have 4 mental migets on the left side of the bench of SCOTUS?
God help us.
At least I’ll be able to defend MY home and hearth when the OBAMABOTS come for me.
I hope you’ll do the same.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:40 pm Mark:Oh…and about the business of ‘evolving’…
Get a clue. The rest of us will always cherish our RIGHTS from those that would sieze them. Be they common criminals or members of the enlightened progressive bent that would legislate a nanny state to ensure they rule in OUR name.
Evolving does not mean progressive values.
I submit that evolving means in this case exactly what happened in HELLER…the defeat of the leftist/marxist/i know whats good for YOU worldview.
Its about d*mn time too. THAT IS EVOLVING!!!
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:45 pm Dane:Roy M: “Aren’t the decisions in Boumediene and Heller both steps in the same direction?”
No. Boumediene extends US Constitutional rights to non-citizens, which is frankly insane.
jack rogers: “I don’t know who is more verbose, the author of this post or Ed Walls. Either way, you both sound like the lunatic majority who made this ridiculous decision. I wonder when we’re going to evolve beyond this crazy second amendmendment and make a law that makes sense — and one that saves lives.”
What do you suggest in order to ’save lives’? Before you answer I hope you’ll consider the effectiveness (or lack thereof) that banning gun ownership has seen in reducing gun crime in Washington DC and Chicago…
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:45 pm Bird:If I were a burgular or some other such unsavory character, I’m now a LOT less likely to pick a DC house to rob or enter unlawfully.
And to Jack Rogers, the data for your Chicken Little mentality simply doesn’t fit for you. There is more gun crime in areas with stricter gun laws than not.
Jun 26, 2008 - 1:57 pm ~Paules:We will never evolve beyond the need to defend ourselves as long as there are predators in the world. Apparently liberals believe all problems are fixable through some sort of legislation. Conservatives know better. The answer, as always, is more individual liberty.
As for Jack Rogers, (from his website) “Do we really need Don Imus?” Maybe not. But if we take away his First Amendment rights, what or who is next on the list? It’s not just a slippery slope; it’s a cliff.
And does he(again from his website) really think that sparing a child rapist is progressive? In defense of capital punishment we can at least claim that it’s 100% effective in preventing recidivism.
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:09 pm Roy M:“There is more gun crime in areas with stricter gun laws than not.”
Do the stricter laws come in response to ‘more gun crime’. Or do previuosly peaceful areas errupt when stricter gun laws are passed?
Surely the former?
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:12 pm Roy M:….there is more crime in areas frequented by large numbers of cops.
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:20 pm Cletus:The handgun ban in D.C prior to this ruling was similar to my country, Canada; they must be disassembled in the home or locked up (which is a great help when someone breaks into your house with a gun), etc. Does the U.S really want to be more like Canada?
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:28 pm Larry J:As much as I dislike John McCain, this decision should help him in the general election. The fact that this was a 5-4 decision when it should’ve been a slam dunk in favor of the 2nd Amendment makes me shutter to think what kind of judges Obama would nominate to the Supreme Court and how close we’ll be to more disasterous decisions like Kello. I don’t like or trust McCain very much but I’ll be voting against Obama this November. Any other conservatives like myself who are considering sitting out the election (to “send a message”) should look at this 5-4 decision and think again.
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:33 pm Roy M:Cletus,
Dunno, how bad is gun crime in Canada compared to U.S.?
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:36 pm Roy M:…hmmmm firearm homicide in Canada is about 1/8th the rate it is in US (0.7 per 100 000, 5.7 per 100 000).
It seems that “this decision will almost certainly cost American lives” could apply to Heller as well as Boumediene.
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:41 pm tanstaafl:…striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and the ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home…
The DC handgun ban has been on the books since 1976.
It would be hard to imagine how a ban on handguns in the home has had a positive impact on crime in DC over 32 years.
Check out DC crime rates, esp. 1976 forward
Jun 26, 2008 - 2:44 pm RE:The narrow margin to victory for something so explicitly stated in the Constitition is alarming.
Four judges actually voted against a citizen’s right to self defense. It’s very disturbing.
Jun 26, 2008 - 3:02 pm Dave Surls:“Either way, you both sound like the lunatic majority who made this ridiculous decision. I wonder when we’re going to evolve beyond this crazy second amendmendment and make a law that makes sense — and one that saves lives.”
In 1900 the homicide rate in the U.S. was 1.2 per 100,000 (practically no gun control laws), now it is 5.7 per 100,000 (thousands of gun control laws). So much for gun control saving lives.
Jun 26, 2008 - 3:05 pm Kay:“Mark:
While I am happy that the 2nd Amendment was defended and upheld I am really very dissapointed that there are 4 SCOTUS ‘JUSTICES’ that believe the simple statement allowing citizens to defend their life and liberty (and those of other citizens family or not) could be so hard to understand.
