On DC v. Heller
Unlike yesterday, where I dove into the decision before actually reading it, I believe I will cite the initial news, then go read the decision before commenting on it. But, this is a momentous decision, and the court finally got one right:
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.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Lyle Denniston @ SCOTUSblog has a quick summary here and the 157 page decision is here. I will say this though and that is the decision is a blow to those who think like Senator Obama. Those who believe this right applies only to hunters and sportsmen are dead wrong. It applies to the people, in general, and their ability to defend themselves.
Now it is time to do some reading.
Marcie
ADDENDUM: Heh. Jim Geraghty @ NRO's Campaign Spot weighs in with the following:
The Heller decision comes down today from the Supreme Court, either upholding or striking down the Washington, D.C. gun ban.
In preparation for the decision, it appears that another Obama statement is reaching its expiration date:
With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.
In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"
All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
Indeed.
Marcie
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.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Lyle Denniston @ SCOTUSblog has a quick summary here and the 157 page decision is here. I will say this though and that is the decision is a blow to those who think like Senator Obama. Those who believe this right applies only to hunters and sportsmen are dead wrong. It applies to the people, in general, and their ability to defend themselves.
Now it is time to do some reading.
Marcie
ADDENDUM: Heh. Jim Geraghty @ NRO's Campaign Spot weighs in with the following:
The Heller decision comes down today from the Supreme Court, either upholding or striking down the Washington, D.C. gun ban.
In preparation for the decision, it appears that another Obama statement is reaching its expiration date:
With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.
In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"
All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
Indeed.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home