SCOTUS Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban

Pretty much as suspected.

From SCOTUSblog:

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violatrion of denying any access to a handgun.

Well that settles that. DC will have to change it laws to allow licensed handgun ownership for most of its citizens. I'm glad that SCOTUS went on to get rid of the clause requiring that all handguns in the home must either be disassembled or have trigger locks. Ready access is needed for home defense and that clause would have applied even if the gun was stored in a fingerprint accessible gun safe which makes it overly prohibitive. This ruling goes a long way towards settling the militia argument against personal handgun ownership however and in that regard its a landmark decision.

Odds are in addition to strict liscencing requirements on handguns we'll see DC pass a law on the types of handguns one can own effectively making smaller and cheaper hanguns (anything under .38 caliber) illegal to own. And I for one have no problem with that.

SCOTUS to Take on 2nd Ammendment

From Scotusblog

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) seeking to revive its flat ban on private possession of handguns is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.

I for one am highly curious as to how they will rule. The ruling will in essence set a precedent for states since Dc is sort of a state unto itself. Additionally the law only forbids handguns hence it sidesteps the "keep and bear arms" part of the constitution by allowing citizens to own firearms that are normally used for hunting. Furthermore this ruling will be highly telling about the philosophy of the newer appointees. Given how fine this court has split legal hairs in the past it'll be a highly indicator in regards to newer members views of Constitutional vs states rights.

Frankly I'd prefer they shoot it down. I don't like laws that impinge on the rights of a majority for the actions of a minority. DC could have easily required all handgun owners to have licenses or outlawed all handguns under .38 caliber (the cheap ones) both of which would have prevented this legal showdown.

What Gun Closet?

Over at The Atlantic Andrew Sullivan asks "If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one?" in regards to a story that the Tennessean published the names of all owners of concealed carry permits in the state.

Those records are public and thus fair game, but if a media outlet provides the names of those who have gone through the often tedious process of state licensing then they should also publish the names of all living criminals who have committed crimes with illegally possessed weapons so that the public can make a comparison between the two lists.

It's not about hiding, it's about responsible journalism and bias.

Cross posted at Donklephant

Clip: Virginia Governor Closes Gun Loophole

Well, that is definitely a step in the right direction.

VA Tech Reflections

I was born in Roanoake VA, I have family that lives in Blacksburg, and odds are I have at least one distant cousin that goes to VA Tech. I started hunting, fishing, and target shooting in that neck of woods when I was eight. Hence it occurs to me that if such a catastrophe could happen there it could literally happen anywhere. And those that were affected by the violence that day have my sincerest condolences. And it is that spirit that I say the following:




Since that day partisans from both sides have called for stricter gun control laws, called for handguns to be allowed in schools, and conspiracy theorists have been wondering if it was a govt. black op. And to all of you I have this to say:






Shut up now.






Not one of the 32 people killed died so that you could advance your tired political ideals. None of them chose to die so that your party could advance its agenda. This isn't a political problem a
it's a human problem and in order to decrease the number of times massacres like this happen politicians, school administrators, campus security, law enforcement, corporations, and mental health professionals are going to have to work together.






To those voices on the left I say: You could have outlawed all guns and this could have still happened guns would be just as available as pot or meth currently is. They'd be smuggled in through the same routes as cocaine and illegal immigrants. And eventually some madman would have done something similar with home made pipe bombs.






To those on the right: Firearms being allowed on campuses might have prevented deaths but considering the low percentage of gun owners that have concealed carry licenses the odds of one of them being on campus in the right place at the right time are slim. Plus in the middle of a mass shooting a college student with a handgun looks just like a perp to a cop.






To those conspiracy theorists: You folks are hopeless and I'm not going to bother arguing with you.






What might be of use is the creation of a Danger to Self and/or Others database where campus security and mental health professionals could submit the name, DL, SSN, DoB of those that fall within those parameters to the authorities and that database could then be checked instantly by Federal Firearms License holders. And then a law could be passed that that FFL holders could be held liable in civil court and/or lose the license if anyone they sold a weapon to on that list committed an act of violence using that firearm.






Thats just one of many possible tools that could help reduce the odds of this happening agin. We'll never be able to totally stop madmen from killing people but we can at least try to think out of the political box for real solutions.