Do we REALLY have 4 mental migets on the left side of the bench of SCOTUS?
God help us.
At least I’ll be able to defend MY home and hearth when the OBAMABOTS come for me.
I hope you’ll do the same.”
I’m with you Mark, not much else to say.
Jun 26, 2008 - 3:12 pm John Samford:Roy M:
“There is more gun crime in areas with stricter gun laws than not.”
Do the stricter laws come in response to ‘more gun crime’. Or do previuosly peaceful areas errupt when stricter gun laws are passed?
Surely the former?”
No, what happens is criminals, who are not noted for adherence to the law, read that the government has disarmed it’s citizens. Since the Government cannot disarm criminals, the criminals go to where the citizens have been disarmed to commit their crimes. Think Low Hanging Fruit.
Jun 26, 2008 - 3:14 pm dirigible:Only criminals will be upset by this ruling. Remember that as you watch the pundits wax eloquent on this topic.
Not so good, really.
From the decision -
“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.”
Miller said nothing close to this, so far as I can see. From U.S. v. Miller -
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
The Miller decision implied (though didn’t explicitly say) that the court believed that the 2nd Amendment protected the sort of weapons which would be of use to the military or for the “common defense.” It is easily shown (though it was not so shown to that court) that a short-barrelled shotgun is indeed “ordinary military equipment,” and obviously could contribute to the common defense. So by the Miller court’s reasoning, possession of such a shotgun should be protected by the 2nd amendment because it is a legitimate military weapon, NOT because it is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens.”
The SC doesn’t want to admit that any consistent reading of the 2nd A. means that the NFA ‘34, the GCA ‘68, and the FOPA ‘86 are unconstitutional. So it’s doing a little half-measure instead. I’m not all that impressed.
Jun 26, 2008 - 3:17 pm dick:All you have to do is look at the statistics for the cities that have banned guns. Except for NYC they have all had a big surge in gun crimes(think Boston, Chicago, DC) while the rest of the country has had a downturn in crime of all types. that should cement the decision right off the bat.
Jun 26, 2008 - 3:53 pm Roy M:Lets look at DC crime figures
A big increase in murder and burgalry in 15 years before 1976 gun-control. Murder lower that pre-gun control peak for 11 years following gun control, then bad times in late ’80s to late 90s, then things improve.
Burgalry: big increase in 15 years prior to gun control, then pretty stable until late 1990s when there is a big improvement.
Doesn’t seem to fit the gun-control-increases-crime story very well.
More detail…..
DC crime figures murder:
From 1960 to 1974 increases threefold.
1976 Gun crontrol - murder rate about 33% lower than 1974 peak and remains below the 1974 peak until 1987.
1988 - 1997 are big years for murder. Thereafter the rate is on a downward trend. The last years figure (2005) is the best since the years imediately after 1976 gun control, and better than the any of the five years preceding 1976 gun control.
Burgalry: 1960 - 1975, again a threefold increase. Small decrease in two years following gun control, then sticks at close to pre-gun control level until 1996. Then a big reduction until 2005 where burgalry rates are back to early-sixties levels.
Jun 26, 2008 - 4:40 pm Roy M:The story that profile of crime figures do fit is “generation-X were violent bastards when they were young.”
Now they are middle aged and write blogs instead.
Jun 26, 2008 - 4:56 pm fred:It is disturbing to read Justice Breyer’s opinion in the matter and how he reasons it. Bottom Line: the “progressives” believe that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are not normative documents. They think that if post-modernists can cobble together some “enlightened” standard (or what passes for such for as long as it is deemed “enlightened”)that flatters and guards their elitist perquisites, then it such trump the thoughts of an 18th century document. Believe me, these transnational progressives are not friends of the American people or even of any decent human civilization. Hell, they don’t even recognize the menace of those jackals from dar al Islam baying outside our windows for our blood.
This is why it is a grave error to rely on government to provide for us the things that really matter in this life. The Founders knew the type of men drawn to the political and legal classes: these types are not all honorable. Case in point: that Golden Mouth Shape Shifter from Chicago.
Our rights are not bequeathed by government’s leave. They are natural and they derive from God. Rights don’t “evolve.”
There was a time when gun ownership in our society was much higher. A lot higher. Were there murders? Of course there were, but nothing like what we see today in urban areas, where the good citizens are hardly armed and the criminal gangs are armed to the teeth. And where budget cuts typically fall hardest on law enforcement and lightest on education administrators and bureaucrats.
Jun 26, 2008 - 5:01 pm Mocha Java:Like Dirigible, I too have read the Miller decision and am surprised that Scalia and the majority said it banned sawed-off shotguns.
Jun 26, 2008 - 6:14 pm RKV:It only said that it was not within judicial notice that such a weapon “is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
That’s hardly a ban.
