Breaking News
Supreme Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
By Courtney Lowery, 6-26-08
 |
|
 | |
|
The U.S. Supreme Court has just overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban, citing self-defense and Second Amendment Rights. The decision essentially means the court sees the 2nd Amendment as applying not only to millitary, but to individuals as well.
The court was split as expected 5-4, with Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. voting to overturn and John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer against it. Click here for a PDF of the full opinion
As the Washington Post reports, Scalia wrote the decision, noting that gun violence could be curbed in other ways, “including some measures regulating handguns.” He went on, “But 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.”
The court furthered the self-defense theme when it also ruled that a requirement making gun-owners store all shotguns and rifles unloaded, disassembled or trigger-locked was unconstitutional, writing that it was a “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
LD
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=8562038&nav=menu227_8
>>>>>>>>>>>
Montana Sen. Jon Tester said the decision was "one heckuva victory" for gun rights.
Tester, a Democrat, filed a brief in February along with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas that urged the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives signed the brief, including Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, and Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican.
Baucus said after the ruling that all citizens should have the right to bear arms, whether it's for hunting or protection. Rehberg agreed, saying the right to own a firearm is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sorta puts them at odds with Obama's straddle and previous position supporting the DC gun ban. Obama's name was NOT on the amicus brief with Tester, Baucus, and McCain which was a demonstration of bi-partisanship.
>>>>>>>>
Regardless of what you think of the merits of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling overturning the capital's handgun law, it seems to me we're entitled to a clear position by the presumed Democratic nominee. And I'm a bit confused about how the confusion came about.
Here's how the Illinois senator handled the issue with the Chicago Tribune just last November:
"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.' "
Kind of a flat statement.
And here's what ABC reported yesterday: " 'That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position,' Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News."
Inartful indeed.
But even though the earlier Obama quote and the "inartful" comment have been bouncing around the Net for 24 hours, I'm not seeing any reference to them in the morning papers. Most do what the New York Times did: "Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would 'provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.' "
Supporting the individual-rights view? Not in November.
Even the Tribune--the very paper that the Obama camp told he supported the gun ban--makes no reference to the November interview. Instead: "Democrat Barack Obama offered a guarded response Thursday to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia's prohibition on handguns and sidestepped providing a view on the 32-year-old local gun ban. Republican rival John McCain's campaign accused him of an 'incredible flip-flop' on gun control."
So McCain accuses Obama of a flip-flop, and the Trib can't check the clips to tell readers whether there's some basis in fact for the charge?
USA Today takes the same tack:
"In a conference call put together by McCain's campaign, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said . . . that Obama has been changing his position on the gun issue and said the Democratic senator has done some 'incredible flip-flopping' on key issue."
And? And? That's all we get? He said/he said journalism?
Even if you wanted to maintain that it wasn't really a flip-flop, what about giving the readers the facts?
<<<<<<<<<<<<
We should demand more real journalism like Jonathan Weber's column the other day.
The ruling MAY be a correct interpretation of the second amendment, but if so maybe it's time for another amendment. The simple fact is that there is a BIG difference between a hunter or rancher having guns in Montana or Wyoming, and some punk on the streets of Washington, New York or Los Angeles having them. At least Justice ("Torture is not Punishment") Scalia left the door open a little by writing, "that gun violence could be curbed in other ways, “including some measures regulating handguns.” " Do we REALLY want a world where our teachers are packing heat? Or a return to 1930's Chicago style violence? I support freedom and reasonable gun rights; but I also support a healthy dose of common sense.
Unfortunately it will probably take a shift in justices and another national tragedy similar to the Kennedy or Martin Luther King assassinations in order for that common sense to return.
Making guns illegal or banning them in DC will only keep guns out of law abiding citizens. The "bad guys" or punks, as you put it, will always have guns, legal or not.
Most deaths caused by handguns are in self-defense, not offensive attacks.
And if the kids are packing heat, doesn't a teacher have a right to defend himself/ herself? Sound like common sense to me...
