DC Gun Case

[Chris Grieb]

The US Supreme Court has ruled by 5-4 that you can keep a gun in your home. They have thrown out the DC gun ban. That's the good news. The bad news is only 5-4.

It is still a big step in the right direction. It reserves a unanimous court from the 1930ths.

[Chris Grieb]

The decision is 157 pages long so I have not been able to read it all. Justice Scalia has a long history of the Second Amendment and its drafting. Why the founders thought it was necessary. I haven't looked at the dissenters yet. My quick take is the Scalia opinions looks very strong

I'm however not going to buy a gun yet.

This decision confirms my opinion that the two worst Supreme Court appointments were made by Gerald Ford and George H W Bush.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Chris Grieb]

The Washington Post already has a stupid op-ed about the DC gun case. That was to be predicted. It say that is a victory for thugs and criminals rather than for law-abiding citizens. The MSM will never get it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I know your are passionate about this. Why not give people a link or something to read so they can discuss it without having to go off and research it all over the Internet?

I will look up some stuff and post it later. If anyone has a link handy, it would be appreciated.

Michael

[Judith]

This news is fantastic. Here's a link to the slip opinion.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; I don't know how to link. The SCOTUS blog has the full opinion. Google SCOTUS.

[Selene]

Judith:

Scalia's reasoning and the breath and scope of his writing is, frankly, awesome. Hate to be picky, but it is not really a "slip opinion".

This section, was so clearly stated that it is stunning that, as individual federal constitutional citizens, we were one "Justice" from having one of the sections of THE BILL OF RIGHTS in the Constitution of the United States of America, summarily expunged without the ONLY process that constitutionally exists in the controlling document:

"They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Anti Federalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.' 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32(1833)."

Continuing:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right."

And:

"In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to 'bear arms in defense of themselves and the state' or 'bear arms in defense of himself and the state.' 8*** It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

*** 8See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275 (“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20 (1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art. I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has aright to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const.,

Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4 id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of themselves

and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh, State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Politics 191 (2006).

And my personal favorite in footnote 7 in the majority opinion written by Scalia is:

"Some Considerations on the Game Laws 54 (1796) ('Who has been deprived by [the law] of keeping arms for his own defence? What law forbids the veriest pauper, if he can raise a sum sufficient for the purchase of it, from mounting his Gun on his Chimney Piece . . . ?')"

Adam

[galtgulch]

Judith:

Scalia's reasoning and the breath and scope of his writing is, frankly, awesome. Hate to be picky, but it is not really a "slip opinion".

This section, was so clearly stated that it is stunning that, as individual federal constitutional citizens, we were one "Justice" from having one of the sections of THE BILL OF RIGHTS in the Constitution of the United States of America, summarily expunged without the ONLY process that constitutionally exists in the controlling document:

"They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Anti Federalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.' 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32(1833)."

Continuing:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right."

Adam

I just want to point out that the We The People Foundation has enlisted a volunteer effort of citizens to serve all of our Congressmen, our Senators, the President and the Attorney General, with seven petitions on Monday, June 30th. The Congressmen will apparently all be in their home district offices to receive constituents on Monday. One of the petitions deals with The Second Amendment and is named gun control laws or the like.

I have linked to a page which lists all of the seven petitions. Each is a pleasure to read, aside from references to the Creator who is credited with endowing us with certain rights. But the main arguments are not religious as you will see.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/SignPetitions.htm

I recall how I first lost respect for the Supreme Court when I read Henry Mark Holzer's article The Constitution and the Draft in The Objectivist in the late sixties. I even had a session with Holzer in his office in the Empire State Building before I entered the military. Their argument as I recall was to say that since the Constitution gives the Congress the power to raise an army that they were justified to use force to do so. Rand pointed out that Congress also had the power to build post offices and post roads but never dreamed of using slave labor to do so.

Wm

[Judith]

Scalia's reasoning and the breath and scope of his writing is, frankly, awesome.

Indeed. I was astonished and delighted. The court did not need to address the issue as broadly as they did. The only dark note for me was the last few lines in the majority opinion about the second amendment possibly being obsolete in today's society. It was completely unnecessary. (Perhaps he was replying to something in one of the dissents; I haven't even scanned them yet; the majority opinion itself is so content-dense that it will keep me busy for awhile. Still, I wish he hadn't said it.)