In the future, can an erroneous statement like this carry any weight?
“The SC doesn’t want to admit that any consistent reading of the 2nd A. means that the NFA ‘34, the GCA ‘68, and the FOPA ‘86 are unconstitutional. So it’s doing a little half-measure instead. I’m not all that impressed.”
100% correct.
That said, we should take a page from the civil rights movement. We’ve got an opening, let’s make it bigger, then drive a truck through it. Gura has already filed another lawsuit against Chicago’s gun laws and is invoking the 14th Amendment (incorporation vs. the states).
Jun 26, 2008 - 6:44 pm sixfingers:It is too bad that it takes the Supreme Court to make the cops go by the constitution.
As for gun violence.
Jun 26, 2008 - 7:08 pm Hale Adams:Do like Los Angles, ignore it.
It is only gangs killing each other.
To Dane:
The problem with Boumediene is not that it extends Constitutional rights to non-citizens. The Constitution doesn’t refer very much at all to “citizens” but quite often to “persons”, which logically includes non-citizens as well at citizens.
To Roy M. (and Dane):
The problem with Boumediene is that it grants to unlawful combatants (as defined in the Geneva Conventions) rights that LAWFUL combatants seldom (perhaps never) enjoy, which is pretty absurd when unlawful combatants (per the Geneva Conventions) enjoy a right to only one thing– a bullet in the head.
Don’t believe me? Go read the Conventions for yourself– which is probably more than 99 and 44/100ths percent of the leftoids have done. Read the associated commentary as well– you’ll find out WHY unlawful combatants can only have that one “right”, and why civilization depends on that harsh outcome.
Jun 26, 2008 - 7:18 pm Hale Adams:“….. logically includes non-citizens as well AS citizens.”
Gah. I really need to proofread my posts before hitting “submit”.
Jun 26, 2008 - 7:21 pm Jack Burton:An Open Letter to Those Who Wonder Why Citizens Would Want to Carry Guns in Public
http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:41 pm Notan Idjit:jack rogers:
Maybe Congress can enact a new law, allowing teens to carry sidearms into the classroom. Then, we can stop worrying about how to eliminate gun tragedies in schools. The kids can just defend themselves.
Good idea.
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:48 pm robotech master:If you follow the news at all, school shootings with multiple deaths have ALL occurred in gun-free zones, whereas schools that allow concealed firearms have ALWAYS stopped an attacker before more than one person died.
Yes the whole point behind the geneva conventions was two-fold… protect soldiers and protect civs… it also is suppose to set the rules in which terrorists are defined… and basically covers everything the SC ruling was about already… the ruling was complete BS. Not only do we have the legal right to annex cuba(and other countries) as well as enforce our laws their… but neither US soldiers nor civs have this right…
Plus on top of that the “right”(habeas corpus) in question can legally be suspended… thus even if these terrorist somehow had said right they can have it legally removed. So the ruling in every way goes against the constitution. The ruling is basically a way to open the door for leftist imperialism via the legal system.
As for the gun ruling… its a tiny step back towards sanity… after a long hard sprint away from it. However as pointed out the fact that this was a 5-4 vote is sad and dangerous…
The best was stevens who clearly doesn’t understand a thing about the constitution… with a quote like this
“Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate property rights.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
With some more he plans on giving to future cases.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate beliefs.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate wages and labor.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate the internet or any new form of expression/media.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Most ppl attack the 2nd Admin because they really want to attack the 1st admin… The 1st and 2nd Admins are basically setup the same… if you can defeat the 2nd Admin then you can challenge the 1st… and more importantly without the 2nd Admin you only have rights until the government decides other wise…
As someone said above it would be good to use many of the same tactics the civil rights movement used(being this is the new civil right movement for this decade). Cities and such will likely turn to insane taxes and paper work to enforce BS laws… I would suggest comparing owning a gun to abortion rights… one state can make laws and such that prevent the poor or other groups from not having access to their “rights” and in turn laws can’t be made in which to deny gun owners the right to carry via taxes… I would think with a good legal team not only could you use arguments suchs as that to defeat the massive forms and taxes but to force states to either have open carry or make CCW very easy/cheap to get.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:13 pm John Samford:Hale Adams, the can of wormes that was opened has a real big juicy one called “jurisdiction”.
Either a court has it or it doesn’t. SCoUS has laid a claim to universal jurisdiction. That flies in the face of Blackstone’s observation of the natural law that “The law doesn’t go where enforcement cannot reach”.
Doesn’t that place them in conflict with the world court, which has made the same claim? So what the SCoUS has done amounts to a declaration of war, a power which is reserved for Congress.
Yep, a HUGE can of worms.
