We saw it in the wake of
Heller. Now we're seeing it in the aftermath of
McDonald.
So much spin that someone's looking for an old priest and a young priest.
A little background on
Heller- Dick Heller was a licensed special police officer in DC who carried a gun in federal buildings as part of his job. Living in DC in a rather bad part of town with rising crime, he wanted to be able to keep a handgun in his home. Along with five others, he filed suit against the DC code that said that handguns not registered before 1975 could not be kept in a person's home in the district. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision, but said that the only one with standing was Heller.
From their decision:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdfTo summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
Notice the 'such as'. Heller was seeking to keep a gun in his home, so the decision is narrowly focused in that regard. However, the court, in giving reason as to why it ruled the way it did, opened the door for further challenges not inside the home.
Fast forward to June 26, 2008
From the majority opinion when the SCOTUS ruled on the case:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdfThe 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.
Again with the 'such as'- what follows being one example of a traditionally lawful purpose. Not the extent, not the 'only' traditionally lawful purpose. In this, the SCOTUS is giving guidance to lower courts as to how they should interpret the decision and apply it henceforth. No, they didn't set a standard of review, and they made sure to mention that this decision "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." At face value, they are likely to also hold unconstitutional other restrictions that severely burden (or outright ban) other 'traditionally lawful uses'.
Then comes the spin.
First, the VPC says that that semi-auto handguns can still be banned:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0806heller.htmThe Court's ruling today does not appear to affect the District's ban on "machine guns," which under DC law includes any gun "which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading." This definition would include virtually all semiautomatic handguns. As a result, the District's ban can remain in force for those types of handguns, commonly known as pistols. In essence, the Court's ruling for the most part will only affect revolvers and derringers.
Then the Brady group jump on the bandwagon (or is that ban-wagon?):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/992For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District's ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this 'slippery slope' argument is gone.
In the run up to the
McDonald decision, the SCOTUS's text in
Heller was stretched to great lengths, and in a few cases, was snapped..
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=2316In addition, the Heller right applies only to self-defense in the home, not to carrying guns in public.
Even some respected law scholars took that tack, but not all, by any means:
http://michaeldorf.org/dorf-public-firearms-after-heller.pdfPlaintiff Dick Anthony Heller only challenged the District’s gun laws as applied to home possession and use of firearms. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not have to address directly the validity of those laws as they may be applied in public. How should the Court resolve the public possession question, in a case that squarely presents it? Commentators who think, as I do, that the Court erred in Heller, would likely hope that the Court limits the damage by holding that the home is different. But is there a principled basis for doing so?
internal citations removedHere's the same relevant text from the
McDonald decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdfJUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
Then after
McDonald we got the same spin-
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1265/We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its 'any gun, for anybody, anywhere' agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.
All this, based on the court saying,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdfWe made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "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." We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
internal citations omittedIn a way, it makes me smile to see them backpedal and scramble to hold on to any shred of a perceived 'win' based on a certain reading of the decision- aka, "AHA! It's not as bad as this straw man I built up said it would be, and THAT'S A WIN!!!11!! It's HUGH!1!!!1"
It only underlines how marginalized they have become.
eta, forgot one link.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
