As I Sagely Predicted
It could have been worse but , all in all, I’m pretty happy. Obviously, the gunloons get a debating point–they can now say the Constitution protects an individual right to firearms. DC is a big loser; in addition to having to pay taxes and sending its citizens to the armed services and not having representation in Congress–they also have a court of political hacks telling them that what an overwhelming majority of their citizens want doesn’t matter.
OTOH, Fat Tony Scalia and his cronies have said licensing, registration, and other forms of regulation pass Constitutional muster. Assault weapons and other “dangerous” firearms can be banned. Bans against concealed weapons, carrying weapons in schools and government buildings (Et Tu, Nino?) and other locations are kosher.
The gunloons also lost a debating point: that the 2A serves as a protection against tyranny. Uh, uh sez Fat Tony; the 2A is about self-defense–at home.
Well, sadly for your little victory dance, you are wrong on more than a few counts… and one really has to wonder if you read the decision at all.
Concerning your licensing and registration, you are correct. However, a broad-spectrum “assault weapon” ban, such as the one America had in its past and California has now, quite probably fails the Second Amendment, as per this section from the decision:
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
Furthermore, nowhere in Scalia’s decision does he indicate that the Second Amendment does not serve as a protection against tyranny. He does recognize its value as a protection against the government or others (such as yourself) limiting a person’s inherent right to self defense, but nowhere does that recognition preclude any other purpose the Second Amendment serves. In fact, in the very second paragraph, he says:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Use of the phrase “such as” indicates that there are other purposes contained within the Second Amendment, it is just that Scalia does not have the inclination to list them all, especially considering this particular case in qeustion was one of self-defense within the District of Columbia, not necessarily the Second Amendment’s meaning as a whole.
Like I said, one has to doubt that you read the decision at all.
Of course, given your apparent stance on issues such as these, it is little wonder that you ignored the massive destruction wrought upon the anti-gun lobby’s case, and instead glorified the little nits you can pick at from now until judgement day… Good luck with that - the rest of us will be enjoying what we always had: a Constitutionally-protected, individual right to bear arms.
Comment by something_wicked — June 26, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Sadly, I did read the decsion. And more sadly, for you, I understood it.
The section you quote referencing “class of arms” refers to handguns. That’s the context. Later, Fat Tony says the Court recognizes a historical exception to the right to arms that applies to “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Furthermore, nowhere in Scalia’s decision does he indicate that the Second Amendment does not serve as a protection against tyranny.
To the contrary, read the first page of the decision. It contains the ruling that there is an individual right to have a pistol to keep in one’s own home, in operating condition, for purposes of “confrontation” period. Nothing about revolutions or insurrections.
Comment by Administrator — June 26, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
Sadly, you continue to be wrong, and disastrously so.
Concerning the “class of arms” section, Scalia indicated that the District’s ban on handguns amounted to a ban on a class of arms, which, in its own turn, violates the Second Amendment. He did not say that banning handguns was unconstitutional, but rather that banning a class of arms was. Furthermore, his definition of “dangerous and unusual” is unknown - arguably, all firearms are dangerous, yet it is obvious he does not mean to ban all firearms. Furthermore, the nebulous concept of “assault weapons” are no longer unusual, considering they are quite commonplace in shops and home armories.
Regarding revolutions or insurrections, the scope of this case was self-defense, as it was being abridged in the District of Columbia. Thus, the decision specifically addresses that particular aspect of the Second Amendment. It was outside the scope of the case to address every possible meaning, definition, application, and expression of the Second Amendment, and thus it is no great surprise that Scalia refrained from doing so. Thus, his only mentioning self-defense does not, in any way, limit the application of the Second Amendment only to self defense. As I said before, supporting one aspect of it does not preclude other aspects, much though you seem convinced otherwise.
Comment by something_wicked — June 26, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Fat Tony indicated no such thing; it’s your imagination. In fact, Nino was very clear that he was talking about handguns, concluding they were the most popular and yapping about how infirm people can use handguns.
WRT self-defense, you omit that Scalia further clarified this to self-defense in the home. He specifically stated guns may be prohibited in certain public areas. It’s hard to have an insurrection if you’re barred from carrying weapons in most public venues.
