Woo-hoo! Ding, dong, the ban-witch is dead!
I’m happy to announce that today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns is unconstitutional. (Source) Individuals have a right to bear arms, so says the court, and this DC resident is about to start bearing, baby! 
Background
In 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia passed gun control laws in a misguided and fruitless attempt to curb the violent crime rate. Residents who owned handguns before 1976 could keep them, but only in the home. While the laws banned handgun ownership, residents were permitted to own and keep registered rifles and shotguns inside the home – unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked.
A group of DC residents file suit challenging the District’s ban on handguns. The U.S. District Court ruled against the group, but the D.C. Circuit reversed the ruling. A three-judge panel declared DC’s ban on handguns unconstitutional last March and refused to rehear the case. The district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Foreground
This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own guns. The court held (emphases added):
“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.
…
“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. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Download the 157-page opinion (PDF). There is nowhere else for the District to appeal. Residents now need to push for concealed carry laws. Sign me up! (Commenter Robbie says residents need to push for concealed carry and open carry laws. Agreed!)
More about the decision (and Obama’s opinion of the former gun ban) at Michelle Malkin’s. McCain’s reaction at Hot Air.
Last year I asked readers for gun recommendations. Some people also gave me firing range recommendations. Going shopping. Catch you later!
Related post:
{ 34 comments }
As a concealed weapon permit holding black man living in VA, im glad to see my neighbors in DC finally have the opportunity to legally protect themselves.
I’m even more proud to see a black woman taking responsiblity for her own safety.
2nd amendment use it or lose it, dont be a victim.
I grew up around rifles but didn’t touch a handgun till my early 20s. The first time I shot a 9mm was like the first time I ….well you know…(with my husband).
NewsmaxTV’s Ashley Martella reports the Supreme Court Liberals rule IN FAVOR of child rapists!
What’s sad is that the vote was close!
I’m glad to know your right to bear arms remains protected, for now…
There is nowhere else for the District to appeal. Residents now need to push for concealed carry laws.
Actually, LB, the District needs to do more than that — it needs to push for and allow both concealed and open carry laws.
To be honest – on the issue of gun laws I am a bit of an agnostic. I don’t see how having a personal handgun can help protect you unless you are willing to periodically train to keep up your proficiency (just as the police do). At the same time, the arguments for banning handguns have struck me as elitist, out-of-touch, and not at all convincing. But for what it’s worth – here in Texas we have had conceal and carry laws for quite some time. Amazingly, our streets are not hip deep in dead people shot by citizens authorized by the state to carry a handgun.
I wonder how many of those who applauded the recent US Supreme Court’s Gitmo decision and yesterday’s ruling overturning Louisiana’s death penalty for child rape will decry today’s decision as “conservative judicial activism”. This is what you get when you have an activist out-of-control judiciary – sometimes the tiger turns on you.
I don’t see how having a personal handgun can help protect you unless you are willing to periodically train to keep up your proficiency (just as the police do).
Mwalimu,
Uh… think about what you just said…. Criminals have been using personal handguns to “protect” themselves and advance their agendas for decades in this country. I’m quite sure they’re untrained and need little help keeping up their proficiency.
Eddie:
My brother is a police officer. He knows of cases where criminals have accidentally shot themselves, or their friends, or shot at someone and missed, or had their guns fail to work, or were not loaded. Criminals can be amazingly stupid. “Proficient” is not exactly the word I would choose.
It just seems to me that buying a handgun and sticking it in a purse, forgetting about it for months or even years, and then when faced with a self-defense situation whipping it out and expected to be able to defend yourself is foolish. I don’t buy the notion that gun owners should be required by law to register their guns or periodically update their skills, but if you are serious about owning a firearm for self-defense practice is a really good idea.
I have just read the decison from the Supreme Court in the entirety. Justice Scalia makes an impressive argument where Justices Stevens and Breyer can only be given credit for fairy tale thinking and marginal fiction writing. This case is so compelling and clear that to dissent seems disgraceful. For the disenters to try and subvert obvious constitutional rights, they should be ashamed. How sad people such as these can be appointed to the court!
I had to stop by today and give LaShawn a Woo-Hoo!
I’m with Stacey. Woo-hoo!!!
