Posts Tagged ‘second amendment’
Posted by Richard on January 28, 2013
The Democratic majority in the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee today reaffirmed its faith in the “gun free schools” myth and denied local Colorado school boards the right to decide for themselves whether to allow teachers and school staff to arm themselves.
Meanwhile, on tonight’s 9PM newscast, KDVR-Denver reported (not yet posted on their website) that a free concealed-carry qualification class sponsored by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which they hoped would attract 200 participants, drew 300 participants.
Apparently, there are a lot of teachers and school staff who don’t think a “gun-free zone” sign will keep them safe. Good for them.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberities, colorado, gun control, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 18, 2013
UPDATE (1/19): It was a great rally! I got there a little after 12 and estimate there were about 1500 people in attendance. Many were families with children. The highlight was definitely Robert Wareham, the attorney for James Mapes, the man whom Thornton police falsely arrested and imprisoned for carrying a pistol into a Thornton theater (entirely legally) a week after the Aurora theater shooting. He’s a terrific speaker — engaging, forceful, articulate, and persuasive (not that his audience needed persuading regarding his powerful defense of the Second Amendment and our right of self-defense).
Other fine speakers included: James Mapes himself; a woman whose name I don’t recall (sorry, I didn’t take notes) who provided an at times funny and at times moving account of how she transitioned from hard-core liberal to gun newbie to nationally competitive shooter to staunch defender of the Second Amendment and self-described “Constitutional conservative”; and state Representative Chris Holbert (R-44) from Douglas County, who last year sponsored the “Constitutional Carry” bill (HB1205 making a concealed carry permit optional), which passed the Colorado House with a bipartisan majority, but was killed in a senate committee.
UPDATE 2: Reuters claims “about 500” attended the Denver rally, which is total BS. Even the Denver Post described it as “Almost 1,000,” and they have a long history of low-balling the attendance at tea party and gun rights events. About 1:45, a few minutes after the rally ended with someone singing the 3rd and 4th verses of the national anthem, I was policing the area, picking up what little litter there was. There were at least two people (one with a video cameraman) interviewing attendees — clearly the media. A couple of state troopers on bikes were near me, and one of them pointed to one of the media people and chuckled, “They got here just about the time it was all over.” A civilian standing with them replied, “That way they can downplay how big it was.” The two troopers smiled and nodded.
UPDATE 3 (1/20): Last night’s 9News report on the rally agreed with the Denver Post — 1000 at the rally. Billll agreed with Reuters (when’s the last time that happened?), and has a picture to back him up. But the picture was taken about 1 PM. When I approached the capitol at noon, the crowd came about half-way down the hill toward Lincoln St., and there were many more people on the sidewalk with signs. I suspect a lot of people left shortly after Robert Wareham’s speech, which had already started when I got there (I’m guessing, because I stayed near the capitol steps listening to the speakers). He was certainly the highlight of the rally, and while I enjoyed several of the subsequent speakers, they certainly weren’t as captivating. I suspect even more left when Rep. Holbert was introduced. I’ve noticed this phenomenon at past tea party and gun rights rallies: when they start bringing politicians to the microphone, no matter who they are, a bunch of people walk away. Based on his CUT rating and affiliation with RMGO, Holbert is one of the good guys. But he’s still a politician, and a significant segment of the pro-freedom movement just doesn’t want to listen to politicians. I suppose that’s a good thing. 🙂
***************************************
Sorry for the short notice. January 19th has been designated Gun Appreciation Day, so there’s a rally at the State Capitol in Denver (and at other state capitol buildings across the country).
If you can’t make it to a rally near you, visit a shooting range or gun store, buy some ammo or that Springfield XD you’ve had your eye on, …
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, colorado, denver, second amendment | 4 Comments »
Posted by Richard on July 25, 2012
In clear violation of the Constitution and fundamental human rights, the state of Maryland requires a “good and substantial reason” for the issuance of a concealed carry permit. In a case challenging the constitutionality of that restriction, U.S District Judge Benson Everett Legg ordered the state to process permit applications without requiring a reason, but originally issued a stay of his ruling. Now, he’s going to lift the stay in two weeks because it’s “not warranted.” The Second Amendment Foundation, which together with a Baltimore resident filed the suit in 2010, is delighted:
“There is no good reason for the state to continue violating the constitutional rights of its citizens just to maintain this burdensome and arbitrary system,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As Judge Legg originally observed, the Second Amendment’s protections extend beyond the home.”
