District of Columbia v Heller

As of now, "stand your ground" laws are a matter of state law only, but could in time provide the means to implement a right nationwide if self-defense were ultimately to emerge as a guaranteed right under the Constitution.

Those who own guns and those who do not, to a surprising degree, have the same vision for America. After Tucson, is it too much to ask for a modicum of courage from Congress, and the President, to make that vision a reality?

In the delusional world of the NRA's leaders, people can be divided into good guys and bad -- and the good guys never commit violent acts. In that world it follows that we should simply arm the good guys so they can shoot back at the bad guys. For the NRA, this "logic" applies just as well to teenagers as to adults. Back on planet Earth, we understand that far too many 18 year olds who appear to be "good" actually will do some very bad things, and creating a constitutional right for teenagers to carry concealed weapons is nothing but lunacy.

Even after the landmark Supreme Court decisions that gave individuals across the country a right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, the gun lobby still isn't happy.

Two summers ago, I blogged with great concern about a statement made by Justice Scalia in the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller. Since the Heller decision, many gun rights commentators have used Scalia's construct to link the need for unfettered access to firearms with a right to engage in political violence against the Obama administration. Now, the same five-justice majority as in Heller determined that the holding applies to the states.

The NRA accuses Kagan of a "clear hostility" to the Second Amendment, but that means she understands our Constitution leaves ample room for reasonable gun restrictions that can save lives.

Given that several states have gun laws far stronger than federal law, does McDonald lay the groundwork for the unraveling of gun restrictions? If the gun lobby thinks so, it is likely to be disappointed.

As the nation contemplates Justice Stevens' impending retirement and its implications, all Americans concerned about the daily tragedy of American gun violence should pause to recognize their debt of gratitude to him.

With two pro-gun marches approaching in Washington and Virginia, the NRA should make it clear that, no matter what their feelings about firearm regulation, there is no constitutional right to insurrection.

Maybe Kagan is no Lady Gaga when it comes to fashion. But for most Americans, the way Kagan outfits herself is just fine. What's in her mind and her heart are far more important than what's on her back, neck, or her ring finger.

If Chicago's law is struck down, it will no doubt be hailed by the NRA as a great victory, as was Heller. But the most ardent "gun rights" advocates can barely hide their disappointment with the practical impact.

We in the United States accept that a Supreme Court Justice who's an "Ambassador" for the gun industry can ethically rule on cases that impact the very industry he represents.

A poll by Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz found that even NRA members see stronger gun laws to protect public safety as entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.

Although the Chicago handgun ban Supreme Court case involves interesting constitutional issues, even if Chicago loses, such a ruling is unlikely to prove a serious threat to state and local gun regulation across-the-board.

Last year at this time, I said that America was turning a corner on the gun issue, and the watershed events of 2008 confirmed that prediction. The pa...

The Roberts Court might not just be moving in the wrong direction, but in a direction that presents a direct threat to the rule of law and our very democracy.

It was national news on June 26 when the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's strict gun laws and declared that the Second Amendment gu...

Yesterday, the House adopted the gun lobby agenda that nothing should ever be done to "discourage" gun ownership and possession.

The Second Amendment has always put me in a quandary, but Scalia's opinion was not an honest attempt at sorting it out. It was a sophistical, political decision of just the type that he rails against.

So much for Scalia's much-vaunted "originalism," which advocates reading the Constitution as it would have been understood at the time of the Founding.

A government that cannot protect people should not deprive them of the right to protect themselves -- and the the D.C. gun ban did just that.