Score One for the Gun Guys

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision striking down the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, in a 5-4 ruling, and affirming so-called Second Amendment rights was predictable, and comes no surprise. While the dissent, and dissenters, on the court were formidable, there was no wiggle room .

Now, if only the court were to defend the First Amendment, and expand the scope of their ruling on child rape to make capital punishment unconstitutional insofar as it violates the Eighth Amendment injunction against "cruel and unusual punishment."

Some historical perspective is in order, too, as some on the bench have suggested. The Second Amendment is part of a Constitution that was written in the years following the Revolutionary War when the framers were accustomed to living with the constant fear of what we would characterize today as the "insurgency." Times have changed, indeed. Now those who resist occupation, and defend human rights, have come to be seen as insurgents, and weapons themselves far outnumber those who use them.

While the gun lobby may crack open that bottle of champagne, this is a victory that thrives in theory, but one that, in practice, can only be condemned. The gravest threat to a generation of youngsters of color, in our inner cities, has just won the good housekeeping stamp of approval from the highest court in the land. And, while poverty, disease, and ignorance are precarious, there is nothing more dangerous than a handgun, or firearm, in the wrong hands.

Senator Obama is on the mark when he suggests that the right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to do so without limitation, and oversight required to protect the community at large, as well as inner city youth who are rapidly joining the endangered species list.

Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl

Comments

[pratliff94]

Jayne,

This article shows that you have very clear thinking about the SCOTUS decision. I am amazed at some of these comments. I wonder if some of those making comments own Toyoto pickups and like to drive out in desert with their AK7 held high as the do in Mogadishu or Kabul.

I think it is most interesting to look at the breakdown of the 5-4 decision; if one does not think there is a major difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, just look at the votes of the Bush I and Bush II appointees- Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, etc.

With Gingsburg and Stevens retiring in the next presidential term, McCain will have the opportunity to duplicate Thomas and Scalia. These votes on guns, abortion, torture, Habeas Corpus, Tork Laws, Education (vouchers) will be 7-2 time after time for the next thirty years.

Thank you for this article. I am sorry it is too deep for some of the readers for you hit the proverbial nail on the head, dead center.

OBHG,
Phil

[Tao21Zen]

And I wonder if you could even tell the difference between a real AK47 and a firearms that merely looks like one, but functions exactly the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

If you could, you would know that a REAL AK47 is a fully-automatic selective fire weapon that costs well over $25,000 and, having been highly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act, these selective fire fire weapons have nothing to do with the so called "assault weapons" that ant-gunners insist need to be banned.

As for the "military looking weapons" that you think should be banned, they function EXACTLY the same as any and every semi-auto hunting rifle. However, the 7.62x39 round that these military rifles have actually has around 1000 ft/lb of energy LESS than the most common hunting round in the world, the 30-06. Feel free to compare the ballistics of these two round yourselves.

Also, are you aware that numerous studies conducted by sources like the DOJ have found that these so called "military weapons" are used in less than 2% of all gun crimes?

The simple fact is, many that lack the educational background in firearms history, technology, functionality and operation have been greatly deceived by the deceitful anti-gun folks into believing that these military looking weapons are something they aren't.

[45superman]

" . . . inner city youth who are rapidly joining the endangered species list. "

Are you asserting that inner city youth are about to become extinct (which is what the endangered species list is about)? Have some evidence for this . . . remarkable hypothesis?

[WalterHiggins]

Your bias is showing when you talk about the "gun lobby".

Many law-abiding gun owners applaud the decision because it it is the right one.

When the California Supreme Court upheld gay marriage, did you attribute it to some sinister "gay lobby" ?

[sarge]

What If...

DC passed a law that as a condition of gun ownership, one must enlist and participate in a "well regulated militia". Conveniently, such an organization already exists, it's called the National Guard!

Surely such a law would be deemed constitutional?

[meanguy]

sarge, it would 'likely' not pass muster, as an 'infringement'...but it's an interesting idea

[montestruc]

buzzzp wrong answer, because all male American citizens between the ages of 17 & 45 are in the militia per federal law, so they already meet the criteria, and so the law would be an infringement for asserting they had any such authority to disarm the militia.

look it up, it is the legal basis of the draft, and has been federal law since the late 1700s

however, they could make a universal militia law requiring all residents between 17 & 45 turn out for militia training & duty. might be useful for fighting crime.