While it is possible that the state may file a motion with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to impose a stay of Judge Legg’s order, the trial court precedent is an important one. It established that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not stop at the door of one’s home.
“No citizen should be required to give a ‘good and substantial’ reason in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right,” Gottlieb observed. “In his order today, Judge Legg noted that the state has pointed to ‘little in the way of truly irreparable injury that is likely to result should their request for a stay be denied’.”
The judge also noted, “If a stay is granted, a sizeable number of people will be precluded from exercising, while the case is argued on appeal, what this Court has recognized as a valid aspect of their Second Amendment right. In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court has stated that ‘loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury’.”
I’m delighted, too.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, gun control, human rights, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 5, 2012
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed another suit against yet another public housing authority that bans residents from owning firearms, this time in Warren County, Illinois:
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.
“Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime.”
“People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means,” added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. “Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else.”
Frankly, given the generous pensions and disability benefits unionized police officers receive in most jurisdictions, I have to wonder why Ron Winbigler resides in government-subsidized housing. But maybe his jurisdiction is different — I don’t know anything about how he came to reside there.
In any case, Winbigler is certainly a sympathetic plaintiff for this kind of case. And I agree wholeheartedly with Gottlieb (a classmate at the University of Tennessee) and Sigale. Government-subsidized housing, if it must exist, cannot require residents to give up their 2nd Amendment rights any more than it can require them to give up their 1st Amendment rights. This case, like similar cases in the past, should be a slam-dunk. Unless the judge is a Clinton or Obama appointee.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, gun control, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 30, 2012
The Second Amendment Foundation had a great month in March, winning four gun rights victories in court. The latest was in Massachusetts, of all places. The Federal District Court struck down a law barring permanent resident aliens from owning a handgun:
BELLEVUE, WA – A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts today granted summary judgment in a Second Amendment Foundation case challenging that state’s denial of firearms licenses to permanent resident aliens.
U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock concluded that “…the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second Amendment.”
The case involves two Massachusetts residents, Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal, whose applications for licenses to possess firearms in their homes for immediate self-defense purposes were denied under a state law that does not allow non-citizens to own handguns. SAF was joined in the case by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. and the two individual plaintiffs. The case is Fletcher v. Haas.
The previous three victories came in North Carolina, Washington state, and Maryland. Read about them here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, human rights, second amendment, self-defense | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 5, 2012
The Colorado Supreme Court killed the University of Colorado’s ban on campus concealed carry today. From Rocky Mountain Gun Owners:
This ruling supported the decision of a court of appeals from April 2010, and reversed a position paper by then-Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar (an opinion which the current Attorney General, John Suthers, refused to change).
The crux of today’s ruling states that the Colorado General Assembly did, in fact, intend on concealed carry permit holders to be able to carry on all campuses, statewide.
“First CSU and the Community Colleges, and now all the CU Campuses; finally, the administrators for Colorado’s public colleges have been told they don’t have dictatorial powers,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), and a lobbyist for the entire 9-year battle for Colorado’s Concealed Carry Act.
“The creation of this criminal safezone, where only criminals are armed, was ill-advised and dangerous to anyone who finds themselves on a college campus,” Brown said.
“Now, RMGO will move on to force more publicly owned facilities to live by the law.”
Meanwhile in Maryland, a federal court has ruled that the right to bear arms doesn’t end at your front door. The Second Amendment Foundation called it a “huge victory”:
Ruling in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan – a case brought by SAF in July 2010 on behalf of Maryland resident Raymond Woollard, who was denied his carry permit renewal – the U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.”
U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg noted, “In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”
“This is a monumentally important decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be. Once again, SAF’s attorney in this case, Alan Gura, has won an important legal victory. He was the attorney who argued the landmark Heller case, and he represented SAF in our Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
“Equally important in Judge Legg’s ruling,” he added, “is that concealed carry statutes that are so discretionary in nature as to be arbitrary do not pass constitutional muster.”
“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
A very good day for self-defense rights.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, human rights, second amendment, self-defense | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on June 22, 2011
And then there was one:
Wisconsin stands on the verge of becoming the 49th state in the country to allow citizens to carry concealed guns, after the state Assembly made a bipartisan vote to legalize that practice Tuesday.
The measure passed 68-27, with 11 Democrats voting in favor of the bill along with the body's lone independent and all Republicans except Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford), who had wanted stronger legislation. Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale) said his vote was mistakenly not counted and he would seek to correct that.
The approval of the bill marks one more piece of long-blocked legislation that Republicans have been able to pass now that they control all of state government. The bill to allow the concealed carry of guns and other weapons such as Tasers passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote last week, so approval in the Assembly sends the bill to Gov. Scott Walker, who supports the measure.
Once the measure is signed by Gov. Walker, Illinois will be the only remaining state in the nation that completely bans concealed carry. Nine states issue concealed carry permits, but give the issuing law enforcement agent (usually sheriff or police chief) some discretion on who to approve. The other 40 are "shall issue" states — anyone who meets the statutory requirements (generally some training and no felony conviction or adjudicated mental health problem) must be issued a permit — or "no stinkin' permit required" states (Vermont and Alaska).
And as a result, our streets are running red with blood as crazed gun nuts shoot it out over parking spaces, cutting in line at the express lane, etc. Oh, wait … they're not. Violent crime continues to decrease as gun sales and carry permits increase.
In fact, it seems almost like violent crime rates are inversely related to rates of gun ownership and carry. Just what you'd expect if (1) the vast majority of people are peaceful and non-violent; (2) violent crimes are almost exclusively committed by a very small percentage of the population who have no moral compass or impulse control and aren't deterred by laws alone; and (3) that small violent minority can be deterred to some extent (and if necessary, stopped) by members of the peaceful majority who are prepared to defend themselves and others.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, guns, human rights, second amendment, wisconsin | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 24, 2010
Marcus Cole is a professor of law at Stanford University. He recently posted an homage to four men and a gun that brought a tear to my eye. It begins thus:
As an American, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to many, many people who have risked and given their lives to defend our liberty. But as I reflect on the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, I thought I should take a moment to mention four Americans who have made a relatively uncelebrated contribution to the freedom I cherish and enjoy. I owe a special debt to four black men, and one gun.
The most important of these men, to me, was my father. When I was a boy, he and my mother moved our family of six from the Terrace Village public housing projects in Pittsburgh’s Hill District to a predominantly white neighborhood. While many of our neighbors welcomed us, we were not welcomed by all. I recall a brick through the front window, and other incidents. But burned into my memory is the Sunday evening when my father was beaten with a tire iron on the street in front of our home, and in front of us, his four little children. Those three young white men were never caught.
When my father, with his surgically reconstructed eye socket and jaw, was released from the hospital, he did something he never once considered when we lived in the projects. He bought a gun.
Please read the rest. Thank you, Professor Cole.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: constitution, firearms, fourteenth amendment, guns, liberty, second amendment, supreme court | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on June 28, 2010
Woohoo! Well, two cheers, anyway:
As Jacob Sullum noted below, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in McDonald v. Chicago this morning, ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a major victory for gun rights—as it opens the door for legal challenges to countless state and local gun control laws and finally gives the Second Amendment its due alongside the rest of the Bill of Rights—but it’s not the victory it should have been. That’s because only Justice Clarence Thomas followed the text and history of the Constitution and held that the Second Amendment must be incorporated via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Due Process Clause.
As Thomas notes in his concurrence,
the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. …
I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.
Read the full McDonald decision here. Read more about Due Process vs. Privilege or Immunities Clause incorporation here.
Note to libertarian history buffs: Thomas cites both Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner in his concurrence.
Clarence Thomas is a treasure. If only there were more like him.
It's a win, but not as big a win as it could have been. Still, it's big.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: human rights, second amendment, supreme court | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 8, 2009
Leaders of several gun rights groups and activists supporting the Second Amendment have jointly informed the Senate of their strong opposition to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (emphasis added):
“It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights, ” said a letter from the group, which was hand-delivered to every member of the U.S. Senate. “Judge Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment causes us grave concern about her treatment of this enumerated Constitutional right.”
Included among the signators were Sandra S. Froman, former president of the National Rifle Association; Alan M. Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman; Joseph Tartaro, SAF president; Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGUNS Foundation; several current or former NRA directors; Robert Corbin, former Arizona attorney general and past NRA president; former Congressman Bob Barr; Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League in Massachusetts; John T. lee, president of the Pennsylvania Rifle and Pistol Association; Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association; Robert E. Sanders, former assistant director of law enforcement for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and several others, 25 in all.
“The Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government,” they wrote. “While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is “designed primarily as a weapon” that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.”
