finally

Sweet.

ATL needs something akin to a Drudge siren for things like this. Maybe marching gavels, styled like the marching hammers from The Wall.

Anyway, there's a part of me that thinks the decision is less monumental than people are treating it as. A city/state can't ban handguns outright. But it *can* still regulate the hell out of them. Yes, if it went the other way it would have been huge. But not this way.

This is great news

what's next with this court.........a right to privacy!

::notreadingnotreadingnotreading:::

when are they going to freaking post the slip opinion on the SCOTUS website so I can read it myself before being inundated with commentary!?

charlton heston is about to emerge from the grave to celebrate

how about a right to life?

I'm only a few pages in, but this feels like Scalia's magnum opus: a thorough originalist analysis on the Second Amendment that takes the text as its starting point. Writing this opinion must have been one of the highlights of his career.

Thank God. What would I have done without my handgun? How would I have hammered nails? Cut my steak? Called my dog?

10:38. Read the opinion. It's good. Very good.
From p.55:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

will i get pwn3d now since i argued that an opposite outcome will occur for my journal comp essay?

Fantastic. I don't care for guns, but it's nice to see that the Constitution still means something.

Grotesque.

Opinion here:
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Did this honestly surprise anyone? And as 10:38 says, not a big deal. It essentially preserves the status quo and sanity. Thus laws like CA's assault weapons bans will continue to stand. Essentially widespread common sense on the issue has just been codified in an opinion.

Much ado about nothing.

I agree with 10:38. I'l read the opinion, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but my initial thought having read the background is that this is not as big a deal as some are making it out to be. We'll see...

Eugene Volokh got a citation!!! His blog crashed, but a hearty congrats to him here!

Thank God (yes "God") that there were 5 sane people left on the court when they got this case. The "liberal" wing seems hell bent to trample all over the constitution so long as it fits their "enlightened" viewpoint on today's hot button political issues.

10:48 - I count at least 2 citations for him. Both his 2007 and 1998 articles. I'm not sure how significant this is - Scalia cites almost every single article out there agreeing with him.

Although I disagree with Justice Scalia's textual analysis, I do agree with his statement on the final page of the opinion that it is not for the Court to decide the public-policy issue of whether the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness. Fine. Because I accept the Court's authority to interpret the Constitution, the meaning of the Second Amendment is now beyond doubt. But the modern-day public-policy wisdom of the Second Amendment is still debatable.

But what are those of us who wish to see greater government regulation of weapons to do? Our so-called progressive presidential candidate not only has said on the record that he believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right but also has said that he disagrees with the Court's opinion holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of child rapists. Nor does Obama support gay marriage.

Why am I voting for him again?

utter bullshit

10:41.
You're a f'n idiot. I'm way more likely to get shot by someone with a stolen/unregistered handgun than by someone with a handgun license.

10:50- there has been a lot written about guns and rights, like many hot-button topics, and to have your work chosen for citation in a SCOTUS opinion is always significant. Of course, I doubt anyone on this board would know what that's like, including me.

Where are all the SEN haters to comment on this post's author? Perhaps she too now has an individual right to blog?

Sharon's writing has improved considerably - careful and no longer cutesy.

DC residents to M-16s!

shit, i didn't realize that SEN is plotting a secret comeback to blogging. she better hope that no 'neck in alabama comes and hunts her down with his newly affirmed right to bear arms!

lat, i thought kash replaced SEN?

I have not read the opinion and won't have time to do so for a while, but I am troubled by this quote from the WaPo article about it:

"Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should 'cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.'"

Is he implying with that last clause that laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons in public but non-sensitive places may now be invalid?

Great day for child rapists and mercenaries. Our country is such a joke.

10:55--that's a bold analysis to make based on only two posts since March.

Does this mean I can shoot someone in the south if they look kind of funny and I feel threatened by their southernly ways?

Does this mean I can shoot someone in the south if they look kind of funny and I feel threatened by their southernly ways?

Very good opinion. I think the dissent is all wet, to be honest.

It will be very interesting to see the secondary litigation on this subject.

10:59, 2 posts are enough to show ability. I make no judgment as to consistency.

Oh Snap! SEN in the house!

So much for Stephen Breyer's embrace of "Active Liberty" here. His dissent would do nothing to expand people's liberties. His whole active liberty shceme is nothing but a ruse for certain outcomes he likes. What a pathetic joke.

So much for Stephen Breyer's embrace of "Active Liberty" here. His dissent would do nothing to expand people's liberties. His whole active liberty scheme is nothing but a ruse for certain outcomes he likes. What a pathetic joke.

11:03- "active liberty," as you say, is evidently just for child molesters.

This opinion was much tamer than I thought from all the hooplah surrounding it. Nothing revolutionary. I was worried how far the opinion would take it, but I can already see it has been blown way out of proportion. Well written from what I can see. Most of Scalia's opinions are. I do not agree with a lot of his political stances, but he's a helluva writer

This opinion was much tamer than I thought from all the hooplah surrounding it. Nothing revolutionary. I was worried how far the opinion would take it, but I can already see it has been blown way out of proportion. Well written from what I can see. Most of Scalia's opinions are. I do not agree with a lot of his political stances, but he's a helluva writer

10:51 asks: "But what are those of us who wish to see greater government regulation of weapons to do?"

Step 1: Realize that you do not represent the majority of American voters (as evidenced by the fact that not even a liberal Democrat running for President will agree with you). Step 2: Realize you live in a representative democracy where your minority view will not be allowed to step on the rights of others. Step 3: Move to Europe. Thanks.

10:59 - What you are talking about has not been considered valid in the first place:

Heller at 57:

Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to
the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And
some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v.
State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition
on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a
prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at
251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court
likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a
pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or
place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the
state constitutional provision (which the court equated
with the Second Amendment). That was so even though
the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.

Atta boy Volokh!

Kennedy is a transparent whore who will maintain a balance in wins for right and left in order to maintain his power. He wants his vote coveted, not taken for granted. He is repulsive.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/t1home.court.afp.gi.jpg

That's a good pic for the next caption contest

10:59(2): YOU are a joke.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/t1home.court.afp.gi.jpg

More like "3 Big Macs a day is a basic human right."

Scalia is showing Stevens his "O" face in this opinion.

"Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. [Citation omitted]. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” "

Eat it, Breyer.

Dear 11:05 AM:

For what it's worth, Europe is NOT a progressive place. See, e.g., anti-immigration backlash in Italy, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom; French nuclear testing in the South Pacific and oil deals with Iraq; etc.

Regardless of its other effects, the opinion finally makes it clear that the Second Amendment is NOT ABOUT HUNTING! It's about the inherent right of self defense and defense against tyranny. Also, the Second Amendment merely codified a pre-existing and natural right, rather than creating one.

11:15(1)--that part was in response to Stevens' dissent, not Breyer's.

10:51-

there is plenty of room for responsible regulation of firearms. i'm all for the right to possess, but i'm also all for licensing and registration requirements and required training in order to obtain a license. it's not unreasonable to expect those who bear arms to demonstrate responsibility, maturity, and ability.

wait, so can we arm bears or not?

http://6.content.bustedtees.com/d1/bt/2/3/bustedtees.ef270fa215d10509c3fd5a7396959940.gif

Homer: But I have to have a gun. It's in the Constitution.
Lisa: Dad, the 2nd Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today.
Homer: You couldn't be more wrong Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Lisa) Huh? (Shoves her) Do ya!?

"Does this mean I can shoot someone in the south if they look kind of funny and I feel threatened by their southernly ways?"

I have a hollow point .45 with your name on it.

Blatant judicial activism. So the elites on the SC can better determine the proper role of gun use than the people of DC?

pretty sure ginsburg fell asleep during the reading

My liberty allows me to own many guns for target shooting, hunting, historical collecting, and self defense. I live in the south, but I've never shot anyone, believe it or not. I'm about as solid a citizen as they come. I also happen to own a helluva lot of guns and keep thousands of rounds of ammo in my home. I'm not preparing for armageddon or a revolution. I just enjoy shooting at the range. There are thousands of people like me. Why is it so impossible for folks who drive on turnpikes and ride subways to just leave us the hell alone?

11:05 (3) - very nicely put. I would buy you a beer for that comment.

11:24, The elites on the SC have the authority to interpret the constitution. Indeed, it's their job. Knuckleheads who live in DC should be happy they are even allowed to vote.

"But what are those of us who wish to see greater government regulation of weapons to do?"

Do you also support greater government regulation of Speech, the press or religion? Or do you merely want greater government regulation of only those constitutional rights that get your panties in a bunch.

For example, would you support a Vermont law, voted on and approved by the people that bans protestants from living in the state?

11:29, i don't think that law would be very fair to Vermonters who have to pay for sex.

In response to 11:00-I live in the South, have served in the military, hold a JD and an LLM and enjoy intellectual debate. Why does this make me backwards? Why do northern elites feel they can condescend to me? I went to the same schools they did, do the same work they do, and don't disparage them on a regular basis. Yet, they feel entitled to do so to those who live in the South. How enlightened they are.
The Second Amendment is as important today as it was in the beginning of our founding. Without it, homes would go unprotected, criminals would be the only ones armed, and our liberty would be less secure today.

