Comments on: Supreme Court: DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional

By: james kallaher

james kallaher — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:17:45 +0000

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!

By: marsouin

marsouin — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:44:29 +0000

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.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:40:56 +0000

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.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:45:16 +0000

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.

By: aloysiusmiller

aloysiusmiller — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:50:46 +0000

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?

By: CorbinKale

CorbinKale — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:33:49 +0000

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!

By: Trish

Trish — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:46:42 +0000

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.

By: Tom TB

Tom TB — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:33:51 +0000

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.!

By: Mike O

Mike O — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:14:22 +0000

Enjoy your newfound 200 year old right and practice releasing the safety.

By: ptg

ptg — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:33:12 +0000

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?

By: Gabe

Gabe — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:50 +0000

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?

By: Dutchmeister

Dutchmeister — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:11:09 +0000

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.

By: Summer

Summer — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:17:19 +0000

America’s obsession with guns is truly disturbing.

By: Montie

Montie — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:14:53 +0000

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.

By: Trish

Trish — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:18:49 +0000

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.