People don’t kill people, guns do – Leticia Stark, In Josh Sugarmann’s book Every Handgun is Aimed at You
I found a copy of the book at the local Half Price Books, and figured I would check it out. That gives you an idea of what is contained in the book. I also had to laugh about the section on the courts, seeing as Heller reversed most of what Sugarmann claimed.
Now to get a few asprain and read some more…
1 Comment | 
D.C. v. Heller, People that don't have a clue, Quote of the Day | 
Permalink
Posted by Peter
Under the D.C. [law], a robber has to make an appointment with you so you can get your gun ready for him - Stephen P. Halbrook
Hat tip John Lott
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller, Quote of the Day | Permalink
Posted by Peter
We had D.C. v. Heller, now we have Heller v. DC. Dick Heller is taking D.C. back to court, claiming that the new laws do not honor the court’s ruling.
We wish him luck.
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller | Permalink
Posted by Peter
For decades the Second Amendment might as well have been called the Second-Class Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court spent the late 20th century expansively interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, not to mention unenumerated rights ranging from travel to sexual privacy. But not until last month did the court hold that the Second Amendment means what it says: that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” - JAMES TARANTO in the Wall Street Journal
Hat tip John Lott
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller, gun politics, Quote of the Day | Permalink
Posted by Peter
Snowflakes in Hell reports that the Village of Morton Grove has officially repealed their handgun ban, in the face of legal challenges and the Heller decision. I am always for solving bad laws through the legislative process instead of the courts, considering the it to be cheaper (lawyers are expensive,) faster (a court case can take years,) and “cleaner” (among other things, you are not left with the old laws on the book, just not enforced, as sometimes happens) if things go right. On the other hand, I would like to see the Chicago ban go all the way to the Supreme Court. It is the very similar to the D.C. case, meaning that the main question is incorporation, which I thin makes it a very winnable case.
In the meantime, it’s good to see some of these other laws fall away as they should, and citizens get their rights back..
2 Comments | D.C. v. Heller, gun politics | Permalink
Posted by Peter
if the Second Amendment was meant to provide for creating a state army/organized militia (the “collective rights” view,) wouldn’t that be at odds with U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3 “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace…?”
Probably addressed in one of the Heller briefs I wasn’t able to read, but this is what you get reading the Constitution at midnight.
1 Comment | D.C. v. Heller, gun politics | Permalink
Posted by Peter
Mrs. Ahab takes on Justice Breyer’s comments about the danger of having a gun in the home. I couldn’t agree more.
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller, gun politics | Permalink
Posted by Peter
There has been some talk that SCOTUS upheld gun licensing in Heller. They neither struck down nor upheld licensing, they did not address it.
Looking at this another way, SCOTUS did not strike down licensing, but then again, they didn’t strike down McCain-Feingold, either. This is not an approval of either, as neither issue was part of the case at issue. The Court only mentions licensing to remove any ambiguity, because licensing was closer to the case than “campaign finance reform” was.
The result of this is that the status quo remains, which may seem functionally identical to upholding licensing, but has the important difference of not setting any form of precedent. All the court said was come back and talk to us again if you want an opinion on this.
Incidentally, I think that it was probably a good idea to leave licensing out of the case this time, as including might have lead to an instance of “we’re giving you enough already” where licensing would have actually been upheld. Also, one cannot call DC’s licensing discriminatory or arbitrary: no one was allowed a license. It would probably be better to bring a case where licensing was used in a discriminatory manner, as that would be more likely to be struck down.
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller | Permalink
Posted by Peter
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. – Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller, Quote of the Day | Permalink
Posted by Peter
The Armed Canadian has a post thanking Mayor Fenty for the arrogance that led him to continue to challenge the lower court’s ruling, which lead to one of the greatest victories ever for the Pro-Gun movement.
He is absolutely right, and I think when you look at the restrictions that are being placed on gun ownership in D.C., the worse they make them, the more likely it is that they will be struck down in the future. Think about it: the court says that licensing is “OK” (not challenged by Heller, therefore not ruled on.) If Fenty et al. were to levy a $10 – $25 registration fee, you had to come in an pass a background check, etc. that would seem much more reasonable (still not right, but harder to challenge) than having to pass a test, etc., especially saying that an applicant ”6. Must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly.” (“Oh, you need corrective lenses? DISQUALIFIED!”)
These sorts of restrictions are more likely to get to the court, and more likely to be authoritatively struck down. So, maybe in the long run, Fenty is doing us another favor by making as many problems as possible.
Leave a Comment » | D.C. v. Heller, gun politics | Permalink
Posted by Peter
You are currently browsing the archives for the D.C. v. Heller category.
