Opinion

Eh, I could care less either way. I was kind of hoping they'd lean this way, tho, just to piss the DC government off, but not because I agree with this position. I think the constitution is vague and lucid, intelligent arguments can be made for either side.

Regardless of the arguments, I believe the amendment was there to protect an individual's right to rebel against the government and to possibly overthrow it, if necessary. However, given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons.

Take that Mayor Fenty and company!

I have a serious (and maybe stupid) question: has SCOTUS ever gone back and reversed one of their own decisions without a court case being presented? I mean, let's say, hypothetically, that 2 years from now DC has become a non-stop gun battle with people getting murdered left and right (more than now obviously). Would the Supreme Court see that and figure it was because of this decision that the city has degraded to that point and thus reverse said decision or is this the final say until another case comes before the court addressing the same issue?

Haven't read the decision yet, but saw some quotes posted on SCOTUSblog. If I'm reading those quotes correctly, they said the right to bear arms does not extend to weapons designed specifically for military use. So does that mean I can't use my high powered, 60 rounds/sec automatic rifle for deer hunting this year?

"given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons."

Tell that to Iraq.

to all of you celebrating this ruling, i'd just like to ask one thing:

when the inevitable bernie goetz moment comes (when a white guy shoots a black teen), and this city erupts in a 21st century race riot, are you going to be smiling and happy?

seriously, i am taking bets on when DC's version of bernhard goetz happens...

Doing a quick reading, guns are individual rights, requiring guns to be disassembled at home is not allowed, but restrictions on who can buy guns, who can sell them, and where you can be packing heat are all still ok. As is the prohibition on people using non-militia type arms (no nukes for you!). BUt I wonder if this doesn't mean people have the right to automatic weapons like members of the National Guard. Lots to read and dissect.

Practical issues: What does DC do now? Will they come up with new laws and regulations? Or will they drag their feet? What ramifications does Fenty face since he decided to appeal the case to the Supremes?

Predictable, but very disappointing. Every day you hear about some disgruntled nut going off and killing a few dozen people, not to mention all of the gun-related deaths in DC alone that aren't reported. The right-leaning SCOTUS decides that the solution is to give *more* people guns, that should solve the problem!

Americans really need to think about the public good and get over their fascination with firearms. Unfortunately both McCain and Obama support the very liberal interpretation of the second amendment that it's an individual right. I'm as much of an Obama supporter as anyone, but I wish he would live up to the 'ultra, ultra, no seriously ultra! liberal' label and be for heavily restricted gun control.

Dan
Woodley Park

@nogard13
However, given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it's truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take down a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons.

I always see someone bring this point up and it always makes me scratch my head. The Iraq war and to some degree the Vietnam war proves that a small group of dedicated people using guerrilla warfare can certainly tie up in knots the best army in the world.

@flapjack
I have a serious (and maybe stupid) question: has SCOTUS ever gone back and reversed one of their own decisions without a court case being presented?

Nope the court can't just issue rulings from the bench. A valid case must come before them. It is not their job to make laws only rule on them. If DC turns out that way congress would have to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule to court ruling. Also bringing a similar case, assuming you could get them to hear it again, wouldn't likely change anything, as the court is loathe to reverse any of its previous rulings especially those made within the justices lifetimes.

Woo Hoo! My constitutional rights have been affirmed.

I don't think much will change in the short term. If the PoPo find a gun in your car it's still an automatic felony (which the US Attorney's office will decline to prosecute). Over time, however, one can imagine law-abiding citizens purchasing and storing guns, and then these guns percolating to the "other side" through home robberies. It may result in more guns on the street in the long haul, although I don't get the feeling that anybody has much difficulty finding a firearm right now.

As for Bernie Goetz... didn't New York become a lot quieter in the years after that incident...?

Hooray.

"Woo Hoo! My constitutional rights have been affirmed."

Yeah!!! Guns for everybody!!! I just luv 'em.

"guerrilla warfare can certainly tie up in knots the best army in the world".

True, but the kill ratios are still ridiculously high. In a guerilla war situation, the guerilla war fighter faces almost certain death; while the modern war fighter faces an increase possibly of death.

Let's not fool ourselves: The 2nd amendment is a leftover from colonial days when people A) hunted for actual sustenance and B) were sometimes called upon to keep the King of England out of their faces.

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned handguns in their current form nor a populace so wrought with violence. Sure, people always find creative ways to kill each other, but handguns make it so damn easy and more can go wrong with handguns as well, causing unintentional harm.

On the other hand, if so many people in this city already have illegal firearms, it levels the playing field of law-abiding residents who feel their livelihood threatened.

What lawmakers and the courts need to recognize is the need for new laws that address the historical fallacy of "everyone is entitled to a gun" and also addresses the obvious problem of personal safety. Let's accept the reality that the 2nd amendment in its current form doesn't necessarily apply to modern America any longer.

Regardless of what policies and procedures the District puts into place regarding gun ownership, what on earth makes anyone think that they will be able to enforce them successfully?

In my 9 years of living here, I've seen nothing enforced successfully other than delinquent car registrations and walking a dog off a leash. So now all of a sudden people believe that DC will be able to keep guns out of the wrong peoples' hands? How is this going to happen?

tmoney - thanks for the clarification.

Cranky - Fenty said on Fox5 this morning that they already had a plan B (and presumably C and D) prepared. Well, as prepared as it could be without the specifics of the decision. I imagine they spent a lot of time thus far figuring out "if, then" scenarios so maybe it won't take them very long to make the necessary changes. Is that assuming to much?

SCOTUS says we can have guns but not representation.

First you get the guns. Then you use the guns to get the representation.

Then you get the power.

Then you get the women.