ALL these issues are bogus anyway. There is a thing called a Constitutional Amendment that ‘amends’ the Constitution. If the left wants to make gun ownership illegal, pass an amendment. If they want to stretch the 1st amendment to cover a bunch of things it wasn’t written to cover, pass an amendment.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:25 pm Dave Surls:If the left wants to murder millions of unborn children, PASS AN AMENDMENT.
“Doesn’t seem to fit the gun-control-increases-crime story very well.”
I’ve seen homicide statistics for three nations: USA, UK and Canada, and in all three cases homicide rates are higher now then they were when those nations had little or no gun control. Much higher in the case of the United States.
Gun control may or may not cause homicide rates to rise, but they most definitely haven’t caused them to fall.
And, that’s simply a fact.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:26 pm NB:To jack rogers and others who would have their government control guns. The facts of gun crimes and gun control are well known. Perhaps a look at what governments do once they’ve disarmed their citizens. A simple look at the historical evidence should do:
Soviet Union: Established gun control in 1929. From 1929-1953 20 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey: Established gun control in 1911. From 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany: Established gun control in 1938. From 1939-1945 13 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China: Established gun control in 1935. From 1948-1952 20 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala: Established gun control in 1964. From 1964-1981 100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda: Established gun control in 1970. From 1971-1979 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia: Established gun control in 1956. From 1975-1977 1 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
http://saveus.org/docs/factsheets/intlgunfacts.pdf
’nuff said.
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:07 pm wm:Roy M:
“1976 Gun crontrol - murder rate about 33% lower than 1974 peak and remains below the 1974 peak until 1987.”
Actually the peak was in 1969. No year before or after saw so many murders, and in fact there’s a gradual decline in the murder rate, from 1969 to 1984…
…A decline which happens to match the population decline of the District of Columbia.
Washington, D.C., lost *22%* of its residents, in just ten years, between 1969 and the onset of the crack epidemic in 1984.
I can’t help but point out that this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the gun ban. If it was so effective at lowering the murder rate, people would have been attracted to move there, wouldn’t they?
“Murder lower that pre-gun control peak for 11 years following gun control, then bad times in late ’80s to late 90s, then things improve.”
But as we’ve seen the murder rate had *already* been dropping since 1969, again following the population drop pretty closely.
I will concede that there’s a pretty sharp drop from 1974 to 1976… and observe that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 did not forbid the possession of handguns registered before 2/5/1977.
At least the local gun shops did some brisk business before they closed! But seriously, why choose 1976 as your year of comparison? If the law was not in effect until 1977, what caused that drop in murders in 1976?
Your analysis also does not take into account stricter sentencing guidelines imposed in the 1980s. Of course, then crack hit the streets and it all came off the rails…
But as for the reduction in crime post the crack wave, from 1997 onward…
Washington, D.C. has been gentrifying since 1993. It has reversed it’s population loss since 2000, helped in part by harsher criminal penalties and a serious re-development effort by the District.
The Census bureau has documented that the very composition of DC’s population has been changing throughout this period. More affluent, to pick one feature among many.
***
Data sources:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:03 pm Bill in New York:http://factfinder.census.gov/
(see their “Fact Sheet” for D.C.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.#Demographics
NOTE TO MCCAIN STRATEGISTS: emphasize the 5-4 decision, and their “liberal” (not so much in keeping with liberty) interpretation of the second amendment. The mainstream media WANTS to focus on the majority decision. But, reading the minority dissent is MUCH more important to anyone making a decision who to vote for as President… LEVERAGE THIS MESSAGE!!!
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:20 am Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):Another 5-4 decision, thank GOD the flop was in the right direction. We, at MAXINE, do not “get” why the SCOTUS made the margin on this decision so thin.
At least these people left us all with a tool to, if inclined, overturn their earlier 5-4 decision concerning the use of the death penalty in cases that involve persistant/preditory child rape.
Jun 27, 2008 - 8:09 am Will Becker:What a close call. One Justice is all it would have taken,to reverse the decision,and our Constiution could be almost worthless.Thank GOD for Conservative Justices.
Jun 27, 2008 - 11:58 am Pinkie Ann LeBrainne:Cheers NB who cited the horror that results when a population is disarmed—
Jun 27, 2008 - 2:51 pm Gozer the Carpathian:Santa Anna tore up the Mexican Consitution of 1824 and tried to disarm those pesky Tejanos and Texicans. Hence the famous Gonzales “Come and Take It Flag” with the cannon, that the Mexican army failed to “take.” Texas has a strong distaste for dictators, and I promise, will never give up the personal ownership of firearms.
While I’m glad the SC finally realized they were supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws, I wish we didn’t have to rely on them. They are 9 people who we’ve invested WAY too much power into. With a simple flop one way or another they can change the law. The judicial branch shouldn’t write law, or execute it, it should just decide if something fits current law or not. PERIOD.
Jun 27, 2008 - 11:31 pm