It’s about time!
It’s the vision I have of the things we will be faced with by an Obama Presidency that makes me realize I have no choice but to vote for McCain. Thankfully, the SCOTUS has already outlawed partial birth abortion and now protected our right to bear arms. But, what will the future hold with a President who thinks the Sermon on the Mount justifies same sex unions.
Oh, and so glad to see you back blogging about politics once again, LaShawn. I have really missed you.
La Shawn -
From what I have read you will have difficulty going shopping since there are currently no gun stores in DC. Federal law prohibits sale of handguns by a dealer to anyone who is not a resident of the state the dealer is located in.
Until someone manages to open a gun store in DC, you will effectively still be prohibited from buying a handgun. I understand zoning laws have been used in DC to prohibit gun stores from locating there.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Mwalimu Daudi
My brother is a police officer. He knows of cases where criminals have accidentally shot themselves, or their friends, or shot at someone and missed, or had their guns fail to work, or were not loaded
————————————
i know of stories of police doing some of these same things, all it takes is a google search to find the stories. Also most police dont practice as much as the public believes they do.
I Also think the ruling was too narrow in scope, bur hey “ya gotta crawl before you walk”.
The fact that the decision was only 5-4 in the citizens’ favor should give us pause. I’m not sure McCain will nominate constitutionalists, but I know Obama won’t.
About time they did the right thing. The fact that four of the people that are supposed to “uphold the constitution” voted against our right to bear arms. That’s as ridiculous as the need to have this vote to begin with. Isn’t it written somewhere already that we have the right to keep and bear arms? Or am I just in my own little world here?
La Shawn, I am so glad to hear you will be joining the ranks of the home-front defenders. Enjoy your shopping trip!
This close ruling and the 5-4 loss on child rape penalties should be enough to convince anyone still sitting on the fence about November’s elections. We cannot risk being stuck (for life!) with the type of liberal activist justices that would surely come from an Obama White House!
Who needs a permit to exercise a fundamental constitutional right? Going armed isn’t a privilege, like driving a car on the public roads. Its a fundamental right. You don’t need any kind of permit to exercise your right to self defense.
ptg–
There’s no such thing as a “constitutional right.” What there are, and what the Declaration of Independence spoke of, are God-given rights. The constitutional protections are there to insure that citizens are not penalized for the rights with which they have been endowed by their Creator.
I had a high-school teacher who put forth the proposition that a right is something no one can take away from you; they can only punish you afterward. I don’t think I agree, because it’s all too easy for everything you have, or do, or are to be taken away from you by a repressive government. It’s an interesting idea, though.
LaShawn,
Yes it was wonderful indeed to see the SCOTUS show a little common sense. I was worried after their rulings on Gitmo detainees and child molesters. What I find truly funny is how much hand wringing is happening on all the liberal sites like Huffington Post.
One of the best lines was that DC might NOW become the murder capitol of the US (like it isn’t near the top every year since 1976). Liberals simply WILL NOT acknowledge that in states and cities with common gun ownership and readily available CCW licenses, crime usually drops as gun ownership among the citizenry goes up.
By the way if you would like a serious and unbiased recomendation on what guns you (a neophyte handgunner) should take a look at, email me.
America’s obsession with guns is truly disturbing.
Kudos to the High Court! Now, the crime rate in DC will start to drop, because law-abiding residents, sick and tired of being terrorized by the gun-toting killers, criminals and thugs in their midst, will finally be able to legally defend and protect themselves.
Regarding the SCOTUS’s recent ruling sparing the death penalty for child rapists, a friend of mine put that in perfect perspective for me:
“It’s redundant. You know what the life expectancy of a baby [rapist] is in lockup? Let’s just say it’s not a niche market for the life insurance industry.”
I would agree.
Summer, ignorance of the Constitution and the time-worn tradition of an armed citizenry in a free society is disturbing.
Mwalimu Daudi, every gun owner I know practices. Every gun course teaches that your possession of a firearm does not make you a crack shot – that you must practice with and maintain your firearm.
There are a lot of strange assumptions about gun ownership out there. Let’s take a look at them.