Now UVA is going to be poppin guns and collars.

Who cares about guns, fire SEN already.

11:26 - except we're not. knucklehead.

Lat, I hope you're going to do something about 11:24(1)'s comment.

11:32- obviously, you don't realize that we southerners got into those schools, accomplished the same accolades, and (during school) were considered just as bright purely as some type of affirmative action on our parts to provide "diversity" among the liberal elite. Now that we're out, our degrees and education don't let us equal our northern brethren and sisters.

11:18: fine, but those rednecks who make up the NRA don't care about defense against tyranny. Most of those retards can't even spell "tyranny." It's unfortunate that the Second Amendment has been used as a justification for macho gun-enthusiasts to build up their collections of glocks so that they can dream of busting a cap in some sommamab*tch's @ss if he done steps to 'em. This is the real world, not a video game. Guns are bad, they kill people.

10:51: "Nor does Obama support gay marriage."

Actually, Mr. Progressive, one of the notes Obama is suspected of having written back in the early 90s (at minimum he edited it) was pro-gay marriage. See the comments under Lat's post on Obama's writings a few days ago. My favorite is the note which argued that "sex is fun" and that there's a constitutional right to commit adultery. If that was Obama's note, he's toast. Apparently, some of his co-editors are telling New Republic that he's lying is saying he wrote nothing while on the Review.

11:25--I've lived mostly in the North and the West, never the South, but I'm on your side. I'm working on my liberal brethren about guns, I really am. I am extremely disappointed in the 4. (I know, I need to read the opinion.) It used to be that if there was a plainly written textual right in the Constitution, I could count on both Scalia and the 4. He dropped the ball on Boumediene, and they did here.

But nevermind. For now, the right is safe, although I do think it is interesting that a textualist won't brook civilians having M-16s, since they are military-type weapons.

-Liberal shooter

It never bothers me when northerners hate on the South. Just means they're less likely to move here.

11:32, Bashing Southerners is acceptable because Northern liberals believe in collective guilt for long-past misdeeds. Collectivist thought is pretty normal for socialists.

It is also understood that bashing groups associated, fairly or not, with Republican politics is totally OK.

No 11:32, without the Second Amendment the degree of gun regulation would be left to the state and local authorities, or perhaps to Congress. I suspect that if the gun nut armageddon were to occur, legislatures would pretty quickly ease regulations through democratic means. Of course, since there will still be plenty of armed police on the scene, I find it pretty implausible that strict gun regulation would result in the kind of anarchy you predict.

Dear 11:15--Seconded...

"For what it's worth, Europe is NOT a progressive place. See, e.g., anti-immigration backlash in Italy, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom"

It seems everyone in America (especially liberals) quickly forgets the hundreds (thousands?) of cars set ablaze in Paris by rioting Muslim males from the ghettos in Clichy su Bois. Does anybody remember why they were rioting every night? Because they had no job opportunities as French employers, who can't fire their workers for being incompetent, refused to hire anybody but "real Frenchmen." Oh ya, and France--that bastion of liberal/progressive thought--just elected Sarkozy, a Conservative who openly likes George W. Bush.

Maybe 10:51 should move to Spain--I heard they just enacted a law granting all fundamental human rights to Apes. Sounds like a great place for you, 10:51.

"...what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Southern pride! Yeehaw! Surely all Northerners hate me, and so I must continuously explain why I am just as good as them!

Give it a rest, Southy. We don't hate you. Generally speaking, we don't spend much time even thinking about you. Go do whatever it is makes you happy, and we'll continue doing what makes us happy. Deal?

p55: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns so long as reasonable conditions and qualification exist related to the purchase of those guns. [Insert nasty debate about what those are here.] I'm pretty much a bleeding-heart commie pinko, but the latter part of the above quote actually (dammit!) makes me kind of like Scalia here. Common sense can do that.

11:36 - "This is the real world, not a video game. Guns are bad, they kill people."

Right on, man! Right on! I would like to hold hands with you in a circle of like-minded folk and sway back and forth slowly as we chant and sing protest songs. Saying guns are bad is as simplistic a statement as saying cars are bad, technology is bad, and medicine is bad. You've proven once again that liberalism is a form of mental illness.

Lol 11:18-- natural right? So Socrates had some platonic entitlement to own a Glock?

look, you can't argue for one section of the BOR and then argue to limit another. You can't parse them from one another based on your tastes. If you want free speech expanded, you have to give guns expansion too. Similarly, if you want guns banned, you have to deal with a banning of free speech. The founders didn't make any distinction with the BOR; they are equal in force.

The BOR is about individual rights. And they were all incorporated "jot for jot" against the states after the 14th Amendment. So expect Heller to be applied against the states someday, unless some nutcase decides that the 14th Amendment suddenly doesn't apply the BOR against the states. Then no right to a jury trial, bitches!

"It is also understood that bashing groups associated, fairly or not, with Democratic politics is totally OK. "

wow, it's accurate that way, too! weird.

11:37, that's how i feel about New Jersey jokes. it sucks here; stay the hell out.

"look, you can't argue for one section of the BOR and then argue to limit another. You can't parse them from one another based on your tastes. If you want free speech expanded, you have to give guns expansion too. Similarly, if you want guns banned, you have to deal with a banning of free speech. The founders didn't make any distinction with the BOR; they are equal in force. "

What a crock of bullshit. Of course you can argue that one amendment embodies a good policy and another amendment does not. Unless you're constitutional fetishist, you assess amendments on the basis of their objective merit, not simply on the fact that they happen to be embodied in the constitution. Free speech and gun rights have little if anything to do with one another. There's nothing inconsistent at all about supporting the former but not the latter.

11:36---Liberal shooter here, again. I've been friends with quite a few NRA members (from my military days, and now, from my job and due to knowing my military husband's friends) and I would not describe them as uneducated rednecks. Frankly, I feel much safer around NRA members because unlike other gun owners, they respect guns and are obsessed with gun safety. They know exactly how dangerous guns are, and although I've met a few blowhards, most other shooters I've met are not like that at all.

People who carry concealed don't seek out conflicts. They avoid them. Because if it comes down to it, they're able to take a life, but they'd really rather that it doesn't come down to that.

So please stop with the BS stereotyping of people you've never met or bothered to learn about.

11:45- obviously a flamer. Picking and choosing among the provisions of the Constitution is obviously not acceptable for the Supreme Court. The only parts you can ignore are those that are no longer valid as a result of being rendered moot by later amendments.

11:41, as conservatives continue their efforts to pillage this country and this planet, it's up to us "mentally ill" liberals to inject some common sense and rational thought into American politics. I mean, someone has to have an understanding of how this world works outside of our own little bubbles, and it sure as heck won't be a bunch of mouth-breathing conservatives!

"Unless you're constitutional fetishist, you assess amendments on the basis of their objective merit, not simply on the fact that they happen to be embodied in the constitution."

Epic Fail.

11:47-- Perhaps I misunderstood 11:42's comment. If you're talking about judicial interpretation, fine, you have to take the amendments as they are. But if you're talking on policy grounds, as I took 11:42 to be, there is absolutely no reason to accept the Second Amendment as good policy simply because you like the First.

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly"

Ouch-JMac's going for the throat

11:49- fair enough, if that was the meaning. But, if that was the point of the earlier post, then try to get another Amendment to the Constitution, and don't expect the courts to intervene on that side of the policy argument in the face of an existing Amendment.

"Unless you're constitutional fetishist, you assess amendments on the basis of their objective merit, not simply on the fact that they happen to be embodied in the constitution."

Epic Fail.

11:45, that's a policy argument, and is best addressed by an Amendment to the language of the Constitution. i'm no strict constructionist, but there's only so far that a reasonable interpretation of language can go.

an overall reading of the constitution must be consistent...there has to be some unifying principle that informs one's understanding and interpretation of the language if an interpretation is to have any credibility. you can't pick and choose which language is to be read to espouse broad personal liberties, and which are read narrowly. either the constitution sets out a generally broad scope of liberties, or not.

11:45:"What a crock of bullshit. Of course you can argue that one amendment embodies a good policy and another amendment does not.
---Wow, so many things wrong.

1. You can argue that you agree with the policy of one amendment and not another--but you can't argue they don't have the same force. Arguing that would just render the constitution redundant; if the majority decides that equal rights don't matter, then the 14th A. is shot merely by popular fiat.
That's stupid. If you want to change the constitution, you AMEND it. if you're so sure your opinion is shared by most people, that should be no problem.

2. "Unless you're constitutional fetishist, you assess amendments on the basis of their objective merit, not simply on the fact that they happen to be embodied in the constitution."
---You mean, unless you interpret the Constitution, and not just make it mean what you want it to mean and ignore the parts that get in your way. In other words, rule of the strong.
The fact that an amendment/clause is embodied in the Constitution renders it important. And I love how you consider your subjective view to be objective merit. You're the reason why the constitution was created in the first place.

3. " Free speech and gun rights have little if anything to do with one another. There's nothing inconsistent at all about supporting the former but not the latter."
---As the NRA says, the second amendment makes the first amendment possible. You may not find anything inconsistent with your view, but many people understand that, in a practical sense, a right is only as good as the ability to enforce it. If individuals have access to weapons, individuals can defend their right to speak freely, assemble, petition, and worship.

4. Separately, did Scalia mention the Battles of Lexington and Concord in his argument? That would seem like prima facie evidence of the Founders guaranteeing gun rights to be for individuals. After all, if the American revolution was sparked by dispute over munitions ownership by peaceable individuals (arguably), then the Second Amendment read in that context becomes all the more expansive.

11:45 is an illogical tool.

11:52-- Yes, again, it is a policy argument. It seems to me that the best interpretation of 11:42's comment about "arguing" for the expansion of various rights is that it's a policy statement, not an interpretive statement. I'm not arguing that courts are free to ignore amendments they don't like when interpreting the Constitution, but if 11:42 meant, as I took his/her comment to mean, that a person committed to the policy underlying the First Amendment must therefore be equally committed to the Second Amendment simply because they're both constitutionally-enshrined civil liberties, then that's absurd. I.e., it's perfectly consistent to argue for repealing the Second Amendment while supporting a robust expansion of the First.

11:49 - Do you honestly think criminals buy guns through legal means? I'm waiting for this common sense you spoke of? I'm listening . . .whenever you're ready?

PS I love the "pillage this planet" comment. You've mastered the crazy talking points. That's something to be poroud of. When trying to not sound like you have mental illness, you may want to stay away from statements that make you sound mentally ill.

From my cold dead hands!

I just absolutely cannot see how they pull this from the Constitution??!? I mean....the right to privacy I can clearly see....it's almost right there in the document.....but keep and bear arms? Where do they come up with this stuff?!?

Gun control is a TTT!

This whole North/South debate about guns is assinine. Do you have any idea how many gun owners there are in Pennsylvania? New York state? New Hampshire? Northerners like their guns just as much as Southerners - it just depends on the cultural context. If anything its an urban/rural divide or a straight up class divide.

Even these catagories are really far too simplistic. How a person feels about guns is mostly determined by exposure. Chances are, if you grew up in a house with guns you understand safe gun practices and care deeply about your right to possess them. If you didn't grow up in a house with guns, its all foreign to you and doesn't make a lot of sense.

I grew up in a typical liberal household with no exposure to guns at all. Consequently I was afraid of them and people who owned them and was all for gun bans. My wife's family are proud Maryland gun owners, and after a few years of exposure I've changed my mind.

So stop bashing each other and try to learn a little something.

I personally think that guns are for pussies, but don't have much trouble with this decision because the ban was too broad - in its intent - and not sufficiently enforced to be truly effective.

Question for NRA-holes out there: what do think about the proposed PA law (it may be on the books elsewhere, I don't know) that would make it a crime if you fail to notify the authorities within 48 hours of your gun having been lost or stolen? The penalties don't kick in until you fail to report three times, but the intent is to prevent straw purchases for the illegal gun market . Is that too restrictive for you to actually expect citizens to look out for each other? The NRA opposes this legislation.

"Guns are bad, they kill people."
11:36 - so do cars, motorcycles, airplanes, boats, RVs, ATVs, bats, knives, electricity, tire irons, lakes, oceans, rivers, full bathtubs, alcohol, tobacco, RX medications, broken glass, garage doors, elevators, and most importantly...OTHER PEOPLE.

In future:
Step (1)- Think.
Step (2)- Read comment silently to self
Step (3)- Think again, HARD.
Step (4)- Post.

11:57=Perhaps you don't understand the difference between someone arguing about judicial interpretation and someone believing the second amendment should be repealed.
But I think you're just an epic failure as a debater. Back to 1L class with you, ACS member.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is that without the Second Amendment, we arguably never would have Gangta Rap, and that, my friends, I think we can all agree would have been tragic.

"Today I didn't even have to use my A.K. I gotta say it was a good day."

WHAT IS "pwnd" please?

Well done.

11:59- brilliant.

Well done.

11:55 (/11:42?): If your first comment was directed toward judicial interpretation of the constitution as opposed to political debate about preserving or repealing various amendments, you should have been a hell of a lot more clear about that, because your statement "you can't ARGUE for one section of the BOR and then ARGUEto limit another. You can't parse them from one another based on your tastes. If you want free speech expanded, you have to give guns expansion too" seems pretty clearly to me to apply to the context of political debate rather than judicial interpretation. Yes, for the third time, an amendment would be necessary to nullify the Second Amendment and courts should not simply ignore it until such an amendment is passed. But contrary to your suggestion, it's perfectly consistent and respectable to *argue* for the repeal of the Second Amendment while supporting the rights guaranteed under the first.

11:59(1) - +1, very nice.

As a resident of the District of Columbia, this decision would be a lot easier to swallow if we actually had voting representation and Senators to, you know, appoint the justices.

Nothing like having your democratically passed laws chucked out by people you had absolutely no input in appointing.

I personally think that guns are for pussies, but don't have much trouble with this decision because the ban was too broad - in its intent - and not sufficiently enforced to be truly effective.

Question for NRA-holes out there: what do think about the proposed PA law (it may be on the books elsewhere, I don't know) that would make it a crime if you fail to notify the authorities within 48 hours of your gun having been lost or stolen? The penalties don't kick in until you fail to report three times, but the intent is to prevent straw purchases for the illegal gun market . Is that too restrictive for you to actually expect citizens to look out for each other? The NRA opposes this legislation.

11:59 "I personally think that guns are for pussies"

Please see 12:00's comments. So hunters, police, military, target shooters, and people interested in home defense are all pussies. Interesting. I'm sure that as an associate at a firm you're a real badass.

I personally think that guns are for pussies, but don't have much trouble with this decision because the ban was too broad - in its intent - and not sufficiently enforced to be truly effective.

Question for NRA-holes out there: what do think about the proposed PA law (it may be on the books elsewhere, I don't know) that would make it a crime if you fail to notify the authorities within 48 hours of your gun having been lost or stolen? The penalties don't kick in until you fail to report three times, but the intent is to prevent straw purchases for the illegal gun market . Is that too restrictive for you to actually expect citizens to look out for each other? The NRA opposes this legislation.

11:59 "I personally think that guns are for pussies"

Please see 12:00's comments. So hunters, police, military, target shooters, and people interested in home defense are all pussies. Interesting. I'm sure that as an associate at a firm you're a real badass.

Welcome back, Sharon!

Guns aren't the problem here....the biggest problem in this country is excessive pagination!!!

The Chigago government is probably already yelling "Don't taze me, bro!"

Quite frankly 11:57, once you argue for expanding the First Amendment, and the Second hasn't been repealed, the second necessarily receives the same expansion in constitutional interpretation. Until the 2nd is repealed, it gets to be just as broad as the other BOR. Or as narrow.

But perhaps that's Jeremy Waldron's plan==destroy free speech and then take the guns. then he can impose his totalitarian pinko worldview on us all, and no question can be had (or enforced!)

Hating on the South is fun and brightens my day. Just like when Sherman marched through the South setting on fire brightened everybody's day back then.

I suppose Obama, in order to be constantly inconsistent, will come out and praise the SCOTUS end to the DC gun ban, since Obama supported an outright ban on the sale AND possession of all handguns in 1996.

11:57, and that's fine. but the courts do not repeal amendments; they interpret them. until the second amendment is repealed, it means what it means, just like the others do. you can't "effectively repeal" an amendment by choosing such an interpretation as renders it meaningless. because i think the constitution should be read (and was written) to preserve as expansive a scope of personal liberty as possible, the entire thing has to be read that way.

the policy wisdom of the 2nd amendment (i.e., whether the right to bear arms should be protected) is a far different question than what it means (i.e., whether the right to bear arms is protected).

two different discussions here.

11:57 -- No, most criminals don't buy guns through legal means. Therefore, making the sale of guns illegal would make no difference to that segment of the population. There you go. Common sense.

If you want voting rights for Senators, then move just a few miles away to either MD or NOVA. I hate whining about voting when you knew what you were getting when you moved to D.C.

12:08 - what about all the people who didn't choose to live in DC but were born here and for whatever reason don't have the means to move? I guess you don't care about those people, right?

"the policy wisdom of the 2nd amendment (i.e., whether the right to bear arms should be protected) is a far different question than what it means (i.e., whether the right to bear arms is protected).

two different discussions here."

I realize and do not dispute that. It seemed to me, and still does, that 11:42's comment was directed toward the former discussion rather than the latter.

WHAT IS "pwnd" please?

12:02:

Listen up, moron. The first lines of my quote give it away: "look, you can't argue for one section of the BOR and then argue to limit another."

note I said "limit" and not "repeal." Hence I'm talking about judicial interpretation, not policy. Perhaps if you take a course in remedial reading, you'll get.

Go back to the DailyKos, kid.

Between this thread and yesterday's about the capital pubishment case, these have been two of the most entertaining days at ATL in quite a while.

12:10- "don't have the means to move"? oh, so is everyone in that family still living in the same house with their parents, their new spouses and children? You mean, no one ever moves anywhere? There is lower-cost living outside of D.C. as well as in southeast (the area you're probably referring to). But, I tend to find that those whining the most don't live in S.E.

12:10(1)

Nope. Poor people don't count.

12:06 - OR...Obama may have had a change of heart. it happens to smart people when they receive new information or listen to opposing arguments. i realize that that is the worst sin a politician today can commit, however. it's more important to be consistent than it is to be right.

i used to be very pro-gun-control, until i took the time to actually consider the logic of the opposing arguments, and the weaknesses of my own. i decided that my original position was logically unreconcilable with other things i believed, and changed my position on guns. perhaps that makes me a "flip-flopper" in your eyes. i guess i can never run for president now.

Hey 12:00, welcome to Earth. On THIS planet, all of those things that you listed have socially beneficial functions that DON'T involve killing other people. A gun, well, I guess you could use it to shoot somebody in the leg or other non-vital organ, but that's about it.

Step 1: pull your head out of your @ss
Step 2: open your eyes and take a look at the rest of the world
Step 3: go back to your document review

12:07(1) - if an amendment "means what it means" then how do you justify the court saying that libel and slander aren't protected as "free speech" under the first amendment? or that freedom of religion doesn't include me being able to do up some peyote as part of my religion?

12:10, see 4:58 in yesterday's posts re SCOTUS hearts big oil and kiddie rapists.

12:14- it's called a consistent way of looking at the orignal meaning without being a pure textualist to determine what the Constitution means. You may not like this approach, but it's what Scalia does (simplistically stated).

I support the Court Interpretation/2nd Amendment. Guns are for people, not for the gov't to regulate.

But for gosh sakes give the people in DC the right to vote. They may be morons, but we still allow Democracts to vote, right? (rim shot)

Seriously, the fact that DC doesn't have the right to vote is one of the sad ironies of American law.

11:36--great demonstration of why so many coastal libs hate the 2nd Amendment. Not only are guns "bad," but guns rights types are those horridly ignorant "rednecks" from the vast wilderness outside of a few metro areas and college towns and you certainly wouldn't want to side with them on a cultural issue. After all, what would that say about your own intelligence, sophistication and status as an evolved global citizen?

Also, 12:02, who the fuck are you to call out gun owners as "pussies" on a blog? I assume that as the 6'7", 275#, 3% body fat muay tai expert you undoubtedly are, you'd never need to resort to a firearm for defense of home or self. But for the rest of us mortals, who include lesser men, the elderly and those with physical debilities, a gun may be the only way of evening the odds in the event self-defense becomes necessary.

12:14, it's because those self proclaimed "strict constructionists" are full of crap. They only "strictly construe" when it furthers their political agendas. Other times, like, oh say, when state elections are involved, their "strict" constructions go out the window!

12:13 -- Nosir. That there's called a-flip-floppin. Can't be having that. Gots to stick to yer princples, like a good Amerkin, like Dubya.

12:03, not 12:02.

12:18- you obviously have been drinking the kool-aid on election law and how that decision came out. The ruling was a strict constructionist ruling about who may determine rules, when they may be determined, and that you can't change the rules of vote counting. But, then again, there's no need to have this particular argument as, regardless of how many ways gore came up with to count the votes, he still lost Florida...and that was even after closing the polls an hour early in the conservative panhandle.

.
.
.
what does "pwnd" mean?
.
.
.

Hey 12:20, maybe you can point me to the part of the Constitution that the Court "strictly construed" to enable it to hear a case about how a state chooses its electors. I'd like to see that analysis.

12:14: What about hunting and law enforcement, and the military? Wow, you really are dumb. I guess the military and police should just use words to settle disagreements. "General, use your indoor voice."

And before you argue that hunting is not socially important, how is tobacco? Many poor areas of the country still need hunting to provide food. Who needs tobacco . . .besides the tobacco industry.

Are southerners really this dumb and poorly dressed?

12:15 - Gee I wonder if that statistic has anything to do with the fact that the seat of the Federal government is in DC.

Or are you suggesting that people who are on the dole don't deserve to vote?

12:14-
objection; assumes facts not in evidence.

i don't justify those things; i think the court was wrong in its interpretation on those issues. i would interpret the constitution the opposite way in both cases, b/c i feel that those interpretations were inconsistent with expansive personal liberties. they don't square w/ this holding at all, IMO.

that's why i have very little respect for scalia as a jurist; he's inconsistent. but that doesn't mean i disagree with this opinion.
-12:07(1)

12:23 -- See 12:24(1)

There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.

12:24- I could do the work for you, but why don't you try reading the opinion yourself to see how it came about.

12:13 - Yeah, Obama had a change of heart.

He realized he might actually need the votes of some of those bitter people who cling to guns.

I do agree that the ability to change positions as one gains more understanding of an issue is a desirable trait in a politician. Changing positions merely for political expediency, however, is not.

Obama has a long developed opinion on gun control legislation, and has expressed support for an essentially identical ban on handguns in Chicago. Indeed, Obama has a long and deep understanding of the policy issue at stake, and has consistently, up until very recently, come down in support of over-arching hangun legislation.

I haven't seen him comment on today's decision, but he almost certainly will give praise to the ruling, while urging sensible gun control legislation that does not conflict with the right of law abiding citizens to own handguns for their own personal defense. That is all well and good, but it is not consistent with his long standing opinions on the issue, and there is no reason to think that his "change of heart" derives from anything other than political expediency.

Thus, in my opinion, there is reason to question whether Obama's opinion is sincere, or is mere pandering.

12:27 - please, he's a politician, they all do it.

12:26 - I still don't get it. What is "pwnd?"

- 12:23

12:26 - I still don't get it. What is "pwnd?"

- 12:23

12:23: Don't you have Google?

12:14: Your completely right, my mistake. (although, what precisely is the "socially beneficial function" of broken glass again?) But putting that aside...

I forgot that on THIS planet, firearms don't have single beneficial function. Like aquiring food, protection of self/family/others, defending/acquiring a new nation's freedom, et cetera.

Step (1)- recognize that I don't review documents, I pay little piss-ant softies like you to do it. Because that is all you are capable of.
Step (2)- realize that my head can't be up my ass, because there are too many ignorant lap-dog associates with their noses up there already. You might be one of them.
Step (3)- consider how easy it is to tell someone to "take a look at the rest of the world" from your air conditioned office. Paper cuts don't count as world experience.

You're soft.

"The BOR is about individual rights. And they were all incorporated "jot for jot" against the states after the 14th Amendment."

You know that's totally false right? Several portions of the BoR have not been incorporated, like the proscription against quartering troops.

12:30/12:31 -- Use The Google. It's (like those rumors I hear) on The Internets. You know, that thing that Cindy McCain has to help Johnny with.

Howitzers for everyone!

When did street gangs become either "well-regulated" or a militia? Bad guys DO buy guns through legal means, or through ostensibly related gun shops that bend a rule or two. When I clerked in EDVa, 90% of criminal cases were NY folks trading drugs for guns (many of which obtained in compliance with VA gun laws), said guns then being taken to NY to protect the manufacture and sale of . . . more coke & heroin.

12:24 - we are talking about handguns, not hunting rifles. Nobody is trying to take away your hunting rifle. And last time I checked, you try to kill the animal that you hunt. Similarly, law enforcers use the gun to kill or threaten to kill. You really can't argue that guns have any other purpose than to kill. If you want to argue that sometimes killing is socially beneficial, fine.

And you are correct, there is no social benefit to tobacco. However, there ARE laws (although not enough laws) restricting smoking in situations where other people can be harmed by second hand smoke. Like NYC bars.

When did street gangs become either "well-regulated" or a militia? Bad guys DO buy guns through legal means, or through ostensibly regulated gun shops that bend a rule or two. When I clerked in EDVa, 90% of criminal cases were NY folks trading drugs for guns (many of which obtained in compliance with VA gun laws), said guns then being taken to NY to protect the manufacture and sale of . . . more coke & heroin.

Pop pop go the UVA collars. Pop pop.

This calls for two tickets to the gun show! No really, an actual gun show. I'll bring my pythons. They love reptiles at the gun show. While I'm there I'll have someone check out my pipes. My Harley has been making a funny exhaust sound.

12:36- really? 90%? Man, people don't have $h*t to do to occupy themsleves in EDVa do they?

12:31, so, I assume your office isn't air conditioned? How hard-core. And the next time you're out "acquiring food" with your guns, take along a dictionary to read so you learn the difference between "your" and "you're." Redneck.

"Nobody is trying to take away your hunting rifle."

12:36: Not that you need any more help looking like a jackass, but that was precisely one of the issues in the case.

You're a pacifist. Anything that can be used to kill must be banned. Again, see the earlier comments. I will support you 100% as soon as you agree to have your hands and feet removed.

12:39: Wow, grammar correction. Brilliant. But then, we do pay you guys to do nothing but edit, so I guess I should expect nothing less.

As for my office, of course it's air conditioned. Spacious and comfy too. But unlike you, I haven't spent the vast majority of my life in rooms like it.

As for acquiring food, it is far more socially beneficial for me to get a large portion of my own food that way, rather than the mass livestock farms where chickens are grown without heads and immigrants are treated like s**t. It is also far more socially beneficial than when you and your "friends" go to hot new retaurant you heard about online, then accidently pick up a tranvestite hooker on the way home. We pay you way too much.

Now...set your inhaler down, put your wrist braces back on, and edit my docs. You're nothing but a spell/grammar check that eats, s**ts, and sleeps.

YOU'RE SOFT.

I went to law school with Alan Gura (GULC '95) who argued the case before the Court. My girlfriend sat next to him at the reception of his law partner's wedding. I remember him as a really nice guy.

It's so rare in life that one actually achieves the excellence for which he strives. At some point, I imagine that most of us thought that, one day, we would stand before the United States Supreme Court and argue in defense of individual liberties. Well, he did, and I couldn't be happier for the guy.

12:53 = assocate in 10 lawyer PI firm in Richmond.

I want a Scalia autograph...

12:53, You are sort of a miserable prick, aren't you? Anyone as devoted as you are to making a stranger on the internet feel like shit has to be 5 minutes away from asking to check out early.

Justice Scalia.... meet Justice Scalia:

[Today's decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

(Scalia Dissent in Boumediene)

I believe the phrase is "lol"? If so, then...

Lol at 12:53. Not quite. But that did make me chuckle.

- 12:00/12:31/12:53.

1:03 -- ???

Thank you 1:03.

My mistake. "lol" at 12:57.

-12:00/12:31/12:53.

After overturning the Exxon Valdez jury verdict and now overturning a law enacted by a democratically elected body, can the "conservative" justices of the Supreme Court please stop railing against "activist judges" in recognition that they themselves are officially activist judges?

Remember when the North kicked the South's ass in the Civil War? That was fun.

I love how everyone on here needs a gun for self defense. Like if someone mugs you on the street, you're going to pull out your hand gun and shoot it out with the guy? Give me a break- you're going to piss yourself while handing over your wallet, your cellphone, and oh yeah, your hand gun. But until then, have fun pretending that you're some kind of macho cape-wearing avenger.

Whatever else can said about today's ruling, it's clear that the right's obsession with "strict constructionism" only applies where it achieves the policy goal they desire and can be ignored when it doesn't. To be fair, though, Stevens' dissent is just as intellectually dishonest for abandoning his previously espoused views to achieve his preferred policy outcome.

Regardless, at least we now have an actual ruling on the nature of the right in the Second Amendment. Glad it only took 217 years to get that done.

People successfully shoot intruders in their homes all the time.

1:21 -- Just because you're a giant pussy doesn't mean that everyone else is, too.

1:27- so you're going to have a gun battle in the streets over getting mugged? Awesome. Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me!

It's really no use correcting the grammar/spelling of an anti-gun type. They believe the keyboard is responsible for the errors, not them.

Ditto 1:27

Well, considering that Heller speaks of a right to own a gun in one's home, the street mugger scenario is pretty irrelevant. But on the home defense front, people successfully shoot intruders all the time.

"1:27- so you're going to have a gun battle in the streets over getting mugged? Awesome. Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me!"

Not 1:27, but I'll bite. The answer is "yes," I would shoot someone attempting to mug me, no question.

Oh, and "gun battle in the streets"? Are you picturing this mugging as taking place at 5 PM on Madison Ave? Usually when someone tries to mug you, there are not a lot of people around.

In conclusion, you are an idiot.

I wish this thread had existed prior to the decision - it provides a compelling argument on why "the people" shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an arm.

1:43, if you said that to my face, I would shoot you!!

/i keed, i keed

what's with Scalia bashing everyone for informal language in court filings and then using the word 'crooks' in his opinion?

what's with Scalia bashing everyone for informal language in court filings and then using the word 'crooks' in his opinion?

There's some interesting language about the right to bear in the later part of the majority opinion--interesting to see what future effect this will have on places like NJ and NYC, where concealed carry is practically illegal for citizens, no matter what hoops they're willing to jump through.

And yes, I know RKABA isn't incorporated--yet.

Whatever happened to Triumph the Insult Comic Dog anyway?

"After overturning the Exxon Valdez jury verdict and now overturning a law enacted by a democratically elected body, can the "conservative" justices of the Supreme Court please stop railing against "activist judges" in recognition that they themselves are officially activist judges?"

So, basically you are in favor of any law enacted by a democratically elected body, regardless of whether it violates the constitution?

Lets say the democratically elected body of DC votes on and passes a low making it illegal to criticize the Supreme Court, is that ok?

could a democratically elected body pass a law making it illegal for muslims to worship in the district?

The Court also struck down a law passed by a democratically elected body extending the death penalty to child rapists - was that a good thing?

"Whatever happened to Triumph the Insult Comic Dog anyway?"

Canine Parvo Virus :(

2:02 Stop that. Logic hurts liberals' brains.

In Chicago, the aldermen passed a complete ban on handguns but included an exception for aldermen. Guns for me, but not for thee.

2:07- that reminds me of something that happens in other places...let me think really hard...oh yes, like dictatorships and communist countries! I knew I'd think of it (but, surely, gun control doesn't mean a restriction of peoples' liberty in favor of a powerful, potentially oppressive, government).

best summary of the latest SCOTUS rulings...

http://haciendadonpaco.blogspot.com/2008/06/supreme-court-roundup.html

1:13, there is no activism when the judges strike down a law that violates an explicit provision in the constitution. Judges have to obey the constitution.

The Exxon case is based on substantive due process, which is less explicit in the constitution, but note that
1) Souter wrote the majority opinion, and he is not a "conservative" justice of the kind that you're complaining about
2) the justices unanimously agreed that there were substantive due process limits on punitive damages, and the only disagreement was the actual limit.
The decision was not partisan unless you think the entire court is "conservative."

I love how rich liberals, expecially celebrities, cry that guns should banned but then walk around with three armed bodyguards. Guns for me but not for thee.

2:14 - Hey Ann Coulter - shut your pie hole!

@1:26: You forgot "it was no big deal"

12:02, you are wrong. The District of Columbia gets electoral votes in the Presidential election. The President appoints all federal judges, including the Supreme Court and the lower court that said your statute was unconstitutional. Plus, the Constitution is what said your statute was wrong in the first place, so you had just as much representation when it was written as any other American, regardless of what state they live in.

2:14 how right you are. this is everones fault though, because we give them attention. since when did some hollywood idiot become a politcal think tank etc.

2:34 - you are wrong. Residents of the District do not get to elect senators who vote on the Presidents' nominees to the federal bench, not to mention that the District has no representation in Congress to address the will of the people of the District of Columbia relative to the Constitution.

I'm waiting for one honest conservative to call this out for what it is - an utter betrayal of conservative judicial philosophy.

The Second Amendment - perhaps more than other any other Amendment - tests one's adherence to textualism and orginalism. Justice Scalia and the rest of the supposed advocates for judicial restraint failed that test.

Not a single framer of the Amendment ever spoke of the Second Amendment as embracing an individual right. Not. a. single. one. And despite the clear textual limitations imposed by the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has divined a right from thin air.

2:44- I suppose you're going to ignore all of the contextual evidence presented from the time of that Amendment's passage contained in the opinion as well as in the briefing? Seriously?

Listen up New Yawk City and Bahston wimps. We like it here inthe South. We like our guns, sweet tea, BBQ andlaid back way of life. I can bill my 2000 while packin my .454 in the desk drawer. (If you have to ask, don't bother). The 2nd Amendamnet isn't optional. Why do think this country has NEVER been invaded? Because every other country int he World knows that we are all armed, cand affrord the ammo., and would never surrender. Urban fighting in Iraq would be child's play compared to what would happen if a foreign country tried to take over one single county South of Indianapolis-Columbus-Pittsburgh. It would be an epic ass-whoopin. Remember that guns cause murder in the same fashion that matches cause arson!

who gives a sh*t about rich liberals, and why are you wasting everyone's time with asinine comments?

@2:55 - and, about that whole losing the Civil War thing...? That was more along the lines of EPIC FAIL.

You know, a waiting period is also a limitation on the so-called individual gun rights. In fact, so is the law that restricts gun possession by felons. I think that if you believe the rational posed to overturn this restriction, then the NRA also has to try and overturn the law prohibiting a guy that held hostages at gunpoint or committed armed robbery from carrying a gun in the future.

I wonder how that would play with their constituencies. "I'm sorry your father was killed in an armed robbery, but the armed robber is up for parole, and we'd like to give him his gun back when he gets out. if I had it my why, I'd let him have it while he's in jail, because not allow inmates to have weapons is an infringement on their right to bear arms."

Liberal shooter makes me laugh. "People who carry concealed don't seek out conflicts. They avoid them. Because if it comes down to it, they're able to take a life, but they'd really rather that it doesn't come down to that." What happens when the foolproof decision to avoid conflict doesn't work out? At that point I suppose they simply "take a life." But wait - don't worry - "they'd really rather that it doesn't come down to that." How thoughtful!

3:04, your slippery slope argument is pathetic. No constitutional right has ever been absolute. At most, gun right limitations would be subject to strict scrutiny (probably even a lower standard), and the felon ownership restrictions would meet that standard.