“We joined in this effort,” Gottlieb said, “because our nation stands at point in history where we either defend all civil rights, or begin to surrender them one by one until none are left. It would be unconscionable to stand silently as the Senate deliberates confirmation of a new associate justice with such evident disregard for a key tenet, if not the critical element, of the Bill of Rights.”
“The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court,” the letter notes. “Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms and we believe they are contrary to the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights.”
Considering what we already know about Sotomayor's racist ideas, I can't help but wonder (tongue in cheek) whether her opposition to gun rights is absolutist or relative. Does she, perhaps, think that a Hispanic woman in possession of a handgun is likely to use it more wisely than a white male, and thus should be given a pass?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, gun control, human rights, second amendment, supreme court | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 26, 2008
I wanted to post about this yesterday, but Blog-City was down for a long stretch. By now you've probably seen or heard about Rep. Alcee Hastings' smear of Gov. Sarah Palin. But in case you missed it, Hastings issued a warning to a National Jewish Democratic Council audience (emphasis added):
“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. … “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.
Stripping moose — did he mean skinning? In any case, his point is clear: hunters and gun owners are all dangerous racist bigots who will do who-knows-what to minorities.
When they're not demonizing gun owners, Democrats are trying to silence and intimidate them. For instance, last week Obama himself suggested that his supporters get more confrontational:
In an appearance in Nevada, anti-gun presidential candidate Barack Obama told his followers:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.
"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.'" (http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8999386&nav=168XYT17)
Barack Obama has gone beyond lying about his long anti-gun record. Now he is inciting his followers to lie for him and to be aggressive and confrontational with anyone who will not buy his lies.
Now his campaign is threatening radio and TV stations that air NRA-ILA ads about Obama's anti-gun record (emphasis in original):
As a staunch advocate of the First Amendment, I have to say that this is one of the scariest things I’ve seen since . . . well, since the last time Democrats used thuggery to try to squelch free speech.
Here’s the rundown. NRA does commercial highlighting Obama’s anti-gun record. Biased “fact-checking” site falsely claims that the NRA is being deceitful. Obama’s lawyer sends thuggish letter to networks threatening to try to get their license pulled.
Dat’s a nice broadcasting license you got dere. Sure would be a shame if anything was ta happen to it.
Xrlq thoroughly dismembered the Obama campaign's letter to radio and TV stations. And the "falsely" link in the Patterico quote above is to the NRA's response (PDF) to the WaPo claims regarding the ad. This morning, Instapundit posted a roundup of related stuff, plus the NRA ad in question. It's much like the radio ads airing here in Colorado, and none of the claims made in it were unknown to me — Obama's anti-gun history is pretty clear, extensive, and well-documented.
UPDATE: Don't miss that Gateway Pundit link in Instapundit's roundup, or Gateway's link to the St. Louis C of CC Blog. Democratic prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri are suggesting that anyone who utters "false criticisms" of Obama may be arrested and prosecuted. Unbelievable!
What's next? Brown-shirted Obama youths disrupting McCain rallies and breaking heads?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, free speech, gun control, intimidation, obama, second amendment, slander | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on July 13, 2008
The Department of the Interior is accepting public comments on its proposed regulatory change regarding guns in national parks. Right now, firearms can only be transported through a national park if they're unloaded, locked up, disassembled, and have their bores stuffed with Skittles. Or something like that.
I don't know all the details of the new rule, but I understand that it allows people who can legally carry outside the park to carry a loaded weapon inside, thus restoring their right to self-defense.
I encourage you to submit a comment supporting this change, and Instapundit found a way to do so easily, and on the anti-gunners' dime. The National Parks Conservation Association has an online form that lets you submit your comment to the appropriate office, with copies sent to your senators and congresscritter.
NPCA has some suggested language for your comment — some kind of nonsense about how troubled you are by loaded guns — but as Glenn pointed out, you're free to edit the comment (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Want some help with your comments? Glenn posted suggested language from Marc Danziger, and my comment is below. I recommend not using either verbatim, but borrow from them to say something in your own words.
My submission (with a stupid typo corrected after the fact — d'oh!):
I'm very pleased that the administration is considering allowing loaded guns in national parks. Forty states routinely permit honest, law-abiding citizens to carry weapons so they can defend themselves and their families. Contrary to the claims of gun banners, this has led to less crime and violence, not more.
