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.

YAY!

Now - on to concealed carry (by law abiding citizens - we know the thugs already carry).

Mendelson says: "We will have time to revise our registration law, while simultaneously ensure that the safety and well-being of those who live, work, and play in the District will be protected.”

What a jackass. If he wants to ensure the safety and well being of law abiding DC residents he'll get rid of the ban and pass concealed carry laws.

THAT would give our overwhelming thug population somthin to think about.

Thanks to the courts, a “shotgun gay wedding” is indeed possible.

IM Goph writes: "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...

Thanks Goph for acknowledging who the perpetrators of DC crime are. Interesting however that you assume that shooting a criminal would lead blacks to riot. Does this mean you assume ALL blacks are criminals? Or is it simply a knee-jerk liberal response of condescension cloaked in the language of concern?

Word to nogard13's comment. Also keep in mind, the people we're fighting in Iraq/AFG have been living their lives in perpetual war and are well trained with firearms. I think if a bunch of schmo's from DC tried to go up against the Nat'l Guard, they'd have their asses handed to them.

@nogard13
remember that those situations wouldn't apply against an army that is fighting it's own people for it's survival. Iraq and Vietnam were and are a PR disaster. The armies cannot go "all out" because of the repercussions.

How exactly would the us army go "all out" on a large group in the US versus anywhere else? Drop nukes? carpet bomb everything? Use gas? The problem remains the same in that they can't do those things without risk to hurting loyalists who would be mixed in with guerrillas. And a sure way to get more guerrillas is to kill family members who were innocent and loyalists. So the situation still wouldn't allow the army to go "all out" and would be similar to Iraq, Russians in Afghanistan, etc.

"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."

Never were truer words spoken.

@sordid
I think if a bunch of schmo's from DC tried to go up against the Nat'l Guard, they'd have their asses handed to them.

I think the British redcoats said the same thing will drinking their tea...and an English accent.

Try this again
@sordid
I think if a bunch of schmo's from DC tried to go up against the Nat'l Guard, they'd have their asses handed to them.

I think the British redcoats said the same thing while drinking their tea...and with an English accent.

"Then you get the women."

That's my motivation?

I'm all about the power, but can that last part be optional?

Or, more specifically, me and my guns (literal and figurative) are coming for you, my Succulent Simian Sweetie....

tmoney true but the National Guard doesn't have to cross an ocean to get here.

"Now - on to concealed carry (by law abiding citizens - we know the thugs already carry)."

Why stop there? Maybe DC can adopt its own holiday: Annual Gun Discharge Day. Everyone crowds into the streets and simultaneously discharges their legally owned firearms into the air in a show of public force and a not-so-subtle message to the DC government that they damn well better get the lead out of our water and the arsenic out of our parks OR ELSE.

oh AND, burglary has been attempted before, which is why i mentioned it. haha

I knew there was a reason I got a plasma instead of an LCD... to make sure someone couldn't just pick it up and walk out the door. Mine is the same size and it's heavy (and awkward) enough that moving it alone is a marginally dangerous proposition.

So come 'n get it, boyz... while you're struggling to carry this thing out the door, I'll put a cap in your ass.

Seems like they're keeping the registration provision from the 1976 decision. I wonder, if the police recover a stolen registered firearm and trace it back to its original owner, what's that owner's liability? Can the crime victime sue him/her for damages? I'm pretty sure the burglars who get shot are going to sue for violating their civil rights to steal your s**t. And what about my pants? There's blood all over them! And that gunfire made me soil my britches! I demand $23 million for pain and suffering AND A NEW PAIR OF PANTS! This is worse than the Holocaust! Or should I say "Holo-HOAX!" I read about it on the Internets.

Having more guns or allowing people to carry guns has never been the solution. The "I need it to protect myself" or "it wouldn't have happened if I had my gun" arguments are ridiculous. It's 2008: haven't we evolved beyond needing guns to solve our problems?

For every gun activist, there is a pussy-of-a-man who needs a gun to solve his problem. The kentucky shooter, va. tech, the old man that got his trigger 'stuck in a branch' and killed his grandson. Come on now...grow up and use your head.

wow Monkey -- you just always have to go there . . .

Why don't you at least mix it up, and toss in Bosnia, Rwanda or Darfur. Better yet, maybe you can combine all four in a giant metaphor of the awful state of your pants.

