I’ve Been Dying to Say That

One of the first things I did today when I turned on the PC was to check and see if the Supreme Court had issued an opinion in the Heller case. We all knew the drama would end this morning. I had to wait a while, but they finally ruled.

People are excited because they killed the DC gun ban. I don’t know why that would be a big thrill at this point. We all expected that. And we knew the court was going to rule that the dishonest far-left “militia” argument was nonsense. So there’s no big news to report yet. We still have to root through the opinion to find out exactly how helpful it is. We knew the bums were going to lose, as Mr. Lebowski would put it. What we did not know was how badly they would lose.

I haven’t read the opinion yet. If Scalia was on his game, and he got his way, it will be a clear and decisive ruling that you have to have a damn good reason to screw with the availability and use of firearms. If not, expect a limited impact. It’s possible to get a favorable decision which doesn’t do you much good.

In the first Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court opinion, the unfortunate phrase “all deliberate speed” was used. The evils of segregation were to be remedied “with all deliberate speed.” Sounded like a victory. But for years after the decision, hostile courts seized on that phrase and essentially claimed it meant “slowly.” That’s an oversimplification, but that was how it shook out in practice. If Scalia left any wiggle room in the opinion, the bums will find it, and they’ll exploit it, and we’ll see more frivolous, overly broad gun bans.

All I know about the language of the opinion is that it contains this passage: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Imagine what the bums will do with that, if it isn’t clarified. Their eagerness to exploit the phrase is revealed by the fact that this is the only phrase the liberal media is widely quoting today.

It’s a good day for right-thinking, law-abiding people who don’t have granola for brains. How good? We don’t know yet.

We can take solace in this fact. Today hippies everywhere are drinking their bathwater.

Oops. Oxymoron.

More

Here’s the holding, from the opinion. When a court issues an opinion, assuming the opinion was not written by Sandra Day O’Connor, the opinion will contain rules lower courts can apply. These rules are “holdings.” Scalia, brain that he is, laid out the court’s holding in this case in a prefatory section separate from the rest of the opinion.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Judging from this part of the opinion, it’s not too good. Clearly, states will conclude they don’t have to issue carry permits. And we can expect college students to remain prime targets for rapists and murderers, because the Supreme Court says it’s okay to ban guns in schools. The bit about unusual weapons means we can look forward to more “assault weapon” bans and restrictions on magazine capacities.

States can’t ban handguns, and they can’t make ridiculous laws making it impossible to use guns effectively in our homes. That’s all I see here. Whoopee. A few people in cities ruled by hippies will be able to buy guns, and the cities will be able to force them to get permits, and the Supreme Court has issued virtually no guidance as to how restrictive permit laws can be. So DC’s permit law will be crafted in a manner that will make it nearly impossible for anyone to qualify.

Seems to me like we got screwed.

I may be wrong because I haven’t read the whole opinion, but don’t expect me to read the entire 157-page mess. I am willing to let the wonks handle that.

More

Look at this: “Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.”

That should send chills down your spine. Look how close we came to losing the right to bear arms. If you’re one of the many idiots who do not understand that a vote for a liberal President is a vote for judges who will destroy your rights, you need to have your face rubbed in this sentence over and over. And if you’re stupid enough to stay home as a protest or vote for Bob Barr, helping Obama get elected, you deserve to live in North Korea. All four far-left judges wanted to repeal the Second Amendment, and the only thing that saved us was the presence of that perpetual embarrassment, Kennedy.

Had Al Gore won the 2000 election, we would not have Alito or Roberts, and the individual right to bear arms would no longer exist, and every one of us would be facing the possibility of total gun confiscation, with no constitutional remedy. We would have to rely on the good judgment of our state and local governments to protect us.