The news: Good.
The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
Where this blogger will be going for analysis: Bench Memos.
Have at it in the comments.
UPDATE: Campaign implications from Jim Geraghty:
I expect a lot of discussion about judicial nominations on the trail in coming days, considering that four of the justices ruled that a state cannot sentence a child rapist to the death penalty, but that state can deny almost all of its citizens the right to own a gun. And when asked for his model justices, Obama listed three of those four...Posted by Eric Earling at June 26, 2008 07:32 AM | Email This
After the contemptible terrorist protection decision and the unbelievable intrusion into the right of states to determine punishment for crimes against individuals, this is a welcome breath of sanity.
Posted by: iconoclast on June 26, 2008 07:32 AMPraise the Lord and pass me the ammunition.
Posted by: BainbridgeClearCut on June 26, 2008 07:34 AMWhat do we do with justices that wish to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights, striking down long-held rights and inventing jurisdiction to strike down others? We dodged a bullet this time, even though this same court has recently given rights to enemy combatants, protected child rapists, and will certainly continue to redefine the constitution, and with it, American rights in the image of the ACLU and its representative Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the court.
These 4 justices cannot be replaced with like-minded socialists who'll make rulings like this for decades. This nation simply won't survive it.
Posted by: Reality on June 26, 2008 07:44 AMWhat does seem to be the case is that Kennedy has taken over the sole role that he used to share with O'Connor as the swing vote in decisions. Therefore, when arguing before the court, each side needs to pay special attention to how they address issues Kennedy raise. In 5-4 decisions lately, it is Kennedy who needs convincing.
Posted by: tc on June 26, 2008 08:01 AMThe less Progressive the SCOTUS, the better the USA.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 26, 2008 08:12 AMbow hunting is allowed for felons, btw. Only firearms are denied them. I presume the same goes for the mentally ill. Which would mean that Kennedy would be able to bow hunt.
Posted by: iconoclast on June 26, 2008 08:15 AMI mean, yeah, it's a victory compared to what it could have been, but they did the exact same thing these 'progressive' judges did, just on a smaller scale.
Wake up, folks.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 26, 2008 08:30 AMKennedy is 71, and might retire during the next presidency. Whomever replaces him tips the balance of the court. But he might like his position of power right now, shaping major issues based on his vote, and might stick around.
Posted by: Palouse on June 26, 2008 08:57 AMThe Court ALMOST NEVER goes further than it has to in a given case. They were not ASKED to strike down "reasonable regulation," they were asked to strike down a ban. They did so.
You bring up a good point. Both of the current candidates for POTUS suck. Obama just sucks more than McCain is all. Even if McCain were elected, the odds that he might be a one term president would be high. If then the Dems manage to find someone (1) with executive (or any, really) experience, (2) not with unbelievable amounts of baggage of USA-haters, bigots, racists, socialists, etc.--, (3) able to actually hold a position for more than a month or two--and making sense of it even better--, and (4) have a clue about economics then he or she would have a better than even chance of knocking McCain off.
Heck, if the Dems had nominated someone like that for this cycle I would have been happy to vote for that person. But instead they had to choose between the wicked witch of the East and an incompetent empty suit whose entire position appears to have become "I am black, vote for me and you will be forgiven your clingy, racist, gun-hugging ways".
It's an old and sad and expected storyline.
Posted by: pudge on June 26, 2008 09:27 AMYou're right. They weren't asked to strike that down, but they affirmed it in their opinion anyway, which is why I hope you'll point this out as judicial activism as well :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 26, 2008 09:35 AMThe ruling strikes down Washington D.C.'s gun ban, a federal jurisdiction. The next argument which will be debated, as I pointed out above, is whether this ruling can logically be extended to include all of the 50 states.
Rational, common-sense gun laws that everyone agrees on have been kept in place.
Does Andrew object that felons are still not able to purchase firearms. Does he object to laws prohibiting the mentally ill from purchasing guns.
Does he object to the National Firearms Act of 1934 which limits the purchase of automatic weaponry? I think even the most ardent gun enthusiast will concede that it isn't politically feasible to eliminate that legislation. (You can still buy a "machine gun" by the way, you just need a Class 3 Firearms License in order to do so).
Do point out, Andrew, specifics about what you disagree with this decision other than just general statements of discontent.
But keep in mind, as Pudge pointed out, it wasn't the job of the Supreme Court to throw out all 20,000 (or whatever the number is) pieces of firearm regulations across the country. This was about the District of Columbia vs. Heller.
Posted by: Don Ward on June 26, 2008 09:48 AMThe operative words, "free State," will figure prominently in "altering or abolishing" an Obama dictatorship of the proletariat.
Bravo Zulu to Scalia, and the one-man cell.
Posted by: The Pirate on June 26, 2008 09:52 AMMy guess: it *begins* to minimize guns as a national issue. Dems will (hopefully) recognize that waging political war for gun control is not worth the trouble, and the debates will devolve to the states. Heller's precedent establishes the line that Don mentioned -- reasonable gun control. DC's ban was ridiculously broad. To the point where Obama signed an amicus against the ban (I heard this, but didn't confirm it; my apologies if I'm wrong).
