Daily Voice «

update notifications

email

subscribe
unsubscribe


Ward Harkavy
is now writing
and editing
a new blog,
The Smart Asset.
Check it out.


LINKS
recent items
categories

Justice is Duck-Blind

Posted by Harkavy at 8:38 AM, June 27, 2008

Yee-haw! Led by Scalia, Supreme Court overturns gun ban.

That sound of gunfire you hear isn't coming from Iraq, for a change. It's from right here in the U.S. of A., celebrating the Supreme Court's monumental decision overturning a D.C. handgun ban.

Used to peppering our backsides with buckshot, Dick Cheney's hunting partner, Justice Antonin Scalia, aimed his pistol at us and issued this opinion:

"That dang ol' gun law is his-tor-ee, I tell you what. They cain't be tellin' us that we cain't shoot nothin'. Shee-it. We got our rights. These dogs will hunt. And nobody better come to my house to tell me I cain't.

"Hey, Bubba, gimme that bottle of Jack over there. Y'all, we'll finish this shit off, fire up the pickup, and go get us some duck. I bet them birds never seen a pistol before. Joe Bob, tell Cheney to get his ass out of the crapper. We need to git goin'!

"Damn it, Bubba, I tol' you to gimme that bottle of Jack! Give it here!"

His actual opinion on behalf of the majority went like this:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. . . .

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Hey, somebody's knockin' at the door — Jimbo, throw me my pistol. I'll go see who it is.

comments

Following the Supreme Court's landmark decision on gun rights, the cable news networks had one crucial task: rounding up the best gun-totin', pistol-packin', bullet-blastin' stock footage they could find to spice up their otherwise boring legal voiceovers.
Did they succeed? Judge for yourself with our roundup of the best gun b-roll used by the networks during the last news cycle: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/27/news_network_stock_footage_arc_1_7408.php

Posted by: eliana at June 27, 2008 12:44 PM

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

Emotion in Reading
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's restate the 2nd in another context:

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

Posted by: CCW4ME2 at June 27, 2008 9:53 PM

It is quite frightening that four of the nine Justices of the Supreme
Court would "interpret" away the Second Amendment to the Constitution
and say that Americans have no right to own firearms for
self-protection! Ginzberg – Stevens – Breyer - Souter
This "dissenting opinion" comes 27 years after they said that the
government is not obligated to protect the citizen from criminals.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)
You are on your own....They obviously want you to be helpless!

Posted by: DoctorBill at June 29, 2008 4:54 PM

post a comment

All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking "Post", you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.




Remember Me?
(you may use HTML tags for style)
 

Most Popular