Although it already weighed in on Monday about District of Columbia v. Heller, the Post is clearly worried that the Court will find, shockingly enough, an individual right to keep and bear arms in the text of the Second Amendment. So the legal solons at the Post penned a second layman's lame brief, "Judging Guns," in the March 20 paper (emphasis mine):
BY THE END of oral arguments Tuesday in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a majority of Supreme Court justices seemed to embrace the notion that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Such a conclusion, however, should not automatically prove fatal to the District's admittedly tough gun control law.
Every right, including freedom of speech, is subject to some limitations. The legal and public policy arguments for allowing broad government regulation of firearms are compelling.
[...]
Six justices active in questioning during Tuesday's arguments seemed to at least contemplate an individual rights approach.... We urge the justices to adopt the lowest standard of review to allow governments maximum flexibility in enacting laws meant to protect public safety. If a majority cannot agree on this, we would hope that they would heed the suggestions of Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who argued for a tougher standard but one that clearly permits sensible regulation, such as licensing, background checks and a ban on machine guns.
The Post doesn't explain how "licensing" of firearms can logically exist alongside the individual right to keep a firearm in one's home, or if readers can expect the Post to advocate government-issued licenses for newspapers. After all, it's pretty clear that cartoons of the prophet Muhammad can incite riotous violence, and doesn't government have the need to safeguard the public from riots caused by something stupid a paper like say, the Washington Post, might print? Surely the pen is mightier than the pistol!
The Post also failed to explain why laws "meant to protect public safety" that don't actually achieve the result of heightened public safety -- murders, gun crime are up since 1976 gun ban went into effect -- should trump an explicitly written constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.
Although the Post has trumped up fears of gun-riddled anarachy should the Court rule to strike down the gun ban, the Post maintained in an April 19, 2007 editorial an all but an absolutist view of a woman's right to obtain an abortion, which results in the taking of innocent life every time it's exercised and is particularly gruesome in the case of partial birth abortions.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The WaPo will continue to
March 20, 2008 - 13:01 ET by bigtimerThe WaPo will continue to write such articles about this up until the decision comes down sometime in June.
No bias here.
Protecting oneself, home/property and family...bad.
Killing defenseless unborn babies...good.
...another Pulitzer sure to be on the way in the future.
What's good for the goose . . .
March 20, 2008 - 13:08 ET by WingletDriver"We urge the justices to adopt the lowest standard of review to allow governments maximum flexibility in enacting laws meant to protect public safe" WaPo
I wonder if they would make the same statement when it comes to freedom of the press (in addition to the one example cited)? You know--the Pentagon Papers, the NYT constantly exposing classified programs that keep American's safe, etc.
enacting laws meant to
March 20, 2008 - 13:06 ET by dscottenacting laws meant to protect public safety
That is the lynchpin of their argument and it is a fallacy at that. No law protects anyone from the act breaking it. The Law is strictly to proscribe the punishment for abusing one's freedom of action by infringing on the freedoms of others. The Law does not impute righteousness upon the offender, the Law imputes the sin of the offender.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Excellent points,
March 20, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Ken ShepherdExcellent points, dscott.
Say, are you theologically Reformed?
Credibility is down !!!
March 20, 2008 - 13:08 ET by American TaxpayerTypical MSM coverage, the only surprise is that N.Y.T did not come out with at least an equally stupid commentary. The Bill of Rights clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the framers of that bill meant it literally. The MSM wants to address issues concerning the placement of commas punctuation and not the spirit of the document itself. AGAIN credibility is down thus circulation is down. WAPO employees will be standing in unemployment lines because of the extremly high levels of stupidity at the highest levels of thier management.
as soon as the bad guys obey
March 20, 2008 - 13:08 ET by wizardjrAs a shooting enthusiast, military veteran, and protector of my home I will be the first in line to surrender my firearms on the day they get all the bad guys to hand in theirs. Period.
That is a great point about
March 20, 2008 - 13:20 ET by MrSnugglesThat is a great point about the un-infringibleness of abortion, a "right" that isnt even in the Constitution.
Apparently
March 20, 2008 - 13:51 ET by KC MulvilleYou can have any degree of privacy you want, but only limited kinds of self-defense.
Yeah I know, someday, someone will make the connection between privacy and personal defense ... some day.