Anyway, a good and historic decision by the court.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 26, 2008 09:59 AMhttp://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/obama_likes_heller.php
By the way -- I'm an unskilled poster. How do I imbed links and italicize?
Posted by: Zeeb on June 26, 2008 10:03 AMHere's what I object to:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
"Shall not be infringed" now means "shall be infringed if we find it reasonable"
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 26, 2008 10:25 AMYou need to learn a bit about html markup tags. If Internet Explorer is your browser, you can right click on the page and choose view source to see how others do it.
Posted by: NW Denizen on June 26, 2008 10:30 AM
Other quotes:
'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right."
--Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And And Politico.Com,Washington, DC, 2/12/08)
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons,"
Pittsburgh Tribune 4/2/08
"Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons?"
Obama: Yes
"I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."
-Illinois Independent Voter Questionnaire
"...the passage of legal protection for the gun industry would mark an enormous setback for gun control advocates and for leaders of cities such as Chicago, who have filed suit against gun dealers and manufacturers."
-Obama website
"I knew Obama during the mid-1990s. The first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded, 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'
-- Professor John Lott, PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime
Posted by: Palouse on June 26, 2008 10:37 AM
I'll concede that Obama's had inconsistent positions on the DC gun ban and it's constitutionality. I'm not that concerned with the politics of it. But -- I support the 2nd Amendment, and Obama's recent -- if politically convenient -- position augurs well for the future of the 2nd Amendment. The position he takes now is the position he's locked into for the remainder of his campaign, and arguably for his 1st term (if he's elected). That's a good thing for individual liberty.
Andrew --
The courts also determine what "reasonable" restrictions are on the freedom of speech, press, the exercise of religion, and so forth. I know people have principled opposition to those. But allowing the government to craft "reasonable" restrictions on the right to bear arms is giving them no more than they had before, and arguably less. Blanket prohibitions like DC's are now unconstitutional. That's powerful precedent for 2nd Amendment advocates.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 26, 2008 11:30 AMYes, I am saying we should be able to buy an M249 SAW. "Shall not be infringed" does not say "Shall not be infringed except for machine guns".
Anyone who wishes to use it for ill will already ignore the law, as they are by definition a criminal. To suggest that outlawing it for them means that they won't be able to get it is to use the same logic that the gun grabbers use on us firearms owners - "if we ban it, clearly they will obey THIS law, right?"
Posted by: Andrew Brown on June 26, 2008 11:50 AMOBTW, I did not find anything wrong with today's ruling, or yesterdays. It is unfortunate that Obama did disagree with yesterday's death penalty ruling. His response on yesterday's ruling is not adequate for a constitutional law professor. He has noted the inequities in application of the death penalty and his own viewpoint of narrow application, yet somehow came back with a lame response that on the specific issue, states should be able to declare a crime more heinious. WTF? The same arguments he uses about racial bias and inadequacies to arrive at his narrow viewpoint of death penalty overall apply just as much in this case as the others. The poor will still have inadequate defenses. There is the issue of adolescent offenders and applicability of adult punishment being applied due to statute of limitations issues. No, Obama was incorrect and inconsistent with his response yesterday on regards to the Death Penalty issue.
Posted by: tc on June 26, 2008 11:58 AMEven without the third party quote (the last one), the quotes above show he favors so-called "assault weapons" bans, does not favor concealed weapons, thinks gun manufacturers should be liable for crimes committed with guns, and SUPPORTED the DC gun ban law.
Those are not positions of the majority of gun rights advocates, regardless of his thoughts on this case.
Posted by: Palouse on June 26, 2008 12:15 PMI doubt that Obama's statement supporting the decision will save him--he has a pretty solid anti-gun record, much more extreme in fact than Gore or Kerry. In fact his statement could create an opening for a 'flip-flop' charge against him. Chicago has had a handgun ban for a long time, and I'm pretty sure Obama never opposed it.
Posted by: russell garrard on June 26, 2008 01:33 PMI really have no idea how Heller will affect the race; but it will probably be far, far less than if the decision went the other way.
TC@30 --
I think Obama was right on regarding the death penalty. He's not opposed to the death penalty, and his opinion here showed federalist sympathy toward it's application. The Supreme Court decided, I believe, on 8th Amendment grounds, not 14th Amendment. If the court doesn't regard the death penalty "cruel and unusual" then I don't see how they can then limit the states' application of the death penalty, so long as the application is reasonable. If Louisiana was executing people for shoplifting, well, that seems like a violation of the 8th Amendment. But I think we can agree that child rape is different situation.
And look -- I'm not a supporter of the death penalty. I agree with your basic policy problems with the death penalty. But I also think the court should support federalist principles, within reason.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 26, 2008 03:30 PM"You're right. They weren't asked to strike that down, but they affirmed it in their opinion anyway, which is why I hope you'll point this out as judicial activism as well :)"
I did not find a SINGLE example of a restriction on gun rights that the Court affirmed. The Court did say that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, which is something most people, including myself, agree with. But the examples given were not examples being affirmed, but were instead examples NOT being OVERTURNED.
There's a big difference. Saying "we are not overturning restrictions of guns on school property" is a far cry from saying "we are affirming the constitutionality of restrictions of guns on school property."