The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

If they're going to raise the hate crime issue, why San Fransciso? How about finding a straight man in Key West?

ZAZ: The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

If they're going to raise the hate crime issue, why San Fransciso? How about finding a straight man in Key West?

Because SF is a notorious gun grabbing, left wing, smelly hippy city.

And BTW, since I'm an NRA member, now I'll be getting donation requests to help them strike down all these stupid gun laws. Their version of spam.

they filed against Chicago the same day Heller came down, with the same lawyer leading the legal team.

that will be enormously fun to watch

albo: they filed against Chicago the same day Heller came down, with the same lawyer leading the legal team.

that will be enormously fun to watch

I think I might go into the gun business..:) I feel a boom coming in that industry.

GaryPDX: I feel a boom

Everyone approves

It's sad how many liberals who always accuse Bush of treating the Constitution as trash are terrified at the NRA trying to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

/liberal-libertarian

GaryPDX: And BTW, since I'm an NRA member, now I'll be getting donation requests to help them strike down all these stupid gun laws. Their version of spam.

How the hell do you not get the begging ALREADY?

I don't go a day without an email from the "Legislative action" folks, and I don't go a week without a "send us money or the filthy liberals will come to your house and melt down your guns and force you to watch Meredith Baxter-Birney and Valerie Bertinelli in 'Stop Punching Me in the Ovaries and Give Me Back My Special-Needs Child' on Lifetime!"

Mr. Coffee Nerves: GaryPDX: And BTW, since I'm an NRA member, now I'll be getting donation requests to help them strike down all these stupid gun laws. Their version of spam.

How the hell do you not get the begging ALREADY?

I don't go a day without an email from the "Legislative action" folks, and I don't go a week without a "send us money or the filthy liberals will come to your house and melt down your guns and force you to watch Meredith Baxter-Birney and Valerie Bertinelli in 'Stop Punching Me in the Ovaries and Give Me Back My Special-Needs Child' on Lifetime!"

I get them all the time too.

smooshie: It's sad how many liberals who always accuse Bush of treating the Constitution as trash are terrified at the NRA trying to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

I am a liberal who always accuses Bush of treating the Constitution as trash, but I'm not "terrified" at the NRA trying to uphold the 2nd Amendment; in fact, I'm THRILLED that SOMEBODY is making an effort to uphold and defend the Constitution.

So I really got a kick out of your comment.

submitter: ensure that law-abiding gun owners have the right to blow the head off anyone they even THINK may be coming right at them

Meh.

King Something: I am a liberal who always accuses Bush of treating the Constitution as trash, but I'm not "terrified" at the NRA trying to uphold the 2nd Amendment; in fact, I'm THRILLED that SOMEBODY is making an effort to uphold and defend the Constitution.

I know, I'm liberal on pretty much everything else, but it doesn't make sense to accuse one side of ignoring the Constitution when you're doing the same. I suspect it's mainly the "Make Peace not War" hippie crowd, who thinks that if an intruder breaks into your home to rape and kill you, you should use the power of love to make him nice and cuddly.

smooshie:

it doesn't make sense to accuse one side of ignoring the Constitution when you're doing the same.

this

/not a big fan of the "guns are teh evil" libtards
//agrees with them on most other issues

Meh, I have swords. Come and get me.

NeverDrunk23: Meh, I have swords. Come and get me.

Are they accurate at 100 yards? Cause if not, history called and you lose.

I have nuclear weapons. Come and get me.

Mayor Newsom: "Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?"

Unarmed people in public housing?

mr_bunny: NeverDrunk23: Meh, I have swords. Come and get me.

Are they accurate at 100 yards? Cause if not, history called and you lose.

Ah, but you see that if my HP gets too low, I can release powerful energy waves from my swords.

smooshie: It's sad how many liberals who always accuse Bush of treating the Constitution as trash are terrified at the NRA trying to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, because the second amendment is absolutely crystal clear in its nuances of meaning and has never been interpreted in a variety of different ways by scholars of constitutional law.

mr_bunny: Are they accurate at 100 yards? Cause if not, history called and you lose.

Well, if someone breaks into your house, they wouldn't be 100 yards away now, would they?

smooshie: It's sad how many liberals who always accuse Bush of treating the Constitution as trash are terrified at the NRA trying to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

/liberal-libertarian

I don't have a problem with guns, or the vast majority of gun owners who are responsible, law-abiding citizens, but the 2nd amendment does say a well-regulated militia. Should you have the right to own and carry weapons? Absolutely, as long as you do so responsibly. Should there be reasonable restrictions on who is allowed to carry weapons and where they are allowed to take them? Absolutely. The gun debate often seems to consist of nothing but people who want to ban all weapons more dangerous than a wiffle bat and the mouth-foaming maniacs who insist they'll be kidnapped and raped if they can't carry their full-auto AK47 everywhere with them. They both need to STFU and realize that there is a happy medium.

NeverDrunk23: mr_bunny: NeverDrunk23: Meh, I have swords. Come and get me.

Are they accurate at 100 yards? Cause if not, history called and you lose.

Ah, but you see that if my HP gets too low, I can release powerful energy waves from my swords.

Well you didn't say they were enchanted.

whiskeyinthejar: but the 2nd amendment does say a well-regulated militia.

which is part of the prefatory clause, not the operative clause, and which the court addresses on pages 22-24 of the opinion.

"Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

beerrun: mr_bunny: Are they accurate at 100 yards? Cause if not, history called and you lose.

Well, if someone breaks into your house, they wouldn't be 100 yards away now, would they?

Depends on how big your house is, doesn't it Mr. Smart Guy?

/lives in an airplane hanger

albo: "Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

How is that "nothing more", given that it's entirely absent from our regulation of guns now?

/pro-individual gun ownership. Pro-gun and bullet tagging.

Just for interest, I looked at the ACLU website, and they had this to say about Heller.

***
The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.
***

Constitutional straightjacket?

The reason I checked it is because of their policy on gun control, and the reason they give for not fighting Second Amendment challenges:

***
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one [my emphasis], intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
***

I'm curious as to what their opinion will read after they take Heller into account.

Awesome, so now that the NRA managed to get activist judges on their courts, they decided to legislate from the bench.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Snarfangel: I'm curious as to what their opinion will read after they take Heller into account.

It's kind of hard to "take Heller into account," because the decision is ambiguous and designed to invite more litigation. It's certainly not a minimalist decision. It is an outcome-driven, activist decision designed to create a new individual right without sound reasoning to get there.

Conservatives have long criticized Roe v. Wade for the "penumbra" approach to rights creation, where the Court looked to other areas to find a "pre-existing right," and then inject that right into a certain part of the Constitution. That is exactly what Scalia did in Heller. He looked to the common law and other areas to find policy justifications for owning handguns, and then injected those policy arguments into the second amendment. Then, he casually tried to sound moderate by suggesting limits that are totally inconsistent with his original policy justification. What we see from Heller is that so-called "inalienable rights" are little more than political talking poitns that people think are good, that are repackaged into rights. It's sad, really.

albo: which is part of the prefatory clause, not the operative clause, and which the court addresses on pages 22-24 of the opinion.

"Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

"Proper discipline and training" is exactly what I'm saying is needed.

Snarfangel: I'm curious as to what their opinion will read after they take Heller into account.

the opinion pretty much destroys the collective right argument. it nails all the history. it would be intellectual self-delusion if they refused to modify their decision, frankly

"Proper discipline and training" is exactly what I'm saying is needed.

that was a quote from the opinion discussing the terms of the prefatory clause, specifically how "well-regulated" applied to the "militia." it doesn't mean gun owners are necessarily the milita and therefore subject to training.

Add me to the list of people with liberal leanings who has no problem with individual gun rights. Even though I support guns, however, I'm not a huge fan of the NRA anymore. Like a lot of powerful single-issue lobbying organizations, they seem to have undergone some mission creep in recent years, and have morphed into more of a general right-wing advocacy organization than just a pro-gun group. So I support gun rights and oppose most gun control laws, but I don't want to give support to an organization like the NRA that supports the Republican Party exclusively.

Does anyone know of any other pro-gun groups that might be working on changing the mainstream views in the Democratic party rather than just defeating them? Because I see cracks there. Perusing the liberal blogs, there was significant dissent on this issue in the wake of the SCOTUS decision. Hint to pro-gun people: the time may be right to work on the Democrats instead of just trying to defeat them. If you ally yourselves too strongly with the Republicans, you may actually do your mission a disservice.

LocalCynic: It is an outcome-driven, activist decision designed to create a new individual right without sound reasoning to get there.

clearly you haven't read it.

albo: clearly you haven't read it.

Actually, I did read it. I don't understand how gun rights can be "inalienable" yet it is constitutional to prevent someone convicted of a non-violent felony who has done his time from owning a firearm.

Here's my simple rule: if you're anti-gun, you must attend one eight hour gun safety course that includes at least two hours to three hours of range time (obviously, more range time would be desirable).

Ditto on anti-drug crusaders, for that matter. Replace range time with bong time. Same deal.

Y'know what, same deal with anti-porn crusaders. And anti-gay crusaders. Before you can oppose it, you've gotta have tried it.

LocalCynic: It's kind of hard to "take Heller into account," because the decision is ambiguous and designed to invite more litigation. It's certainly not a minimalist decision. It is an outcome-driven, activist decision designed to create a new individual right without sound reasoning to get there.

This may be true, but as with Roe, I'm fine with the "creation" of new "rights". It's the other way around that worries me. Actually, I don't believe that the Supreme Court can ever "create" a new right. It just recognizes an existing right that the government may or may not have been respecting.