Bruised,

They arent allowing people to carry guns, they are allowing law abiding individuals the right to own a handgun in their home. You are right its 2008 and it seems this city is on rate to eclipse last years murder rate so yes I would like a handgun in my home in case god forbid someone does break in while I am home and is carrying and decides to shoot first ask later. We are grown up and us grown ups want our rights to be upheld and in your examples those people were crazy and it falls on those states in their registration processes to weed them out. And accidents happen what if the old man backed out his driveway and ran his grandson over...are you going to ban old people from driving then to?

There can be an up-side to this.

@bruisedlee, obviously they have not. Unless you plan to take down every moderately shady looking character you see from a distance (and have eyes in the back of your head for the ones behind you), being mugged generally involves being jumped from behind with no warning, or having a gun stuck in your face, also with no warning.

A handgun is about the most useless thing I can imagine in a mugging, unless your goal is certain death. Unless you're a jedi knight I really don't see how you'd be able to draw you gun and shoot someone who's already on top of you with his own gun pointed at your face.

Yep. And roughed up a bit for good measure.

For any DC residents thinking that this means you'll have ready access to effective forms of home defense, my guess is that DC will end up with orwellian, expensive, intrusive, and needlessly time-consuming registration rules such as those in place Massachusetts. So don't get too excited just yet...

Does this mean I can finally buy that "Fashion Pink" Taser I've been eying?

Well, alright. Let's activate that militia clause and shoot our way to some voting rights!

Thanks Supreme Court douche bags. Thanks for abandoning hundreds of years of legal precedent by giving a unquestionably modernist reading of the amendment from this "conservative strict interpreters."

You know, we had a lot of fun today, discussing the impications of the Supreme Court ruling. But, theres nothing funny about vapor lock. Its the third most common cause of car stallings. So please, take care of your car and get it checked. I'm boondoggle. Good night!

you know, part of what's really pissing me off about this whole thing is the play the news is getting in other parts of the country. my rss reader is giving me news articles from michigan, georgia, and pennsylvania where they're saying "court rules in favor of americans' right to own guns" but doesn't discuss the voting issue here.

i feel like some lip service should be payed to our servile status, if we're going to have our laws overturned...

That First Amendment is really dated. Let's just ignore that and start telling liberals to shut up.

Every time a liberal talks about the 2nd Amendment, ask them if they favor the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment. As a libertarian, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate liberals.

IM Goph - methinks thou dost protest too much. Let's face it, while not all black males in DC are criminals, pretty much 100% of violent criminals in DC are black males. Anybody who denies this is either in denial or a liar. I have no idea what your race is - and I'm damned sure you don't know what race I am - but I bet you think you know - and I'm even more willing to bet you're wrong - but even Jesse Jackson admitted as much when he left LeDroit Park because he'd grown tired of hearing steps behind him on the street at night and feeling relief if the unknown person behind him was a white man.

If your only reason to not have the meaningful ability to defend oneself is because you fear black people will riot then I think you've got some serious issues to deal with.

"Let's face it, while not all black males in DC are criminals, pretty much 100% of violent criminals in DC are black males."

And nearly 100% of people living at or near the poverty line in D.C. are black.

Now, where's my gun dammit?

As a libertarian, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate liberals.

You know, as someone who's looking forward to the end of the gun ban, I really want to like libertarians, but the sad fact of the matter is that every libertarian I've ever met comes in one of two stripes:

1. The ones who will cheerfully sacrifice every other liberty in exchange for lots of guns and tax cuts.

2. The ones who do drugs as well.

Until libertarians start acting like they care about other liberties -- say, the separation of church and state, or legalized abortion, or gay marriage -- they're just conservatives with poor impulse control. And disturbingly poor taste in literature, given their fondness for Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand.

I'm all for the right to own handguns but really have a hard time believing that the people that wrote the constitution would allow automatic weapons.

Gimme a break! You know that if Aaron Burr had had a Glock he woulda used it on that pantywaist Alexander Hamilton. Cracka Freemason be talkin trash 'bout da holmes. This MY house! Then he woulda done a little dance and said, "Yeah-uh! That's how we do it in my neighborhood, b***h! Hear da Glock go, 'pop-pop-pop!'" And then he'd pour out a forty of claret for his dead homie! Secretaries of Treasury, REPRESENT!

Hillman - Some get the women, others get the blond manorexic American Apparel models.

Also, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others.

And there was much rejoycing.

Any adult who has never been convicted of a felony, has no history of mental illness or drug depedency, and pays the fee to the Treasury Department can have a Class III Destructive Device license. With it you can legally purchase and transfer fully automatic weapons, silencers, and sawed off shotguns to other Class III dealers.