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 i