UPDATE BELOW (9:00 AM, CST)
Big Surprise: The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America’s Ruling Says D.C. Gun Ban Unconstitutional
Our 2nd Amendment Civil Liberty Right To Keep And Bear Arms is now unquestionable due to the SCOTUS’ long-awaited, way overdue, VERY spot-on confirmation that EVERY American Citizen possesses the Right To Keep And Bear Arms.
Congrats to the Supreme Court for getting yet another one right (good job, Thou Oh-So-Robed-Ones on those Habeas Corpus for “terr’ists” and no death penalty for rape rulings, too — and I’m not be facetious either, by the way). It’s all over now; the issue’s been settled for good, correct? WRONG.
Like our 1st Amendment Civil Liberty to speak freely, the RTKBA is now written in stone — supposedly. On the other hand, you will be arrested if you yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You will be arrested if you threaten to kill the President. Likewise, it’s already illegal to FIRE(!) a weapon in a crowded theater and equally illegal to fire a weapon at the POTUS but those are “givens”. Where it gets a bit “murky” is when the “States Rights” and subsequent “community rights” issues begin to come into play. For example, even though we have a so-called right to free speech, I could literally be imprisoned for putting up an adult web site from my IP address in my hometown of Mobile, located in the Great Red State of Alabama. Not so in other areas of the country. Hello — something a bit “WEIRD” about that, isn’t there?
I believe this “government regulation (the latter example for certain) of a Creator-granted (I didn’t say “God”; neither did our Founders) Civil Liberty” is 100% wrong, even on a “State” or “Community” basis. According to reports last year, Barack Obama completely disagrees with me. Or, on the other hand, he might actually agree with me. The latter statement, however; is causing quite a “stir” on the “Internets” and John McCain’s “Facebooks“…
From ABC’s Political Radar:
Obama Camp Disavows Last Year’s ‘Inartful’ Statement on D.C. Gun Law
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.
In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’ …
(Snip!)
“… When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls “common sense laws.”
Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation’s capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment. …”
Since the Political Radar piece didn’t even bother to mention the supposedly “contradictory” statement by Barack Obama on the Heller Vs. D.C. ruling, let’s turn to The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder for his quote on this amazing news:
“… Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. “As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe. …”
BZZT! Sorry, Sir. Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater is equally illegal in Chicago as it is in Cheyanne — as it SHOULD be. No “blurr” at all. Let’s stop right there instead of allowing various towns scattered around our great nation to tread on our Civil Liberties by alllowing these municipalities and state governements to hold widely differing definitions of prosecutable “obscenity offenses”, for instance. Same should hold true for for the 2nd Amendment. Either our Creator granted us “unalienable rights” or he didn’t. Our Founders confirmed the latter. So don’t ALIENATE the damned things, please? Not just Mr. Obama but everybody else who believes a finite number of community members can redefine a Creator-granted civil liberty to suit their own collective tastes.
It’s great to see the SCOTUS get a few right for once.
***
UPDATE — SCROLL BELOW THE FIRST GROUP OF RELATED OPINIONS
Other blogger opinions, scattered all around the political spectrum: MyDD (Left); Hot Air (Right); Crooks and Liars (Left); The Moderate Voice (Center); Don Surber (Right); Stop The ACLU (Right); Drudge Retort (Left); Say Uncle (Libertarian — no direct article links; there is PLENTY to read on the homepage); The Washington Post (Robert Barnes)
Some preliminary reflections on Heller
Sandy Levinson
There are many things that one can say about today’s today’s decision in the Heller case from both “external” political perspectives or from a more “internal” legal one. No doubt I (and others) will have more to say about Heller in coming days. But I begin with the following.
I begin with some “external” considerations. My own hope, spelled out in some prior Balkinization posts, was that the Supreme Court would unanimously accept the very well-written and -argued brief by the Solicitor General, in behalf of the Bush Administration, which argued both that the Second Amendment indeed protected an individual right to “keep and bear arms” and disagreed with the particularly rigorous test that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had applied to the D.C. ordinance. Thus, according to the Solicitor General, the Court should remand the case back to the court below for reconsideration under a proper, somewhat looser, standard that would still have easily supported invalidating the ordinance.
The reason I so strongly supported the Solicitor General’s brief was certainly as much political as legal. Unanimous acceptance of his sensible view might have helped to diminish at least some of the culture war that has been waged now for at least four decades between advocates of “gun rights” and “gun control,” who have their own interests in demonizing their opponents. My hopes, of course, were spectacularly unrealized. Instead, the Court fractured along an all-too-predictable 5-4 axis, with the five conservatives supporting the rights of gun owners and the four liberals (or, more accurately, “moderates”) seemingly supporting the most extreme version of gun “control,” which is outright prohibition. But the Solicitor General also offered a way for the Court to make sure that gun control would not become a key issue in this year’s presidential race. As a partisan Democrat, I confess to being relieved that the dissenters did not prevail, for the upholding of the D.C. ordinance would, in effect, have served as a massive in-kind campaign contribution to John McCain.