Why don't you also argue that an individual right to free speech would mean the government cannot prohibit extortion or bribery.

3:02 Listen General Longstreet, you take the rural, poor,non-commercial, under-populated area of a country, provide it with no steel or weapons foundries and then go to war against the exact opposite, let me know how it turns out. Can you make it four years? Can you be within one event at one battle (failure to immediately seize Little Round Top upon entering Gettysburg) from winning the war? Sit down, eat your Chow-Da, and be thankful we think less of Yankees than you can think of us, keeps us from coming up there and re-arranging your priorities. Give me UVA, W&L, Duke & Vandy (your supposed TTTs) over your liberal hotbeds of intellectualism and snobbery any day.

2:44:
The exxon valdez is a betrayal of originalism/textualism/ just the plain old jury system. It was the opposite of any respect for the Constitution and the people.

The 2nd Amendment holding? Not so much, especially when you read the opinion. Scalia basically puts it on the same footing as every other BOR feature: an individual right that broadly based...and Scalia points to constitutional history to back this up. Claiming that any expansive reading of the BOR is a violation of originalism is like arguing that any restriction on the BOR is necessarily an attack on natural law. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

3:12 -- You forgot Emory. Come on, show some love to Hotlanta!

Why can't people see that things work well in the middle ground? If we understand that "certain sensitive areas" are permissible to restrict gun possession, why can't we agree that the U.S. Capital and the White House and the 10 blocks in between might in fact be one of those places.

The ruling says that gun ownership is an individual right, and that you can't have a law that prohibits people from having handguns, because it limits the type of guns that they have a right to possess. But, you can limit who is allowed to have the guns, through licensing and other restrictions on who can carry them. Those two points seem to contradict themselves to me, and I have trouble with what exactly the court is trying to say.

When is this TTT blog going to post something about white guys with asian girls? Those pretty, flat faced Korean babes are a great "alternative" to the boring, bitchy spoiled white girls... and pretty good at head too.

- King of WGWAG

2:37, what part of my statement was wrong? I didn't say anything about DC's representation in the Senate or the House. I only said that they have electoral votes in the Presidential election and they had the same representation as every other American at the time the Constitution was originally written and the Bill of Rights were adopted. Those things are all true.

"Five days? But I'm mad now!"

3:02 and 3:12, i think i speak for all the intelligent people on there when i ask you to take your childish nonsense elsewhere. maybe your time would be better spent looking for a law school apartment, getting through the reading for that early summer 1L class you registered for.

3:47: I am not a law student and I enjoy the north/south shenanigans more than a bunch of whinypants biglaw associates arguing about what the Constitution means to them. Please, 3:02 and 3:12, continue.

3:47...I sit typing from the top floor overlooking Biscayne Bay, pulling down a PPP that would have you kissing my wallet area for years and laughing. My daughter is nearly a 1L (and is looking at Emory 3:20)Enjoy your winter up "nawth". Not every person at ATL is an under -30 boorish Yankee brat.

3:49 your welcome from 3:12

2:37,

While your statement is not factually wrong, you are an idiot because you failed to read and understand 2:34's post.

I appreciate all the concern over whether I am represented in Congress, but D.C. has much much bigger problems. And representation will do nothing to address them.

For example, Metro recently cut Marion Barry a check for ~$3000 because Barry said a bus hit his car, despite the driver denying that it happened and the lack of damage to the bus. What you say? It only cost Barry 2000 to fix his car? Don't worry about it Mr. Barry, just keep the extra thousand.

D.C. residents get what we deserve. Once we prove ourselves capable of electing competent government officials who will in turn employ competent individuals, then we can talk about representation in Congress.

In fairness, Michelle Rhee has been great.

3:53,

As a commenter, you are not "at ATL." You are "on ATL."

Don't worry old fella, you'll get this interweb figured out.

@3:47 - Spoken like a true insurance defense associate at a TTT. This entire blog is pretty much "childish nonsense." If you want a discussion with intelligent people, I'd try Volokh.

/Good try with the trolling though. *golf clap*

3:06---You really, really don't get it. You probably think people in the military like killing, too.

Most of those with concealed carry licenses whom I've met talked about how important it was to avoid fights when you are carrying. No bar fights for these people, because you cannot get into a close quarters physical altercation if you are carrying. It is what we call a really bad idea. Of those who had actuall 'used' their gun, most of them displayed it to a perpetrator 5 feet to 5 yards away who had drawn a knife. They did not shoot, and the perpetrator fled.

With regard to taking a life, that is only justified (according to existing self-defense laws, whether I use a gun or wing nam) when your life is already on the line. There aren't a legion of cases involving excessive force and gun owners because even though there are thousands (including those who carry concealed) most are responsible enough to get training and handle their weapons appropriately.

-LS

3:12/3:53 -- Good luck to your daughter, seriously. (Go Emory!)

-- 3:20

4:08, cut 3:06 some slack; (s)he has been brought up to have a viceral, irrational, negative reaction to any use of lethal force no matter what the moral context is, and anyone who advocates the availability of a tool of violence, even for self-defense, will make them lose any capability for rational thought that they may have possessed.

You can't expect too much from children, drunks, or fools. Don't try, as you'll only upset all involved.

LS - No, I think people in the military are put in a position where they have to kill. I am mocking you and "your friends" because your friends are putting themselves in a position where you concede they have to avoid a conflict. apparently they call it "a really bad idea" to do otherwise. how about they just not carry a concealed weapon at all? then, if unexpected conflict occurs it's less of a really bad idea. But it sounds like your friends live in a world of shit where you need to carry lest you be attacked by knife-wielding perpetrators. if that's the case, i concede you have a point.

Seriously, what is 2:44 smoking??

The spirit of liberty that animates the Second Amendment has survived today's narrow decision in D.C. v. Heller.

By the beard of Zeus!

4:07, you have a point about the general content of this blog, but most of the normal childish nonsense is mildly entertaining. if 3:02 and 3:12 are going to bicker over which one hates the other more, they could at least be clever about it.

3:53- you're right; some people here are over-30 boorish Southerners.

4:28--When I joined the miitary, I knew I was putting myself in a position where I might have to kill people. That is why Quakers I know don't join the military. I am a small female. Right now I carry pepper spray. I can do everything I want to minimize the likelihood of me being harmed---look aware, don't pick fights, blah, blah, but if someone is armed with a gun or knife and is willing to use it on me, I will only prevail if I have really good luck or a gun. I prefer both.

The good thing about avoiding conflict when you carry is that if the other person still aggresses, you can defend yourself. If you are not in close quarters (because that was the focus of what I said) you can display the weapon (if needed) and protect yourself without hurting anyone. You were suggesting that people with guns will seek out conflict, I am telling you that the people I know who (legally) carry avoid conflict.

Do you think people who study martial arts are bad? Was my sister bad for carrying a screwdriver with her when she went walking at night? Should I leave my pepper spray at home?

3:57 - tone down the hating a little. To continue your line of reasoning, every single person who voted for George W. Bush got what they deserve - maybe none of them should be able to vote for president ever again. Since when was a person's ability to choose capable elected officials a prerequisite for being able to vote in the first place? Show me where it says that in the constitution.

And if you don't think that representation in Congress is important for the citizens of the District, maybe it's time for you to move so that the rest of have one less misguided dissenting voice among us.

Frankly I think your coments are thinly veiled racism.

"Really bad idea": getting into a bar fight while carrying a handgun.

"Much worse idea": needing a handgun and not having one because you weren't carrying.

Wake up, 4:28, we all live in a world of shit. Is any one of us particularly likely to get attacked with by a criminal weilding a deadly weapon? No. Is someone likely to have that happen to them on a daily basis in even our safest cities? Of course.

So, I'm unlikely to need it, but the harm that can occur to me if I need it and don't have it is potentially fatal. Carrying or not carrying a gun should be an individual choice reached based on one's own cost/benefit analysis. Some of us like being prepared, and don't mind the cost and time invested in buying, licensing, training, practicing, etc. You can find it unnecessary all you like--just keep your preferences to yourself.

Sort of how some of us don't like abortion, but wouldn't dream of telling others they can't have one. Take a hint here, religious nuts.

4:53,

You misunderstand. It is not about prerequisites; it is about using limited resources to maximize benefits.

Rather than spend precious time and money fighting an uphill battle to achieve something that will make no difference in our day-to-day lives, we would be better served by, I don't know, figuring out how low level tax employees were able to take us for tens of millions. Just a thought.

The MPD cannot even successfully fire the people they want to fire. That's a problem. Forgive me if I'm more concerned about getting corrupt cops off the street than giving kooky Holmes Norton a vote.

First, that kooky Holmes Norton is the person who was elected by the citizens of the District to "represent" them.

Second, why do you think that certain interest groups are so opposed to the District having a rep and two senators? Do you think it really has to do with the fact that DC isn't a state? Though admittedly that is an unfortunate obstacle. When those of us who live in DC do not support full representation, we only serve to feed the machine of those interest groups.

Finally, aren't there many other places in the country that have problems that rival DC's? Don't you realize corruption happens in other municipal governments? And yet, the citizens who live in those parts of the country all have full representation in Congress.