1. Gun owners don’t understand the power and responsibility associated with their firearms.
This is wrong on a lot of levels. Very few people take the decision to become a gun-owner lightly. They not only take courses and read books, but they put what they learn into practice at ranges all across the country.
2. Legal gun ownership leads to more gun crime.
Flat out false. There are several reputable studies that show the exact opposite. There are a few more studies that show that crime remains static. But there are exactly zero studies that show crime rising. Zero.
3. Without gun bans, there are “more guns on the street.”
Legal limitations on gun ownership have no affect on criminal possession of firearms because (surprise, surprise!) criminals ignore the law. The actual affect of limiting legal gun ownership is to empower criminals.
4. Without gun bans, there will be wild-west style gun fights, etc.
Ummm… no.
Anymore questions?
I agree with you Trish. The Constitution only enshrines our God given, inalienable rights; the Bill of rights doesn’t create any rights, it prevents government from infringing upon them. Thats what I meant by the right to keep and bear arms being a constitutional right.
That said, I still don’t think any aspect of the state may constitutionally require a permit to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. To require gun permits of any kind amounts to a prior restraint, and can’t allowed unless it is clearly in furtherance of a ‘compelling state interest’, the toughest of tests in modern constitutional law.
What if we needed a permit to paint a picture or write a book? Or to post on a blog?
Enjoy your newfound 200 year old right and practice releasing the safety.
We will never know how many crimes were never committed because the potential perpetrator was confronted by a citizen with a firearm, and ran off without a shot being fired, since no police reports would ever be filed. Criminals hate getting shot, and fear the armed citizen more than the police. As George Washington once wrote; “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference.” Welcome to civilization LaShawn and D.C.!
We probably ought to remember something else. Most of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights were put there to protect our ability to rebel against an unjust government. That’s why unjust governments are so afraid of people who own guns.
I am not sure most people appreciate just how close we came to revolution with this decision. There are many of us veterans who take our oath to support and defend the Constitution VERY seriously. If the SCOTUS had undermined the keystone of the Bill of Rights, appropriate measures would have been taken.
I read the complete decision last night. I have to say that Stevens should resign. That was the most blatant attempt at undermining our Constitution through judicial activism I have ever seen! Happily, we have some keen minds in our highest court, and Stevens’ faulty reasoning was utterly destroyed in the majority opinion.
This decision will pave the way to eradicate the thousands of unconstitutional gun laws across the country. Since “the people” is properly determined to mean individuals, then “shall not be infringed” should be easy to figure out. This is just one more instance in our History where the nation came within inches of disaster. God bless America!
The liberal subtext is that the plantation requires control and discipline and that massa is best positioned to do it. I think crime in our urban areas would go dramatically down if every black family went out and bought a gun. I wonder what a drop in crime would mean to the urban poor and their prospects of escaping the plantation. What would it do to the authority of massa if his plantation folk realized that while he had them disarmed they were vulnerable and that when they could protect themselves they got some control over their lives?
I suspect that this is all moot anyway. Some municipalities are already scheming to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling and somehow keep unconstitutional gun bans intact.
If nothing else, mayors, police chiefs and city councils will simply defy the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and do as they please. There is a precedent for this. Many cities refuse to enforce immigration laws, and I don’t see any city officials in jail for this lawless behavior.
So if I lived in DC I would not buy a gun just yet. The “Gun Bans Forever!” pronouncements by some city officials (reminds me of “Segregation Forever!”) may take decades to overcome.
Defying Federal law is one thing, while defying Constitutional law is quite another. I actually see things going the other way. Now, under Constitutional precedent, there will be a number of legal challenges against gun laws in other states and municipalities.
I am a DC resident and gun owner. Despite what others have said, you can indeed purchase firearms from FFL dealers outside DC. Since these court challenges, I have been ambivalent over their usefulness. As I predicted, DC will comply with the ruling, but will do the least possible. Already DC Council is going to set up additional hoops (bullet fingerprinting, waiting period) to replace the old ones. Will DC be any better? Doesn’t seem so. I’m goona move to VA.
Mendelson and Nickles are STILL crying about gun locks! Not a single robber in DC has ever used one and is not likely to start any time soon.Those two individuals need to be sued directly by all parties who need a lawfully owned firearm NOW! We don’t have this communism in Miami!
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }