Best. Statement. Ever.

From the syllabus in DC v. Heller (0.00 / 0)

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.

There are standards. I don't know how Shea-Porter can take that position and sincerely claim to support individual gun rights.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 17:56:30 PM CDT

Ahem. (0.00 / 0)

The Bush Administration favored the DC position. Although it said there is an individual right, it argued that the District law was Constitutional. So, if Carol cannot "sincerely claim to support individual gun rights" neither can Bush.

And you gloss over that the ruling also struck down mandatory trigger locks. Despite his soothing words, Scalia hasn't shown any deference to legislatures on this.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 18:27:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I don't think Bush can make that claim either (0.00 / 0)

I mean, Bush said he would sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban and could care less about the Constitution on habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, and everything else.

Also the Supreme Court struck down mandatory trigger locks because they impair self-defense, not so much the keeping and bearing arms.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 18:37:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Assault Weapons Ban (0.00 / 0)

Sure, Bush "said" he would sign a renewal of the ban, but he never lifted a finger -- or made a single request -- to get it through the Republican Congress.  Our President is perfectly happy allowing drugged-out teenagers to buy Uzis; he's just too cowardly to admit it.

Once again, we can't raise this issue without saluting the courage of Dick Swett.  Despite representing the congressional district which, at the time, had the highest NRA membership in the continental United States, Dick voted for the ban back in '94.  It passed the House by a single vote.

Dick had nothing to gain, and was well aware of what he had to lose.  He (to paraphrase President Clinton) laid down his seat in Congress so kids and cops wouldn't have to lay down their lives under a hail of assault weapons fire. . . . The ban went into law in 1994, and was followed by a sharp reduction in violent crimes committed by assault weapons for the next several years.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 20:26:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good (0.00 / 0)

The assault weapons ban doesn't affect the sale of Uzis. It's pretty hard to get an Uzi today because they're automatics. The assault weapons ban says I can't get a Lee Enfield or an M1 (interesting guns because of their history) because they have a bayonet lug. That bothers me a little bit, so I'm glad the AWB wasn't renewed. Assault weapons fire is not any more dangerous than non-assault weapons fire. Assault weapons does not mean machine guns or something.

Also, at twenty years old, I know my fair share of drugged-out teenagers, and they're not going to buy Uzis and they wouldn't have much use for them, anyways.

Seriously, do you know an Uzi dealer or something because that's a really random example?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 20:59:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I find the notion (4.00 / 5)

that people have a greater Constitutional right to buy "historically interesting" weapons of war, than to buy old sewing machines or bicycles, absurd.

Whatever the Second Amendment was intended to protect, it wasn't collector hobbyists.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:52:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's just me (0.00 / 1)

if I were to buy a gun, it would be for some mix of practical purposes (you can definitely hunt with a Lee Enfield) and for historical significance. I didn't say anything about constitutional rights here. I am effectively precluded, though perhaps wrongly in light of Heller, from keeping and bearing a handgun or starting a munitions factory for another few months until my twenty first birthday.

I would be equally upset at the Congress trying to forbid me from buying old sewing machines, bicycles, typewriters, or whatever.

Old war weapons are probably more apt for militia-service, though, than, say, some target sport pistol. And definitely not more dangerous to the public than whatever you might think of as an ordinary hunting rifle.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:01:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't think any of the bans was wise public policy (0.00 / 0)

But I wouldn't find any of them Constitutionally beyond the reach of government either.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:15:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The way the interstate commerce clause is used (0.00 / 0)

makes pretty much anything fair game.

There is probably a degree to which regulation can make it so onerous that it begins to trample your rights, i.e. if it's functionally impossible but de jure permissible, it might be a violation.

I didn't make a case for constitutionality here, but I think the AWB was a law that's against my interests and the interests of people who, like, actually have guns or buy guns or whatever.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:28:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No. But I Did Read the Damn Bill. (0.00 / 0)

"The assault weapons ban doesn't affect the sale of Uzis. . . . Seriously, do you know an Uzi dealer or something because that's a really random example?"

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  According to the BBC:  "The 1994 ban covered 19 different types of military assault weapons, including AK-47, Kalashnikov and Uzi rifles, as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds."

Oh, and here's the text of the bill passed by the house on May 5, 1994.  Check Section 2.   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...

"Assault weapons fire is not any more dangerous than non-assault weapons fire. Assault weapons does not mean machine guns or something."

Here's a link to the official AK-47 web site:

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/mod...

The 600 rounds/minute caught my attention.  I don't think my father used this to hunt deer.

"Also, at twenty years old, I know my fair share of drugged-out teenagers, and they're not going to buy Uzis and they wouldn't have much use for them, anyways."

Uh huh.  But some druggies like Uzis very much.  According to the Associated Press (12/17/03):  "Illegal arms sales have also put the weapon into the hands of Colombian drug lords. . . . The Uzi, while still used by the U.S. Secret Service, is also beloved of U.S. gangs because of its reputation as 'a macho weapon,' said gun expert Tim Brown of Globalsecurity.org."

In 1995 -- the year after the ban passed --firearms killed 0 children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.  Do you really think that's a coincidence?  Or do kids in America just play more video games?

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 21:58:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh huh (0.00 / 0)

but those are generally illegal (unless you have lots of money and approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) under the 1968 Gun Control Act, through the Federal Firearms Licensing system (which, again, at 20, I can't access -- I can join the Marines, I can vote for Bush to send my friends to Iraq, but I can't get a federal firearms license as a private citizen for a few more months).

You could have something that looks like an AK-47 or an Uzi, but it's not the same, it's not an automatic. It's cosmetically similar, but functionally different. Any Uzi in the hands of gangs is pretty definitely illegal, with or without the assault weapons ban, and what it's being used for is, you know, probably illegal in and of itself.

Why I,me, I wouldn't be allowed to buy a Lee Enfield, like my grandfather had, because it has a little ring around the tip where you can stick a bayonet, is unclear. I haven't heard of any drive-by bayonetings by drugged-up teenagers, and that's the sort of stuff the assault weapons ban regulated: cosmetics, not mechanics.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 22:14:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I want to plug my Congressman, too (0.00 / 0)

Hodes called the ruling a victory for defenders of the Second Amendment and New Hampshire residents' right to keep and bear arms.

He, Sununu and Gregg had signed a friend of the court brief to support overturning the law.

From, "N.H. Politicians Praise U.S. Supreme Court Gun Ruling," WMUR.

If you want to give a little to a Congressman who supports the whole Bill of Rights, here's a link to Paul Hodes's ActBlue page.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 23:09:34 PM CDT

Just a modest suggestion (0.00 / 0)

that you rephrase your headline in light of the topic of this discussion. Might be misconstrued. ;)

...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.

---

by: rambler american @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:35:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right definitely a poor (0.00 / 0)

choice of terms given the subject. There's no edit feature for comments, though.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 00:00:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Opinions are like (0.00 / 0)

... * holes. We all have them. Scalia is an ass.
An editorial I agree with from today's grey lady

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...
Editorial
Lock and Load
Published: June 27, 2008

Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year - on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia's gun-control law.

In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a "militia." The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.

This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.

There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.

The NRA says Guns don't kill people, people do. People like Antonin SCalia.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:01:23 AM CDT