Dennis pointed out that I've been working all day - I totally missed the
Supreme Court ruling that granted an individual right to own guns exists, and striking down the local municipal ban in DC. (Those with a sense of humour should read the link text . .)
Link to the PDFI love Dennis, but his sense of caustic comedy was off the mark for once. Unlike what the full metal jacket worshiping desired, the 5-4 majority (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy & Thomas) ruled only that Yes, there is a right to bear arms - but not machine guns or other unusual implements of destruction - and that the DC law banning handguns for self-defense in the home is unconstitutional.
The minority wrote 2 dissents which they all joined in, twice - which was the judicial equivalent of all of them not only objecting to the majority, but hiring Demi Moore to stand up and
strenously object to the majority's ruling. It looks gorgeous dressed up in Navy whites, it speaks with an inspired Aaron Sorkin script, but means absolutely nothing in the end, no matter how many times the minority comes to the same conclusion to which they all agree on.
Which makes this thing look even more baffling to me. It obvious this thing was crafted with the best right-wing talking points in regards to the Second Amendment, while balancing the necessity for some restriction in arms ownership in the interest of law enforcement in order to bring the moderates on board. The seriously gun-happy are going to be pissy because it doesn't touch the Brady Bill or let them finally pull the AK-47 out of the closet and brandish it with the pride of someone with a 3 foot long assault pecker. And it obviously gives the middle finger to gun control advocates. If anything, the first part of today's opinion simply enumerates in stone the status quo. And then because of the Rehnquist tradition of ruling with the most narrow scope tolerable, the Court simply just simply slapped only DC's restrictions, ignoring the hundreds to thousands of other more restrictive state and local laws.
The worst part is that it guts local attempts at firearms control - which is really what's important. It's the cities that need more restrictive controls, and can implement them more effectively than the federal background checks. (I read a fairly persuasive article on local control anticipating the decision a few days ago, but can't remember where) From what I understand, DC's gun problem was completely out-of-hand because of it's Federal city status (and politics) hampered enforcement, and the only solution became an outright ban. Once again, the residents of DC got shafted by the government that routinely disdains it's host city.
I've got no problems with guns and gun owners. The only time I've feared a gun possessor was a cop who I accidentally door dinged who went completely batshit on me for a few seconds before realizing it. If that story affirms anything, it's that a well-armed society may make for a more polite constabulary. :) But it's not the
owners that are a concern - it's the
possessors who obtain arms through means gray to black and use them to threaten, maim and kill.
Read more!