Good one
March 20, 2008 - 14:13 ET by NBFI got a good chuckle from that one, KC. :)
The WA Post is wrong and /or lying
March 20, 2008 - 13:20 ET by c5thenTheir statement " Every right, including freedom of speech, is subject to some limitations." is absolutely false. What there is, is consequences for abusing that right, not limitations of it. The time honored example of you "can't yell fire in a crowded movie house" is a fallacy. You indeed can. The word "fire" is not proscribed by the government. What happens if you do and there is not a fire? Well then you can be prosecuted for causing the stampede and any injuries that may have resulted.
Again, the rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution can not be limited by government for any reason, good or bad, they are unalienable. Only the abuse and misuse of those rights can be punished.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
a GREAT point!
March 20, 2008 - 15:41 ET by wizardjrThanks c5then, that's a really great distinction you brought up. It's also one that the libs don't want anyone thinking about. Except for felons and judicially determined incompetents, every adult American is entitled to own just about any firearm. Rob a 7-11 and you go to jail for the misuse. Prohibiting you from ever having a firearm to "reduce crime" is a trampling of citizen rights explicit in the Constitution. Cool point you made.
Beatng The Drum Slowly
March 20, 2008 - 13:50 ET by geoff.galeThe Post is simply sticking to the script that it believes will keep it alive, in spite of sagging sales and shrinking sphere of influence. Walk left, talk left and you shall be saved. And they do have a point - there's a market out there to sell newspapers to those who have lives dominated by emotion. They need to feel as though they belong too!
I don't blame the Post for being what they are - apologists for the irrational. I do blame parents, the schools and the entertainment media for producing scads of people who can't think logically or reasonably about important issues and therefore serve as the willing audience for this sort of claptrap.
I expect that the Post and her silly sister, the NYT will continue to beat this drum until one or both of them slip slowly under the waves of freedom of thought afforded by the internet.
...or...
March 20, 2008 - 16:55 ET by planetrepublicanOr NewBusters gets bigger and BUYS one of them! Can you imagine the OUTRAGE from the lefties if something like that happened! I can only dream...
The lowest standard?
March 20, 2008 - 14:15 ET by CobraMan"We urge the justices to adopt the lowest standard of review to allow
governments maximum flexibility in enacting laws meant to protect
public safety"
The WaPo wants the justices to adopt the LOWEST standard when it comes to reviewing this case? Talk about hypocrisy! I wonder how the WaPo would feel if the justices adopted the LOWEST standard of review in cases of the privacy rights of abortion or the freedom of the press or even civil rights? Somehow I think that the WaPo would contradict itself, again, and urge the courts to adopt the HIGHEST standards in these cases.
Right on...
March 20, 2008 - 16:53 ET by planetrepublican...and this is the whole reason for web sites like NB. The hypocrisy is appalling. They have an agenda that is becoming crystal clear for millions of Americans. Agree with MSM and I guarantee either you don't really listen or care, OR you also have an agenda. It makes my blood boil. They are clearly our enemy, as bad as Al Qaeda.
" Every right, including
March 20, 2008 - 14:22 ET by rbosque" Every right, including freedom of speech, is subject to some limitations...."
Evidently, free speech is seldom restricted. Even left-wing media types are spewing their bile unrestricted.
Double standard.
March 20, 2008 - 15:13 ET by BeinbrekHold on a minute.
Weren't they among the folks who bitterly criticised the "judicial activism" of the court last year when it upheld a ban on the partial birth abortion? I guess strict scrutiny only applies to their pet causes!
" We urge the justices to
March 20, 2008 - 15:55 ET by bassndude" We urge the justices to adopt the lowest standard of review..." What in the world is this? I thought the standard of review was a constant. Isint the standard of review the intent of the founders? Not a higher standard, nor a lower, just one standard. I thought that was what a standard was. A rule for measure. Dident know we had two standards of justice, or two Constitutions. A right is a right is a right, and goverment has no right to limit it. Punishment for abuse, yes. But not limit.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Wash.Post TELLING SCOTUS!
March 20, 2008 - 16:48 ET by planetrepublicanCan you beleive it? Here the corrupt MSM is telling the Supreme Court how to vote: "We urge the justices to adopt the lowest standard of review to allow
governments maximum flexibility in enacting laws meant to protect
public safety. ". Screw them. Most left-wing out of touch a-holes that ever hit the pike, never give 2 cents for our safety when some bad guy comes in the door. We have guns you bloody morons for OUR protection. Liberals will get you killed, no doubt about it.
WA Post
March 21, 2008 - 00:26 ET by RaThese are the same nut jobs (the post) That routinely bash Bush about the war on terror. How about "lowest standard of review to allow governments maximum flexibility in enacting laws meant to protect public safety" when it comes to the Patriot Act?
The sun is not set by a thermostat.....