« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

SCOTUS rules: Gun rights are nationwide

By: tngal (Diary)  |  June 28th, 2010 at 10:24 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Just happened so very little on it. But from Breitbart we get that the SC has ruled that our right to keep and bear arms is a nationwide “thang”. Pretty important for the Windy City which has a handgun ban. The decision was a 5-4, again just a slim majority. But for gun rights advocates this is big. Would be nice to know what it means for other states which have, maybe not bans, but restrictions on when and where you can carry.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GKARU01&show_article=1

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Swamp_Yankee

    Talk about tortured logic:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

    Also an important decision on SOX. It will open the door for much needed reform, which is good because maybe it wont get done this session and maybe a GOP Congress can tame that populist piece of crap.

    • Achance

      Stevens. It is rare to see a dissent so focussed on one Justice’s thinking; he went to the trouble to write a concurrance attacking Stevens’ dissent. Scalia’s sneer is very evident!

      • redneck_hippie
        • Achance

          I always liked to plow the field for the next case or controversy in the footnotes or with some secondary line of argument. Scalia was sending some message as was Thomas.

          Stevens’ “logic” is so typical of liberal elitists; all situational, nothing fundamental, we smart people will just tell you what it says and what rights you can have.

          • redneck_hippie

            Thomas’ view vis a vis 2A and freed slaves. I felt Thomas was paving the way for the inevitable rights-crushing to come, courtesy of Mayor Daley and his coreligionists. If Daley comes out with an insurance requirement that discriminates on the basis of being able or unable to afford gun insurance, any low socioeconomic gun owner will have standing. What overriding societal concern could possibly deny those in the most dangerous (low income) neighborhoods their right to defend their person and property?

          • Locked and Loaded

            some things are very clear already:

            The Municipal Respondents are from Obama’s turf.

            Their race-hustling knows no bounds, being retroactive even, illustrated by their attempts to rewrite the clear intent of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, arguing that it did not protect blacks from being disarmed, only from being discriminated against.

            It is a pleasure indeed to read the cogent argument provided by Justice Thomas. I now believe the other four in the majority came up short. May he live long and enjoy great health.

            It is especially painful to read the infantile and hollow blather ginned up by Breyer, and more painful to realize he is one vote away from writing a majority opinion.

            Now, if I can quit skipping around on this thing…

          • aesthete

            He’s easily the best justice as far as originalism is concerned. Scalia’s good, but he does rely overmuch on precedent and the like for a job that may not require it to the extent that he uses it.

            That said, Scalia’s abrasive personality on the court, and his raw intelligence (as opposed to Stevens’ mere cleverness) makes him my second favorite justice.

          • aesthete

            further proves just how orthopraxic and situational progressivism truly is.

          • Achance

            Hell, the handy, dandy Webster’s Collegiate, of unknown vintage, didn’t have it. But, yes, though they’d deny it even as they were tied to the stake, liberals are religious and their catechism is FAR more rigid than ours.

          • aesthete

            And yes, the leftist doctrine is much more unforgiving than ours, particularly its illiberal strains. They are almost a caricature of the medieval priest, whose diktats are much too complex for the layman to comprehend.

          • txgho1911

            And was then stuffed back into a moldy closet in the basement of Baton Rouge whence it has resided for over 100 years.

            If they passed this into law and amended it to the COTUS then it should have meaning and teeth. Several articles in recent months and years have described the fence straddle Scalia has stood over support for Privilege & Immunities and now in this decision it’s denial. Evidence the justices are seeking that balance to sustain GCA 34 and 68.

            We did lose again with this most important piece of the 14th left to rot. Written imperfectly and vague to it’s detriment it could take the gov out of peoples beds baths and beyond. I am disappointed in this part failing to be embraced for what it was intended.

            Lets put Jim Crow in the ground already. Take the gun off the table.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            instead of just “incorporation” doctrine. Easier for the latter to be abused, as history has shown.

          • aesthete

            It would have been great to see his opinion as the majority opinion. The decision was still a good one (it was penned by Scalia, I believe), but not as complete as one utilizing the Privileges and Immunities Clause would have been.

            Scalia’s great, but like his spiritual antecedent, Bork, he relies too much on precedent. Precedent is important, and has much merit in the lower courts, but in the case of the Constitution, given its pre-eminence, I would prefer more emphasis on correct interpretation of the Constitution a la Clarence Thomas, given that scholarly and historical work has revealed little wiggle room to interpret the Constitution as one sees fit. Would that we could clone 9 more Thomas’!

  • mikerazar

    nt

    • kowalski

      .