LocalCynic: Conservatives have long criticized Roe v. Wade for the "penumbra" approach to rights creation, where the Court looked to other areas to find a "pre-existing right," and then inject that right into a certain part of the Constitution. That is exactly what Scalia did in Heller. He looked to the common law and other areas to find policy justifications for owning handguns, and then injected those policy arguments into the second amendment. Then, he casually tried to sound moderate by suggesting limits that are totally inconsistent with his original policy justification. What we see from Heller is that so-called "inalienable rights" are little more than political talking poitns that people think are good, that are repackaged into rights. It's sad, really.

The decision was 5-4, not 1-8, and Anthony Kennedy (who is typically considered the center of this court) joined the majority.

As a DC resident, and nearly a socialist, the overturning of the gun ban made me smile. I never understood the all guns are bad mentality. I will worry if they start allowing citizens to buy Javelin Missiles .

LocalCynic: don't understand how gun rights can be "inalienable"

they are inalienable is that the right of self-defense and the right to have arms to protect that right are natural rights that a constitution cannot limit or take away.

as for the state being able to take away that right on the basis of conviction for a non-violent felony, i could agree with that--in some cases it may not be constitutional.

Mnemia: I don't believe that the Supreme Court can ever "create" a new right. It just recognizes an existing right that the government may or may not have been respecting.

In the case of gun rights, the mission of groups like the NRA is to transform gun ownership from a bulwark against government tyranny into some hyper-individualistic ability to carry a gun anywhere no matter what. Most people have no problem with the concept that people can have something to defend their homes. But where do you draw the line? The NRA has been pushing to elevate gun rights about property rights, and the Heller decision is really the first attempt to radically recast our understanding of gun rights.

And we're not even talking about the traditional collective versus individual rights discussion. Scalia gives lip service to the idea that there are "limits" to gun rights, but reading Heller, it's hard to understand exactly what those limits are. He suggests that laws limiting the types of firearms are probably constitutional, but that premise is totally inconsistent with the clear language of the second amendment. I'm guessing that in the next few court cases, the conservatives of the court are going to do backflips to create new types of gun rights that were never recognized by the founders.

albo: clearly you haven't read it.

Based on his post, I'd say that's a given.

LocalCynic: Actually, I did read it. I don't understand how gun rights can be "inalienable" yet it is constitutional to prevent someone convicted of a non-violent felony who has done his time from owning a firearm.

Non-violent felons should have gun rights, and voting rights, once they serve their time (possibly including any time on probation). We shouldn't punish people forever. The only people who should lose gun rights should be people who have committed violent crimes or the mentally ill.

"In Washington DC, or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," said Chris Cox, from the NRA.

"These laws all deny that right."

This is horseshiat. A person can reasonably defend themselves without a firearm.

like a drunk guy who thought he was going to his girlfriend's house? (new window)

LocalCynic: He suggests that laws limiting the types of firearms are probably constitutional, but that premise is totally inconsistent with the clear language of the second amendment. I'm guessing that in the next few court cases, the conservatives of the court are going to do backflips to create new types of gun rights that were never recognized by the founders.

You're really trying to poison the well before anybody takes a sip.

No, the "conservatives" on the court are not going to start creating new gun rights. and yes, laws prohibiting guns that are not in common legal use by citizens are constitutional. that wasn't addressed in detail because that wasn't what Heller was about, except for handguns

Rovian: A person can reasonably defend themselves without a firearm

sure. and they can fail in that effort.

a 120-pound woman against a 220-pound male home invader--a gun makes it a fair fight

albo: they are inalienable is that the right of self-defense and the right to have arms to protect that right are natural rights that a constitution cannot limit or take away.

That's not a natural rights argument, that's a policy argument. Self-defense may be an inalienable right. Guns are a mere tool. There is philosophical justification for why gun ownership is a "right," other than the policy argument that guns are effective for self-defense.

If the purpose of the second amendment is truly to ensure personal self-defense, you end up with ridiculous results. Who defines what constitutes self-defense? Does this mean that states with laws less than Florida or Texas' "make my day" laws that allow you to shoot first and ask questions later, are unconstitutional? Reading the plain text of the second amendment, such a claim would be ridiculous. But reading the majority opinion, certainly it's plausible.

Snarfangel: The decision was 5-4, not 1-8, and Anthony Kennedy (who is typically considered the center of this court) joined the majority.

The opinion is trademark Scalia. It pretends to interpret the text, and then spouts off a bunch of jargon about originalism. I can imagine that part of the confusion in this decision was the result of Kennedy trying to reign in the conservatives. Kennedy probably wasn't willing to cast his lot with the majority if they proposed an unlimited right to bear arms.

One more for the road.........

Pocket Ninja: Yes, because the second amendment is absolutely crystal clear in its nuances of meaning and has never been interpreted in a variety of different ways by scholars cynical political hacks manipulating of constitutional law. for their own purposes.

FTFY