Hate to be picky, but it is not really a "slip opinion".

An opinion that is freshly announced, still subject to editing, and too new to have a West's or Lawyer's Edition citation is something I'd call a slip opinion, even if it isn't a typewritten document fresh from the judge's admin's word processor.

Judith

[sbeaulieu]

About time they empower the people to lawfully defend themselves. Only when you have a completely lawful society could you even entertain a notion of banning weapons (in the context of DC's ban).

~ Shane

[Selene]

I respectfully disagree with your statement because when a "completely lawful society" is achieved, it can also change.

Therefore, what reason could you assert that even in a "completely lawful society" an individual should not possess a weapon?

"Only when you have a completely lawful society could you even entertain a notion of banning weapons (in the context of D.C.'s ban)."

[Brant Gaede]

About time they empower the people to lawfully defend themselves. Only when you have a completely lawful society could you even entertain a notion of banning weapons (in the context of DC's ban).

~ Shane

What in heck does "completely lawful" mean? Completely awful?

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

Selene - I'm not saying they shouldn't or couldn't possess them. To realistically believe in a ban, the lawmakers must have been under the delusion that criminals would follow that law. I would think they were putting the citizens at risk by imposing such a ban when the criminals are free to carry them (since they would ignore that law).

Brant - By completely lawful, I meant 100% of the population would be law-abiding. Obviously, such is not the case.

~ Shane

Edited July 3, 2008 by sbeaulieu

[Selene]

Shane:

I understand what you meant now. Agreed.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Selene - I'm not saying they shouldn't or couldn't possess them. To realistically believe in a ban, the lawmakers must have been under the delusion that criminals would follow that law. I would think they were putting the citizens at risk by imposing such a ban when the criminals are free to carry them (since they would ignore that law).

Brant - By completely lawful, I meant 100% of the population would be law-abiding. Obviously, such is not the case.

~ Shane

A dictator's dream.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

Selene - I'm not saying they shouldn't or couldn't possess them. To realistically believe in a ban, the lawmakers must have been under the delusion that criminals would follow that law. I would think they were putting the citizens at risk by imposing such a ban when the criminals are free to carry them (since they would ignore that law).

Brant - By completely lawful, I meant 100% of the population would be law-abiding. Obviously, such is not the case.

~ Shane

A dictator's dream.

--Brant

LOL! I would hope a rational society would fit this bill, too.

~ Shane

[Chris Grieb]

The DC government is not giving up without a fight. Heller the man who brought the suit has been denied a permit for his pistol. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has said "Gun Prohibition yesterday, Gun Prohibition today, Gun Prohibition forever." I hope Heller and any other of the plaintiffs who are denied a permit file another suit.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

The DC government is giving up without a fight. Heller the man who brought the suit has been denied a permit for his pistol. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has said "Gun Prohibition yesterday, Gun Prohibition today, Gun Prohibition forever." I hope Heller and any other of the plaintiffs who are denied a permit file another suit.

Did you leave out a negative, Chris?

--Brant

[Selene]

Chris:

What the President should do is Order Federal Marshals and Federal troops to go into the District to enforce the Constitution. Ike did it in the mid west to enforce the Brown decision.

Simple, you arrest the Mayor and the sitting City Council members for contempt,

End of story.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; You are correct and the post has now been corrected.

[Selene]

Brant:

Nice. I noticed it, but despite my "satirical" manner [Michael, when I, and you, have the time, I would love to dispute your understandable understanding of the connotation of satire], I would have seen it as a bit presumptuous for a "relative new" person to this forum to reply, but obviously Chris, who I admire and respect, simply acknowledged a typo.

Refreshing.

I just want to thank all the fine minds that I have met here for being forthcoming and direct.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Dick Heller was able to legally register one of his pistols here in Washington. The story is told better on the Reason blog Hit & Run

[Chris Grieb]

In the Weekend Wall Street Journal (July 19-20) there is an excellent piece with an interview with Alan Gura the attorney in the Heller case. I will try and provide links to the article later in the day.

The Journal had excellent coverage of the case. I would also recommend the Reason Magazine blog Hit & Run.