Those who believe in the civil right that the Second Amendment was created to protect were not surprised when the Supreme Court decided today to hear a case that challenges the District of Columbia's draconian gun laws, which are arguably the toughest in the nation.
The AP story on the decision correctly notes that the case "could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms' in nearly 70 years."
D.C. law only permits those people who had handguns when the gun-prohibition law was enacted 31 years ago to keep them, creating a privileged class of D.C. residents who, unlike the rest of us, have the ability to defend themselves from the thugs who terrorize large portions of the city. The blatantly unconstitutional law hasn't worked, and The Onion rightly mocked D.C.'s skyrocketing violent crime rate in a satirical news story in 2003, D.C. Once Again Murder Capital, Mayor Brags.
Yet, today's report from the Associated Press characterizes the Court's move as controversial: "The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections."
According to Wikipedia, 48 states allow some kind of "concealed carry" of firearms and 39 states have "shall issue" carrying laws. So where's the controversy? Even the Democratic Party recognizes gun control is a no-win issue.
Only in a liberal journalist's mind could the issue be "divisive."
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch at the Capital Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Destroying amendments
November 20, 2007 - 16:00 ET by JDWJune decision?
How will it affect the campaign if yes? No?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
Divisive?
November 20, 2007 - 16:15 ET by planetrepublicanDivisive? Maybe to the Brady Bunch. The Dems have been running away from this issue since Billy-Bop-Clinton got trounced in 1994. Not that they don’t want gun control, mind you, just that we the people want guns to protect ourselves from the criminals the liberals let out of jail. Whichever way this decision goes don’t expect Hillary to say nary a word until she is coroneted Queen; then her and her Royal Court (Harry Reid & Company) will try to use it to hammer in new tough gun control laws in 2009 – 2010. They will do it under the cloak of darkness and for the children. If the decision goes against them (and for us) expect them to rally behind liberal judges and Supreme Court candidates, etc.
examination
November 20, 2007 - 16:17 ET by candanceHow can there be an examination of an original constitutional right? It's pretty much black and white.
We tear up the Constitution when we limit someone's ability to contact Al Qaeda.
We tear up the Constitution when we search someone's house for reasonable suspicion.
We destroy the Constitution when we say you can't boycott a soldier's funeral for political gain.
BUT....
Outlawing guns has no relevance to the Constitution's order the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's okay to outlaw religious expression in public. The Constitution was just kidding when it said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Nah, telling children they cannot say grace over their food at school - that's not prohibiting free exercise.
And when the constitution says nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation they tell us that's also up for debate.
It's amazing how certain rights need to be examined and other rights don't.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
I think it's a unifying
November 20, 2007 - 16:31 ET by BruzillaI think it's a unifying thing. How often have you heard of a court case where both parties request review by the Supreme Court? I am all for this case being heard. The only thing that the Brady Bunch can bring to the table is their interpretation of the second ammendment, specifically, the location of a comma. The pro-gun folks can bring reams of documents written by the Founding Fathers that spell out exactly what they were thinking when they wrote the ammendment.
It will become clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers was not to establish militias to defend against foreign invaders, or to make sure food could be put on the table. The intent was to ensure that a corrupt American government would have an impossible time violating the basic rights of Americans if they are armed, and only an armed society can be protected from folks the likes of the DC council.
I will be glad when the day
November 20, 2007 - 16:32 ET by kgI will be glad when the day comes that a liberal can show some common sense.
Firearms are second only to
November 20, 2007 - 16:46 ET by sixgunFirearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth.-George Washington
You can always count on
November 20, 2007 - 16:52 ET by vrwc13You can always count on George...
v
This meassage has been brought to you by Glock Home Protection
"Democracy is two wolves
November 20, 2007 - 16:55 ET by mattm"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin
Most of the Dems in my area
November 20, 2007 - 16:48 ET by mattmMost of the Dems in my area tout their NRA memberships...and I live in Liberal La La land....
The issue is divisive to Libs because they have to choose between the common sense of self defence or their unrealistic belief that guns are the problem, not the criminals. So, they're stuck. What to do, what to do???? Simple, call the issue "divisive" and move on...
I guess I'm really missing
November 20, 2007 - 16:54 ET by SaseboSailorI guess I'm really missing something here and I know this probably isn't a novel observation but this whole situation really drives home the point, to wit:
Why in the hell are we American citizens sitting here with bated breath waiting for the Supreme Court to decide and declare whether we have a 2nd Amendment???
Isn't this somewhat akin to waiting for them to declare whether we have the right to free speech.. or a trial by jury..or the right not to have government troops quartered in our homes?
Is there any other civil right that we have that has been debated to the point of nonsense? If you choose, or are forced, to live in one of these urban, crime-infested neighborhoods and you choose to not protect your family and your home, that is your choice. I think you are an idiot but it is your decision. But don't you DARE presume to force me to make the same stupid, idiotic choice you did. I choose to arm myself because I love my wife and family and I refuse to be a victim. I further choose to be able to help my neighbor if the need should ever arise.
The notion that I have to wait for an official seal of approval from someone in Washington, D.C. in order to protect my family and my neighbors is starting to sound like the Twilight Zone.
He who hesitates is last.
Great point, SS. The
November 20, 2007 - 17:42 ET by jdhawkGreat point, SS. The Supreme Court ought to have turned this back to the appelate court that ruled that it was unconstitutional with the retort of, "duh!"
The fact that it is being heard at all is irksome indeed!
the court has already ruled
November 20, 2007 - 17:43 ET by MrSnugglesthe court has already ruled on this issue, the second amendment DOES NOT guarantee the right to bear arms to militias and only militias. it should be a simple open and shut 9-0 vote. somehow though, i just know the precedent loving libs on the court will vote the other way.
If only the Libs were
November 20, 2007 - 17:46 ET by GrammyIf only the Libs were consistent.
SCOTUS declares a constitutional right to abortion based on a "penumbra" and the Libs immediately start pushing laws for no restrictions based on age or status and federally funded abortions because if you can't afford it the right is useless.
The Constitution has an outright prohibition against abridging the right to bear arms. One would think that consistency would obligate them to push for laws that all citizens not only have the right, but if they can afford to buy their own arms and ammunition, the state should buy it for them.
Here are two articles I just read about the comparison of Weimear/Nazi gun laws to our anti gun nuts:
http://eddriscoll.co...
This is an embedded link in the first article:
http://www.stephenha...
Grammie
Wayne LaPierre will be on Lou Dobbs this hour
November 20, 2007 - 20:08 ET by RJ...to discuss the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court.
Thanks RJ...we've got it
November 20, 2007 - 20:20 ET by bigtimerThanks RJ...we've got it turned there now.