Bar fights happen rather frequently. Some punches are thrown and then everybody goes home -- unless one of the idiots involved was carrying a gun.

Needing a handgun to save your life will probably never happen. Life isn't a western - you don't need a gun every time you go down to the saloon.

It's an individual choice no doubt -- but unless you live in a high crime area, you have to be one dumb shit to make the choice to carry one. It is cost benefit, but your analysis sucks. By carrying you are turning every bar fight/close altercation into a potential life threatening situation. Otherwise you only end up in a life threatening situation when somebody attacks you. And you are either a paranoid nut job or living in a shit hole if you think you need to carry a gun to fend off attacks on the way home from the office.

"Finally, aren't there many other places in the country that have problems that rival DC's?"

No, I don't think there are "many" other major cities that rival the problems of D.C. Except for Detroit. Detroit may be in worse shape.

"Don't you realize corruption happens in other municipal governments? And yet, the citizens who live in those parts of the country all have full representation in Congress."

Goodness you are slow. That is not the point. The point is that those cities are not wasting resources trying to get full representation INSTEAD OF addressing their problems.

5:18, which part of "unlikely to need one, but can get killed in that rare instance in which you need one and don't have it" was unclear to you? Also, you'd be surprised to learn that most of us don't carry in bars. Or get in fights when we're in bars without a gun, for that matter.

Either way, there's a bit of dissonance in your post: altercations are so common and unavoiable as to make carrying a gun a dangerous choice, but one would never need one for "legitmate" self defense. Huh?

Don't an awful lot of poor people in America live in "a shit hole"?

When do you carry your gun, 529? You said you need it for self defense.

5:18--the point is to avoid bar fights and other close altercations. If you can't, you leave your gun at home. In many concealed-carry states, you can't drink and carry anyways.

You don't turn things into a life threatening situation unless the other person already has, by threatening you, or, you are dumb enough to let someone threatening get close to you while you are carrying concealed.

I manage to be very aware of how close people are to me, and I don't currently carry. I could certainly concealed carry without putting myself in danger of having my weapon seized.

And as far as how many lives it saves, in the late 1980s--early 1990s, some nationwide surveys established that there were 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm per year. The NIJ's study indicated that 1.44% of the population used a gun in self-defense in 1994. Fewer than 8% of defensive gun uses involve shooting, most involve displaying the weapon. There are no attitudinal differences between those who defend the use of guns and those who do not--there is no difference in their view on the death penalty. See http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

I have not yet been in a situtation where having a gun was necessary. The only times I have been threatened, I have managed to defuse. I am tired of being afraid that I won't be able to defuse the situation next time.

LS here, again. I live in a dangerous city and work at a government job. Walking to my car is not all that safe. Last year, I lived in a different dangerous city, and worked a different government job, and had my life threatened. Three of my female friends had restraining orders out against men they barely knew.

Some people just don't realize how dangerous the world around them is.

Being blessed to live and work in the great state of North Carolina, I carry any time I leave the house. Think of it as putting on sunglasses in the summer, and you'll sort of get the sense of it.

If I'm going somewhere that serves alcohol, I lock the gun and mags in my car. In the event I'm out and about and get a call saying "let's grab a drink," I have to drop the gun off at home or the car before I can do so (I'd prefer if the bar had security at the door with whom I could check my weapon, but oh well). Can it be inconvienent, yes. Do I mind? No.

Follow slowly 5:29. Unless you live in a high crime area (in which case you may very well need to carry a gun), bar fights happen way more often than attacks with deadly weapons. I have lived in average income neighborhoods my whole life and I don't know anybody who has ever needed a gun to defend themselves. On the other hand, I know lots of people who have been in bar fights or other altercations (fight during a sporting event, road rage, etc).

LS, as I said at the beginning of this, if you live in a high crime area, I concede you have a point. And it sounds like you are in a situation in which carry a gun is a good idea. I am not advocating a policy decision. I am advocating that people make a smart choice and not carry a gun unless they have good reason.

LS sounds like she has good reason to carry a gun, and 5:38 sounds like (s)he does not.

Query, 5:39: I'm in traffic or a minor accident, and another person exits their car, clearly enraged, and heads towards me, sitting in my car. This is the sort of common altercation you seem to envision, no?

The other person may be larger than I am, may be armed with some form of weapon, may be under the effects of drugs or alcohol, and/or may be mentally disabled--all that is clear to me is that they are intent upon some form of aggression towards me, and I have no other idea about the nature of their intentions.

Should I simply hope that this is a normal little altercation and allow it to occur? At what risk to myself? Or, should I exit my car, draw my gun, and (keeping the muzzle pointed safely down) say 'that's far enough enough, sir"

You seem to envision innocent little scuffles ending in tragic death--the reality is that, ex ante, there are no innocent little scuffles, and people who are trained to carry a concealed weapon (yes, you have to learn all about the law on justification to carry a gun--imagine that!) aren't going to start firing unless they know they can explain to a judge and jury exactly why they had to pull the trigger.

LS, again. In my concealed-carry class they taught us not to draw/carry unless we were prepared to use the weapon. If we were not, we were advised to find another method of self-defense, so as to avoid putting ourselves in danger, or at the very least, giving a criminal another gun for free.

NRA types don't have this wild-west, shoot 'em up attitudes some people here are projecting on them. A small, vocal minority does, but the majority (that I've met, at least) have really good sense about the relative dangers and benefits of carrying a gun.

550: you are changing the hypo now -- in the beginning i was mocking somebody posting the tough-guy/girl idea that you avoid conflict when carrying but you will take a life if you have to. But I will bite. In your scenario I am just as worried about you as I am the other guy. Maybe you are afraid because the guy is bigger than you (you sound a little skittish) and you pull the gun, things get even more heated, and you end up shooting the other guy. All of a sudden we go from fist fight (which, if you couldn't drive away from, you get the worse of), to one guy is dead. If the other guy is so crazy that he jumps out of his car waving a gun at you (probably because he thinks it's a good idea to carry too) then you are probably f***ed anyway, whether you have a gun or not. Unless you think you'll just draw your weapon too and you guys can fire away from behind your car doors, like Miami Vice.

Know what, sunglasses were a poor example. Let me try another one.

Remember back when you first started driving a car on the road around other people--that sense of "shit, this is something I'd better control because I'm guiding a large hunk of speeding metal around others," that unfortunately a lot of people quickly forget about? Think that sort of feeling combined with the comfort of being able to address situations where others are bent on threatening your or others' safety, and you'll have a sincere idea of what it feels like to be a civilian who carries a concealed weapon.

6:11, if you're not concerned about getting in a "fist fight" with a random person on the street, you haven't been in too many fights. Sometimes "get the worse of" means some cosmetic dentistry; sometimes it means life in a wheelchair or death--it all depends on the other person, and nobody has an obligation to sit there and hope for the best. To answer your question: yes, in that situation, if I draw my weapon and order the man to not come any closer, I will point it at him if he keeps advancing, I will warn him that I'll shoot if he doesn't stop, and if he keeps coming yes I will shoot him.

If you don't like that scenario, try this one: same situation, except that a cop pulls a guy over, who proceeds to get out of the car and start moving towards the cop's car. Guy is visibly angry and aggressive--you think the cop is going to get into a fist fight?

6:11--LS here, wrt tough guys and gals---what I told you was the exact truth. Anyone with a few brain cells to rub together knows that getting in an altercation when you are armed means it is more likely that death will result. Therefore, people in my class, overwhelmingly men, told us that they did things to avoid/neutralize conflict when they were carrying. Because they are smart. But the link I gave at 5:32(2) discusses how usually, displaying the weapon is enough.

It is not contradictory to want to deescalate and to, on the other hand, be ready and able to kill. It is what good cops, good military personnel (particularly those involved in Military Operations Other Than War), and good civilian carriers all know. Ditto for people I know who are really good at martial arts. They don't try to start fights, because they don't want to hurt anyone. Heck, even with my modest knowledge of hand-to-hand self-defense, I conflict-avoid because I feel like if I ever get in a fistfight with a man, I have to respond with extreme aggression. If he gets in a second hit, I may be done for. This may be true even of a first hit. So since I don't carry (at the moment) I have been aware for years that I have to be willing to head butt, go for they eyes, nose, knees or, to put it crudely, nuts.

In his books on safety and fear, security expert Gavin deBecker pointed out that women who are attacked with children whill do extreme things (i.e., blind assailant with keys) that unaccompanied women rarely do. So I've worked pretty hard to overcome the psychological barriers to using physical force. But I sure don't try to pick fights, even though I'm cute and little and police don't like to lock up cute little women who strange men attack.

Yeah, I don't like that scenario. I also think it's unlikely the guy keeps advancing -- I think it's more likely he calls you a p***y for pulling a gun, and things get more heated from there (although I do concede that he may scamper back into his car and speed off). Cops are a whole different story; their jobs lead them into frequent confrontations. And the guy crazy enough to come at a cop is much different than a guy angry enough to come at you. Listen, I think we've boiled it down to the point where we see where we disagree. I don't think there is anything more to be gained from this discussion, but if you would like to add something, I will give you the last word.