  • RealQuiet

    :)

  • redneck_hippie

    to the ban. Word is one of his preferred restrictions on Chicagoans’ 2A rights could be the requirement to purchase special insurance before a gun may be licensed.

    Hmmmmm. Requiring citizens to purchase insurance. Where have we heard that one before?

    I know you all understand that only allowing 2A rights for citizens who can afford insurance is uh….unconstitutional!

  • redneck_hippie

    to the ruling. Word is one of his preferred restrictions on Chicagoans’ 2A rights could be the requirement to purchase special insurance before a gun may be licensed.

    Hmmmmm. Requiring citizens to purchase insurance. Where have we heard that one before?

    I know you all understand that only allowing 2A rights for citizens who can afford insurance is uh….unconstitutional!

    Anyone who knows Daley knows he will restrict rights up to and beyond the point needed to send another case to the SC.

  • tngal

    Drafting a response. Our govermental leaders would never plot.

  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights

    (Emphasis mine.)

    In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

    The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.

    ===================

    OK, I can put ‘em away……. for now…….. ‘ceptin the one welded to my hip 24/7 (yes, I’m serious…. I was read for anyt……. um…….. never mind).

    We’re about to enter a seriously dark time in our nation. Cass (the most dangerous man in America) Sunstein is gonna start his “nudge” campaign in earnest now……. Like with the “green bullet” craziness going on now and get more bizarre from there.

    The instant the Jihadist At 1600 and his minions and their owners get The SCOTUS, we’ve all got major problems, much more than now……not just gun owners, so don’t think I’m trying to start anything.

  • techsan

    …so it was presented in the locally read story while I was listening the the radio. As far as I can tell, this was a victory for the American People and, by extension, the Constitution. Sure, some industry may or may not benefit, but shouldn’t it happen that way? Industry should build on the bedrock of the Constitution and not the quicksand of liberal whim and corruption.

    This was a victory for *us*….all of us…even the liberals who don’t want it. Maybe they can all voluntarily surrender any firearm they might own.

  • redpens

    although the 4 who voted against our 2nd Amendment rights is a reminder why we need to get a conservative President in 2012.

  • kowalski

    It’s a day that a lot more people should be celebrating but somehow the Democrats managed to outsmart us again by making some people at this blog absolutely livid with the NRA (or maybe the NRA was stupid for making people at this blog angry at them, over Elena Kagan, or maybe it’s just pure cussed politics or something like that).

    Regardless, it was a major victory and the decision is historic. And it goes without saying that it probably would never have happened without the NRA’s support. I think we have a real baby/bathwater problem here, and it’s sad. I refuse to yell and scream back at Erick, Redstate, or for that matter the NRA.

    I don’t have to scream at them. They’ve done very well. I can make my feelings known to them however, and I might get kicked off of Redstate for saying this, but I don’t think their “gag order” regarding Kagan is anywhere near as terrible as some people here are making it sound.

    Someone tell me if I’m wrong, but here goes:

    No matter how much noise the NRA made about Kagan, it seems to me that it would be a foolish battle to fight right now, one they’d have absolutely no chance of winning, to prevent her confirmation. I don’t see what their upside is at all, even if that irks a lot of people.

    But I see that as a side issue, and today was indeed a good day for 2nd Amendment rights. It could also be that one of the winners will be GOA or some other alternative organization to the NRA. I’m agnostic on whether that’s a good thing or not. My view is that as long as we have lots of capable and dedicated people working to defend and preserve their 2nd Amendment rights, I don’t much care which organization’s sticker they put on their car or truck, or which hat they wear.

  • Doc Holliday

    and even if they did, they would have to compromise and become what a few headliners here are attacking. It is much easier for a small organization to never compromise than a large one.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have the same questions and others about the NRA. Hell, I know the MOST nimble organizations are state and local. Check out the Virginia Citizens Defense League, they have been as good as a gun organization can get. They have not only overturned and countless state and local gun grabbings, they LED the fight and victory over 2A rights in national parks. And the best thing is that the VCDL has spawned many other state organizations trying to do the same thing.

    I guess my point is, we still need the NRA, although they need a serious backlash to whip them into shape. We also need to ad to the GOA rolls. The GOA is much more pure and they have a place for sure. And lastly, join a state or local gun rights organization, and participate in it. If you can’t find a good one, join the VCDL, www.vcdl.org $20 bucks, or whatever it is, is used to actually smite gun grabbers.

  • JSobieski

    They are about advancing the debate and setting a stage for the future. Kagan is unlikely to be stopped, but the public is ALWAYS in need of reminders that the SCt should be populated with strict constructionists because that is what ALL of the Founders, regardless of party, wanted.