Comment by Administrator — June 26, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
“…what an overwhelming majority of their citizens want doesn’t matter.
And the day before, the Court said that if an overwhelming majority of citizens want the death penalty for child rapists then that doesn’t matter either, right?
Also, the Court did not say that any licensing and registration passes Constitutional muster — only that which is not enforced “arbitrarily and capriciously.” Aww — that’s your favorite kind, isn’t it?
Comment by JayF — June 26, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Glad to see that the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment has gone onto the dust heap of history where it belongs.
Where every nonsensical theory belongs, as it were.
Comment by Thomas Jefferson — June 26, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
blah, blah, blah.
Just as I PREDICTED, turds like YOU are also jumping up and down, declaring “victory” on the issue, same as your “gunloons”.
Idiot.
Comment by theirritablearchitect — June 27, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Jay F; Think before posting. You’re essentially trying to equate every citizen of DC to child rapists.
Comment by Administrator — June 27, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
“Think before posting. You’re essentially trying to equate every citizen of DC to child rapists.”
Read before posting. I was essentially trying to equate the majority of citizens of DC to the majority of citizens of LA who want to execute child rapists.
Comment by JayF — June 28, 2008 @ 9:20 am
As you sagely predicted? Oh that’s a good one!
You ’sagely predictied’ a decision like that of the losing dissenters, a decision that the second amendment amounted to a right that was powerless to prevent even gun control as extreme as the D.C. handgun ban. That much was clear from the comments section of your ’sage’ prediction. Instead your prediction was crap.
As for ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ you are once again way off base. Scalia did NOT overturn U.S. v Miller, instead incorporating it into D.C. v Heller. That means that the Miller test of weapons useful to militia service are still protected, so long as those weapons are in common use by the American public. So so-called “assault-weapons” are most definitely one of the protected classes of arms just like handguns are. Machineguns might fall outside of the protected classes only because they are NOT common weapons in public use.
But, whatever. Twist and spin as you will, your side lost big time and as time goes on it will only get worse for you. Because the people you so despise vastly outnumber you and your like minded cult of haters, and we vote. Truly your type are the modern inheritors of the foul breed which filled the ranks of the Klan.
Comment by Brad — June 28, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Exactly as I sagely predicted, Brad. I could not have predicted better if I had Fat Tony’s opinion in front of me when I forecast the result.
You claim to vote. Fair enough. So when President Obama is elected, can we assume you were wrong about the level of your support? Or shall we just go on pretending your small group of white males represents some major political force?
Comment by Administrator — June 28, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
“Exactly as I sagely predicted, Brad.”
The resident blogger here is correct — maybe. If he had predicted that a ruling for an individual right would be hailed as a victory by gunowners, then that was right (duh). But he actually predicted that would happen “no matter what the result.” If he thinks that a ruling against an individual right would have been hailed as a victory by gunowners, then he is nuts. Perhaps he was just conceding the outcome in advance, as most antigunowner advocates seem to have done.
He also predicted that “SCOTUS will produce a very mixed message” — which is what almost all of the pro-gunowner scholars were predicting (Heller is the start of a process rather than the end). The statement that “this could mean the DC handgun ban stays in place” was wrong, of course.
It is apparent that the resident blogger thinks that such predictions make him a “sage,” but readers can judge for themselves.
Comment by JayF — June 28, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Wow! The hate that shines through and the name calling is indicative of a strong level frustration.
You should read the supporting documentation of the era when the 2nd amendment was written and proposed by James Madison. Doing so, you might even learn to appreciate the wisdom of the men who wrote it and the thoughtful intelligence contained in the Bill of Rights. Thankfully, the decision out of SCOTUS only confirms the original meaning that has been under attack during recent history. The attack on individual rights comes out of the frustration of city officials to control criminals and crime, so the bureaucrats have to do something, anything, to stay relevant so go after the one group they can appear to have an effect on, law abiding citizens. The analogy of gun control would be something like stopping drunken driving by making it harder for sober drivers to buy cars.
Calling responsible citizens names such as gunloons only devalues your arguments. Your loss.
Comment by Hoosier8 — August 1, 2008 @ 1:58 pm