5:25 - please try to argue without insulting, it takes away from the strength of your argumet.

This is not an issue of resources. This is an issue of right and wrong. The citizens of the District of Columbia do not have a voice in Congress to represent their interests. That is a problem that too many people either ignore or purposely perpetuate given the makeup of the population of DC and the likely outcome of elections. Those who choose to divert the debate, by say for example, arguing that the focus should be on fixing other problems in the city, either miss the point or don't want things to change.

So, wait, if a concealed carrier has a gun pulled on them by a mugger, they're going to piss their pants, but John Q. Belligerent will call the concealed carrier a "pussy" if he draws first? Which is it? Are guns scary or aren't they. Geez. You seriously think someone will walk towards you if you have a gun pointed at them? And if such a mythical creature exists, do you think he would have done you no wrong if you didn't have a gun?

I think you are really out of touch with reality. Again.

-LS

LS - I don't understand your posts. Why is the concealed carrier pissing their pants? Again, I am just as concerned about you as I am the other person. How do I know you - a concealed carrier - are a clear thinking, cool-headed person? Because you went to training? I don't want you to have a gun on you when you get into an altercation because I think you might end up shooting somebody. And based on your posts, I don't think you are all that level-headed or clear-thinking.

Gavin deBecker here. Everyone please cease and desist. I am armed.

I wish Sherman would march through the south again. That was awesome.

UVA poppin collars and poppin gats. The madras mafia will smoke you, fool!

Allow me to break it down for you. In one of your earlier posts (assuming it was you, which it seems to be, based on other things you've said) you stated that a concealed carrier would not fight back against a mugger, they would instead piss their pants. Now you are saying a belligerent road rager would call someone who displayed a gun a "pussy" and advance on the person, even after the gun was trained on them. I view those two posts as contradictory when taken together, and incorrect even if taken separately wrt human psychology.

You don't know that I'm cool-headed. You do know, that if regulations are enforced, I had to go through a background-check, that I'm not a felon or mentally ill, and you know from this series of posts that I'm ex-military, and that I went through concealed carry training. Make of that what you will. It happens to be a constitutional right.

Again, do you honestly think that a normal, nondangerous guy would call another man a pussy for drawing down, and would advance on the armed man even after the gun was leveled at him? Really? And if so, do you think everything would be hunky-dory if our North Carolinan friend in the hypo. didn't draw down in the first place?

I think I would be worried if you thought I was level-headed, since you tend to think people advance on armed men and call them pussies.

6:33,

(not LS here) I'm fine without having the last word, beyond this: I agree that they're unlikely to advance on someone who has drawn a gun, which is more or less the point to having one. However, keep in mind that their calling me a p***y is in no way going to escalate the situation. I drew the gun because of their intent to advance on me and physically attack me--if they want to stand there and curse me while I dial 911, I'm fine with that.

As to 6:50's point ("I am just as concerned about you as I am the other person"), this is a great example of loose thinking. It's sweet you're concerned and all, but I'm mainly concerned with the innocent person being advanced on by someone whose intent is to do them physical harm of an unknown nature. While I care about the aggressor in a metaphysical way, I'm not terribly concerned for their well being if they continue their actions.

There's a good reason that you almost never hear of legal guns being used in illegal activities. People who go to the trouble of getting a gun via the legal route are particularly concerned about obeying the law. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother with the formalities and just carry illegally, which is not that difficult to do.

Madras mafia coming atcha...

"Free speech and gun rights have little if anything to do with one another. There's nothing inconsistent at all about supporting the former but not the latter."

My favorite stupid comment of the day.

5:18, it's illegal to carry where alcohol is being served.

5:18, it's illegal to carry where alcohol is being served. Nice straw man.

2:44, it's not a betrayal of any philosophy (conservative or otherwise) to broadly construe an enumerated right. When you talk textualism don't forget the 9th amendment.

You're thinking of textualism as applied to government powers. Those are supposed to be construed as they were written because they are a list of the government's powers.

So individual rights: Not limited to any list in the Constitution. Construe broadly.

Federal government powers: Limited to the list given in the text.

I hope that all made sense. It will after you take Con Law.

-Clarence T.

3:26, how many twenty-something cops and security guards do you think are already carrying guns in that little square you laid out?

This highlights the absurdity of the DC handgun ban. My problem with anti-gun people here and in law school is that they don't want me (mature veteran with a family) to have or carry a gun but they're totally cool with the 19-year old guy who runs the x-ray machine having one.

Here's the secret: There's no magic wand they waive at police academy or Army boot camp where all of a sudden these guys are better qualified to carry than a head of household with the judgment and perspective that can only come with age and life experience. Anyone interested in weapon safety can learn just as much as any entry-level professional gun-carrier by taking a class on the weekend.

Think about it.

Audie Murphy

tell me all that you know, I'll show you . . . snow and rain

9:18 finally brings some sense to the discussion.

Look, most of us wouldn't let our kids learn about sex ed from a religious nut; why on earth do they "learn" about guns from liberals?

I find having middle schoolers put condoms on banannas a pretty silly but useful exercise. It sends a simple message: "This is a dick, it's just a thing, and if you don't use it safely, people get hurt. So, here's how it works, and here's how you use it safely."

Likewise, drivers' licenses: "A lot of you want to drive. This is a car, here's how you use it safely."

Why aren't little Timmy and little Sally having the local PD come in and teach them about "This is a 9mm pistol; it's just a thing, some people want to carry them, but they're dangerous if you don't know how to use one. Here's how it works, here's the law, here's how you shoot it, here's were you learn more. When you're older, you can choose to own and carry one if you want."

They do have that sort of thing in some places, 10:06, but I'll give you that a per se fear of guns probably prevents any such training being made available to students in urban or suburban areas.

I'm going to teach my kids about guns, but I'm also going to teach them about sex and driving. I'll teach the stuff my way because it's important and I want my kids to get the best info/instruction.

Eh, 10:06, if they're going to do that, hopefully they would take Sally and Timmy to the range.

Although there was that great Reno 911 episode where some of the officers were in front of a bunch of second-graders, and one of them said:

"Look, we all know you have guns, and you're going to bring them to school, and there's nothing we can do about that. But we can teach you how to use them SAFEly. The acronym SAFE stands for "steady, aim, fire, eject." Now repeat after me . . ."

"This is the trigger and this is the thing you point at whatever you want to die."

Well... it's about time Now I can purchase one myself without being harrass. I wish a mutha- f^ckin would.........
step out there, it would be some shit started. DC residence yeah- yeah-!

shay from that deanwood area-

Guys at my high school brought guns to school all the time. Sometimes, I would help them polish their pistols. It was no big deal.

--Gay Frat Stud

11:18 yesterday....

I have a hard time believing that, prior to the inking of our constitution, there somehow existed, independently of our minds, the right to walk about the face of the earth with an Uzi. At the very most there might be some pre-existing right to self-defense that the constitution codified and the right to carry a gun is somehow an extension of that. Think of the contemporary expression "The Right to Choose." I'm all for availability of abortion and whatnot but that "right" didn't even exist more than 30 or 40 years ago. (Anyone know where that expression even came from?) So are we saying that the "right to walk in to a clinic in downtown Boston with highly sophisticated medical equipment and terminate a pregnancy" has somehow always existed and we're just now catching on? Hooey. We made that stuff up. (Not saying that's bad.) You find similarly meaningless discourse in airports where you see the "Passenger's Bill of Rights" or in hospitals with "Patient's Bill of Rights." I just have a really hard time envisioning these weird little things called "rights" just floating around out there, waiting to be captured by text and set down once and for all.

I think the bulk of the posters have been right- nothing THAT major in the decision. States can still regulate the hell out of guns (as they should). Personally, I'd advocate a $200 non-refundable deposit, crim background check, blood, stool, sperm, & hair samples, photo ID, credit check, 3 day waiting period and fingerprints. Make it such a humiliating pain in the ass to get a handgun that no one will do it and will fend off would-be home invaders with a good ol' fashioned Louisville slugger, or, for those of you on Lon Guyland, a 9 Iron.

Oh, and also- a bit more money put in to our educational system might go a long way towards solving our crime problem.

-Willard van Orman Quine and J.L. Mackie

Whatever happened to states' rights? I know DC isn't a state, but the proponents of this type of judicial lawmaking would like to see a broad SCOTUS ruling that forbids states from banning handguns or even more deadly types of weapons. I live in NYC, the gun ban works just fine here, we want to keep it, so I don't know why some elitest court thinks they have the power to us that people should be able to walk around packing.

2:32--the elitest court probably thinks they have the power to do that for the same reason they think they have the power to prevent NYC from enforcing a law saying you couldn't speak ill of the sitting governor.

Hey, 8:16, I love your thinking! Next up, this suggestion:

"Personally, I'd advocate a $200 non-refundable deposit, crim background check, blood, stool, sperm, & hair samples, photo ID, credit check, 3 day waiting period and fingerprints. Make it such a humiliating pain in the ass to get [an abortion] that no one will do it."

What's that you say? No? Then shut the fuck up and read www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf

No pre-existing right to carry the effective arms of the day my ass.