Just imagine what might happen if Justice Kennedy had joined his more moderate colleagues, as he did just the day before in providing the all-important fifth vote to invalidate the death penalty for rapists of children. One sudders at the prospect of Sen. McCain, or some 527group, saying the current Court both wants to protect child rapists and prevent parents from possessing handguns to defend themselves and their children against such marauders. …”
(Snip!)
“… I confess that I am equally dismayed by the Scalia and Stevens opinions (though, if absolutely forced to choose, I’d go with the Scalia opinion). …”
(Snip!)
“… Justice Stevens, for example, writes that anyone who reads the text of the Second Amendment and its history, plus a murky 1939 decision of the Court, will find “a clear answer” to the question of whether the Second Amendment supports a “right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes.” This is simply foolish. Justice Stevens pays no real attention to a plethora of first-rate historical work written over the past decade that challenges this kind of foolish self-confidence… “
(Snip!)
“… there can be almost no doubt that by the mid-19th century, an individual right to bear arms was widely accepted as a basic attribute of American citizenship. One of the reasons that the Court in Dred Scott denied that blacks could be citizens was precisely that Chief Justice Taney recognized that citizens could carry guns, and it was basically unthinkable that blacks could do so. …”
Again, read the entire article — it’s well-written whether you agree with all of Sandy Levinson’s opinions or not (I happen to think Scalia got it 100% correct, myself, for example). In fact, I’m quite proud of my Liberal brethren of whom many seem to be thrilled with the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. I’ve been saying it and saying it for YEARS on this site: the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly out of touch with their Constituents on many issues; most readily the issues of gun control and illegal immigration, which polls clearly show the vast majority of Democratic voting Citizens favor the so-called “Republican” positions.
And this is PRECISELY why I am more than PROUD to declare myself a 100% independent (again, small “I” on purpose) Liberal (again, large “L” on purpose) who is 100% in love with the Constitution and ALL of the Civil Liberties it professes ALL people are born with, thanks to our Creator. SHAME on the four so-called “liberal” Justices for their dissent and their dissenting opinion. I often wonder whatever happened to the REAL Liberals — the Liberals whose name derived from the latin word for “liberty” — ALL Civil Liberties, including the 2nd Amendment? Just when did my fellow Americans begin their support of a Democratic Party who would empower these Authoritarian-ish liberty-limiters to the most powerful seats in the land?
For SHAME on these same so-called “liberal” dissenters — the very same so-called “liberals” who sold out the average, everyday American to “Big Bidness” in their illegal (IMHO) Kelo Decision (eminent domain)? In the Heller decision, they attempted to empower thieves, crooks, thugs and murderers over the weakest amongst us. And folks, there ain’t NUTHIN’ “Liberal” about that. Kudos goes out to the so-called “conservative” justices on this one and a huge “Dumbasses Of The Century Award” goes out to the rest of them.
***
Other “must reads” on the latter-referenced Levinson article: PoliBlog™ (A Classical Liberal); The Volokh Conspiracy (Right); Legal Theory Blog (Right); Law Blog (The WSJ); Adam Liptak (The NYT); USAToday (Nice roundup); The SCOTUS Blog (Another great roundup)
Loading ...
3:49 am on June 27th, 2008 1
This is when the latte liberal lefties piss me off! They may live in upscale enclaves with fully funded police departments, but I don’t!
And for all there whining about a fascist Bush police state, just how pray tell would they have us defend ourselves against it? Stickes and stones?
9:21 am on June 27th, 2008 2
GTL
This ruling is wondermous on so many levels. Now, all of the Limosine Leftist run cities will be on the defense against well founded lawsuits, instead of playing offense with inane suits over manufacturer liability. Hell, I might just have to donate to the NRA again, if for no other reason than to keep the entertainment going.
9:50 am on June 27th, 2008 3
Yo, thanks for reminding me — both my NRA and ACLU yearly dues are about at the renewal stage
11:01 am on June 27th, 2008 4
While I try to ignore the smug and bourgeois elitist stereotypes of “latte and limousine” liberals, this far lefty liberal, gated community dwelling, yacht owning, retired millionaire gun owner fully supports the decision and thinks it doesn’t go far enough. The guarantee is to keep and bear arms, after all, not just to be able to hide a gun under your mattress. Let’s hear it for the SCOTUS. They may be Right, but sometimes they are right.
Now get the hell away from my limo
12:13 am on July 1st, 2008 5
A lot of liberal anti-gun folks should thank their lucky stars the court is as “conservative” as it is. Had it made a similar ruling with one of the courts 35-40 years ago, a ruling would have explained in detail where D.C. could file its post-Jim Crow law. As it stands, future courts will have to fill in the blanks –using the 14th Amendment. The Irony! The Irony!
8:21 am on July 1st, 2008 6
Irony indeed, but I don’t buy into the way the word Liberal has been tied up for the slaughter like a sacrificial lamb. The constitution asserts “uninfringable” gun rights to give power to the citizens and that’s Liberal in the extreme.
We get lead very far astray sometimes by the need to divide everything up into Liberal and Conservative. If we go back to using Liberal as anti-authoritarian, things clear up a bit, in my opinion.