  • kowalski

    And lastly, join a state or local gun rights organization, and participate in it.

    Absolutely and without question. The NRA is important in terms of numbers and connections and money, and there’s no doubt it makes “mistakes” or at least makes policies internally that are seen by a lot of people as mistakes.

    There’s a lot more to the 2nd Amendment landscape than just the NRA. Here in Massachusetts there’s no substitute for GOAL (link in my sig.) We need strong national organizations and strong and vibrant state and local organizations. Places like GOAL in particular are much better equipped to understand the intimacies and intracacies of politics in local jurisdictions and in state legislatures. They keep their eyes open and ears to the ground in a way that national organizations just cannot efficiently do.

    We used to proudly call that…..Federalism. :)

    I’ll hazard a guess that if GOAL didn’t exist, today’s ruling wouldn’t have just been about gun bans in Oak Park and Chicago — but also the entire state of Massachusetts.

    It’s a difficult decision where to send your money in tough economic times, so choose wisely and get the most bang for your buck.

  • cwilson

    vis. the P&I clause? By supporting the “radical” idea that the P&I clause was not a dead letter, the GOA played “bad cop” to the NRA’s “good cop”: Hey, don’t worry, just use the tried and true Due Process Clauses to incorporate the 2A.

  • kowalski

    I can’t deny it, and I can’t deny my disappointment when I receive the latest issue of the American Rifleman in my mailbox each month, and read articles like the ones in this issue…mostly on the Founding…

    …and then have to deal with this strange organizational schizophrenia at the national level. It’s certainly not what I wanted to be talking about today. If the NRA somehow intended to make today a “bleh” day — out of all the days to do so — they succeeded.

    But the ruling still exists. :)

  • Doc Holliday

    this is where I kindly differ with my friend Kowalski. I think he is thinking of repercussions but those are illegal. the NRA has a job to do and they should fight her nomination.

  • kowalski

    You know, one of the most important takeaways (intended or not) from this is:

    “If you’re not a good advocate for our Constitution as a citizen, don’t count on anyone else to be, either.” It really is up to all of us to read and understand the recent SCOTUS rulings and the Constitutionalist perspective. Personally. Each of us, as best we can. So that when we talk with people, we’re speaking as authoritative sources based on our own knowledge and beliefs. I find that in local politics especially there’s no substitute for that knowledge, and it takes work.

    You can send a check to someone and expect them to defend your rights, but it’s really crucial to know them and be able to defend them yourself as well – where it counts: in the day to day commerce of ideas with your neighbors.

  • Doc Holliday

    as a 2A advocate, I have learned that the real battles that affect everyday lives are in the state houses.

  • aesthete

    The NRA is essentially the Microsoft of the 2A world. You can and should criticize, nag, and insist on changes to some of their peripherals, but the nature of the beast is such that it can never truly be repudiated. Sure, you can go ahead and buy a Mac or install Linux for your daily needs, much as you can go with GOA or others, but at the end of the day, living in a Windows or NRA-free world is impossible, and a ban on either counterproductive.

    Of course, I’m a mac guy, so what do I know?

  • kowalski

    I don’t know why they decided not to, I can only guess that they thought it was a fight they weren’t going to be supported much in (and couldn’t win) by the rest of our Republican Senators, so they’d be the ones out there flailing around without any backing whatsoever.

    That’s my best guess. From Erick’s perspective they made the wrong choice, and maybe they’ll lose some members. It’s certainly not a catastrophe, and I’m not going to walk around harboring any grudges about it.

    Believe me, if I had access to that information I’d tell people, I would discuss it, and I’d be happier because at least I’d understand the rationale instead of having to guess about it like every other man+dog in the world. I’m not even a Lifetime Member and I’ve never met a single person from the NRA in person, or corresponded with them through email, telephone or other electronic means, or through … OK you get it.

    I go on the news reports and interpolate from them, but there must have been a reason they decided not to do it. Hard to believe they just did it for no reason at all, particularly today. It’s left to the NRA to explain why. I’m waiting for their explanation like everyone else in the world.

    In the meantime I’m puzzled by it, but I do tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s me. It’s not Erick, it’s not Redstate, and it certainly isn’t GOA or Sharron Angle — but IMHO today should have been a more pleasant day than it was. I’m a grownup and I can handle that Erick and others have their reasons.

  • kowalski

    Is that they’re all warm and fuzzy about cutting sweetheart deals with leftists.

    C’mon folks. Let’s not — really. Let’s not.

    I think that notion strains credulity a lot more than the dress on the girl in my previous blog entry had its credulity strained. And it’s a lot less appealing, so I tend not to think so. ;)