Funny story, I got in a bit of a tiff with Howard KURTZ last week. He wrote something in one of his weekly chats about how Keith Olbermann would have a better show if he would invite some conservatives on once in a while. I wrote back to Kurtz, pointing out that Olbermann claims that he invites conservatives onto his show, but they are too scared to come on. He publicly chastized me in his column, asking where I could have ever come up with such a crazy idea. What Kurtz didn't inform his readers is that Olbermann said that very thing to Kurtz in an interview two years ago. Of course Kurtz is willing to obscure what he does and doesn't know in order to push his right wing agenda.
Actually the majority of handgun related deaths in the United States are suicides. 54 percent result from suicide, 41 percent result from homicide, and 3 percent are unintentional. Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.
Oddly, while nationwide there are 3982 victims of crime per 100,000 citizens, in one of the few remaining bastions of gun freedom, our National Parks, we have only about 1.5 out of 100,000 such victims. Perhaps one reason that I have never lived in fear is that I spend so much time in our parks. Now they want to take even that sanctuary away; but that is for another thread.
As I said, I favor (or at least have no problem with) reasonable gun "freedom" "rights" etc. Perhaps a strict permit system, including a mandatory course of rights, responsibilities and gun safety is the answer for Washington. I just cannot believe that MOST parents in this country would want their kids going to school in a "live ammo"
zone, but I could be wrong. Heck, everybody has a gun in Iraq! Must be crime free over there!
Frankly I hope every criminal has reason to believe this old lady is packin'.
When I compare Wyoming and Montana to New York or DC the first thing that stands out is the tremendous difference in population. If Montana had the population of LA, I have no doubt that the crime rate would be similar. I discovered a long time ago that people generally get along in relatively small numbers much better than when they are crammed together like sardines.
Finally, if you have a group of children, and they all love each other and have played together for years, and they are all good kids, and you give them knives to play with, sooner or later someone is going to get hurt. Just from a personal standpoint, mind you, I feel that the same is true with guns. Give everyone a gun and I guarantee you that people will die who would not have died. Yes, others will be saved who would not have been saved. Will it balance out? I don't know. But one thing that I do know is that if I were a criminal and I were going to rob someone that I knew (or was pretty sure) had a gun, I would never give them a chance to pull that gun. I would shoot them first and ask for their wallet afterwards, rather than the other way around. And THAT is what "just makes sense" to me.
I respect your lack of desire to own or have anything to do with firearms. Yet there is a certain level of experience that needs to be met for full consideration of the inherent issues.
I have been around firearms all my life. And there was this one fine afternoon, in Noo Yawk City no less, where I really, really wished I'd brought one along. The cops were less than helpful, because I hadn't been shot, I guess, and that really shook my faith in the system.
So, I've been around the block and have made my decision based at least in part on hard experience.
Let me put the question to you this way:
Would you limit free speech or other fundamental civil liberties such as privacy, property, et cetera without a "strict permit system requiring safety training and psychological testing or evaluation?" I mean, sometimes on this blog it would be a good thing for some posters. But that would be wrong. We're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, right?
Marion, check your facts. Most guns used in the commission of a crime (or suicide) were legally obtained, or were stolen from someone who had legally obtained them.
BTW, I've been around the proverbial block as well. I have been robbed (both at home and at my place of business), assaulted and threatened. Never in a National Park, BTW. In each case I was glad that I DID NOT HAVE A GUN. Perhaps not at the time, but certainly later. Guns will not stop crime. They may stop a few, but they may also turn a lot of situations deadly that would not otherwise have been so. Unsecured guns in homes will almost certainly lead to more children dying. While I have no doubt, Dave and Marion that any children in your homes would be well educated in gun safety, many will not and are not; as evidenced by the numerous tragedies that led to these laws in the first place.
Do you know where I could find that?
My family has grown up around guns and all are hunters as was my Dad. All of my grand children have taken their first deer, antelope, and elk. Only one person who does not hunt, that is me. I still want them to all be able to safely use and own guns, and it won't be long until the oldest of my great grands start shooting, they already go hunting with their Daddies and Mommies.
I heard Juan Williams yesterday on Fox state that guns fighten him, I have never seen a gun try to beat, stab or shoot anyone, only the baddies do that.