The same will be true in our national parks. That's because, just like in Washington, New York, and Chicago, the people inclined to commit violent crime don't pay any attention to gun bans. So these restrictions serve only to disarm the honest, peaceful people and leave them at the mercy of predators.
Arguably, the need for guns is greater in the backcountry or at remote campsites and trailheads. Help is far away, and we are on our own. Sometimes, not even a cell phone call to 911 is possible.
I urge you to adopt this sensible step toward recognizing our self-defense rights in our national parks. Thank you for considering my views.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, gun control, second amendment, selfdefense | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on June 27, 2008
The Heller ruling is in:
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, ending a ban on owning handguns in the capital city in its first ruling on gun rights in 70 years.
The court's 5-4 landmark decision — on whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally an individual or collective right — said the city's law violated the second amendment of the US constitution which the justices said guaranteed citizens the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court's decision.
He added that while the court took seriously the problem of handgun violence: "The constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.
"The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
It was a victory for gun rights advocates and could have a far reaching impact on gun control legislation across the country. Opponents may now challenge other laws in cities such as New York that restrict the ownership of handguns in the name of public safety.
Scalia wrote the 63-page majority opinion, which was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas. This seems to be a qualified victory, but a victory nonetheless. I've just skimmed the syllabus and the last couple of pages of Scalia's opinion, and this paragraph in the latter jumped out at me:
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.
So, stay tuned.
And don't forget, the next President will probably name two or three Supreme Court justices. One more Ginsberg or Breyer and this decision would have gone the other way. In other words, if Bush had not been re-elected, a SCOTUS with two Kerry nominees in place of Scalia and Roberts would have declared that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right and was essentially null and void.
If gun rights matter to you, you may want to think about that. And maybe get one of these.
UPDATE: FreedomSight has a plethora of links, quotes, and biting commentary (and Jed's promising an "in-depth" look at the ruling itself later). At the end of the post, he also has great Kalashnikitty news. Don't miss it. And I'm not just saying that because he quoted and linked to me. 🙂
UPDATE 2: Billll singled out for attention a couple of quotes from the dissenting opinions, one from Stevens and one from Breyer. Go read. If you're like me, you'll involuntarily laugh, then you'll shudder and work to suppress your gag reflex, and then you'll shake your head in disbelief that such men were considered to be among the best jurists in the country and tasked with protecting the Constitution.
Billll's reaction is perfect: "We really don’t need any more like these." Maybe he should get one of these.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, gun control, human rights, second amendment, supreme court | 6 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 19, 2007
Today, November 19, is National Ammo Day. And in deference to those who have trouble keeping to a tight schedule, Nov. 17-25 is National Ammo Week. It's been dubbed a "BUYcott of ammunition," with gun owners urged to buy a hundred rounds:
The goal of National Ammo Day is to empty the ammunition from the shelves of your local gun store, sporting goods, or hardware store and put that ammunition in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Make your support of the Second Amendment known–by voting with your dollars!
There are an estimated 75 MILLION gun owners in the United States of America. If each gun owner or Second Amendment supporter buys 100 rounds of ammunition, that’s 7.5 BILLION rounds in the hands of law-abiding citizens!
The gun/ammunition manufacturers have been taking the brunt of all the frivolous lawsuits, trying to put these folks out of business. Well, not if we can help it! And we CAN help it by buying ammunition on November 19!
I plan to do better. I'm heading over to Big 5 Sporting Goods in a little while to pick up a 250-round "mega pack" of 9mm Remington UMC for just $49.99, and a box of 525 CCI Blazer .22LR for just $12.99.
That Tanfoglio Witness CO2 BB pistol on sale for $39.99 looks tempting, too. I don't go shooting very often; with a BB pistol, at least I could practice in the basement.
And besides, this one's powered by that evil greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. I like the idea of simultaneously thumbing my nose at the enviro-whackos and the anti-gunners.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: cordite, firearms, guns, second amendment | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 13, 2007
David Codrea's The War on Guns had a bit of good news Friday: just-confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey believes that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Sen. Durbin cited that statement as one of the reasons he voted against Mukasey.
Codrea had been concerned about Mukasey because he supports Giuliani, and because Sen. Schumer supported his nomination. He expressed relief, if not exactly enthusiasm:
Excluding all other considerations, and with the caveat that this is based only on the rhetoric, it would appear gun owners could have done worse.
And frequently have.
Hip, hip, hooray! (for now)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, freedom, guns, human rights, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
