I’ve been hearing about the decision all day, and I’ve been discussing it with a great number of people. In fact, I was even asked to speak to the local media.
I really look pale on camera. I wish I could tan.
The resultant story was well-balanced, with the exception of a truly disgusting statement from District 2 Councilman Kwanza Hall.
Of course, we’re seeing all kinds of hysterics from the Left.
The Violence Policy Center, who hold one of the few Federal Firearms Licenses in Washington DC, wrote:
In its ruling, the Court has ignored our nation’s history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia. Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District’s ban on “machine guns,” [don’t worry, that’ll happen soon] Washington, DC’s ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected.
It’s interesting that semiautomatic handguns are still considered verboten, and I’ve been unable to get confirmation on that statement. It’s mentioned in Mayor Fenty and Attorney General Nickles’ press release, but I’m not sure it’ll pass muster with the Supreme Court’s orders.
Nickles also claims that under the District’s relaxed laws, all handguns must be locked (did they read the decision?) or unloaded. The pre-1976 registration scheme will likely be resurrected. In many ways, it was still in place; the 1976 ban simply prohibited registration of any new handguns. Residents will be limited to one handgun per person.
So, if you live in DC, you get one handgun, and it can’t be an automatic. Fine. Start shoppin’ for a nice revolver. It makes me warm and fuzzy inside to think everyone in our nation’s capital is packing wheelguns.
So, how about the rest of the country? Chicago Mayor Daley had this rambling incoherency to add to the debate:
It is frightening that America loves guns and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power [perhaps like Chicago Alderman Richard Mell?], they’ll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that’s what they’re saying. If you’re elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they’re setting themselves aside, and really, they’re saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don’t understand how they came to this thinking.
This man talks like a Babelfish translation of Linear B. He goes on to opine:
Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun, and we’ll settle it in the streets if that’s they’re thinking. (…) We think we’re such an improved society. The rest of the world is laughing at us.
In the words of Isaac Brock, “laugh hard, it’s a long way to the bank.”
As I predicted, his city’s ban on handguns is next on the chopping block. The Second Amendment Foundation filed the first of several lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of Chicago’s similar ban hours after this morning’s announcement.
Several people have complained to me that they were unhappy with the Heller ruling. The consensus seems to be that it doesn’t do enough. In truth, the Court did exactly what they were asked to, and they gave us all they could within the parameters they’d been given.
The Court was posed two essential questions in the case:
- does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, outside any organized military context, and
- does the Washinton DC ban on handguns violate the 2nd Amendment?
Both questions were answered to my satisfaction. (In case you’re still catching up, the answers are “yes” to both.)
The only question that remains open is one that was never addressed directly: incorporation. Since this is still something of a nascent issue for the Court (only 217 years in), the 2nd has yet to be applied to the States, as opposed to the Federal government. Some think that it’s implied in the Heller ruling, but I’d still like to see a more explicit acknowledgment.
Many people seemed to expect the Court to somehow exceed its mandate and declare the NFA and every other gun-control law in the country invalid. That wasn’t the point of this case. Even Gura, in oral arguments, stated that the scope of this case was limited to the two questions above.
What we’re left with is a significant change in the way the 2nd Amendment will be handled by the courts in the future. Until now, we’ve been trudging through the briny waters of Miller, a decision that could be cited in any number of ways to support both sides of the issue. The Heller decision imparts some clarity, and it grants the 2nd Amendment the status it should have always enjoyed, which is that of an enumerated, fundamental right.
In light of this, issues such as the NFA, gun registration and may-issue carry licensing will be rectified in future cases. Heller plants our foot squarely in the door, and now that it’s open, the rest will follow in time.
(1) The ruling states, on p. 64:
(…) we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.