Thursday, June 26, 2008

Guns, Guns Everywhere and Not a Crackhead to Shoot...

So the Supreme Court decided that the right to keep and bear arms means that you have the right to keep and bear arms. Good to know. Here's the entire decision. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. It's a bit long. But here are the cliff notes.

3 comments:

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

The short version is a tour de force of arguments already made before the Supreme Court supporting the 2nd Amendment. This changes very little in the course of policy, as, contrary to what the gun lobby would have us believe, the Courts have overwhelmingly supported this interpretation of the Amendment since the Constitution was signed.

I told SAWB long ago that the handgun ban in DC wouldn't stand (as the proposed San Francisco ban was taking shape), and was only the law on the books because no one had yet challenged it to the courts.

What I am surprised with is that the Supreme Court heard this case at all - the lower courts should have smashed this as soon as it came on the radar, and the appeal to SCOTUS should have been denied based on the "we've already told you about this, b***h" school of judical policy.

But I reckon SCOTUS allowed it so the majority could reiterate their points (again) in an actual precedent-supporting position.

Dante said...

"The short version is a tour de force of arguments already made before the Supreme Court supporting the 2nd Amendment. This changes very little in the course of policy, as, contrary to what the gun lobby would have us believe, the Courts have overwhelmingly supported this interpretation of the Amendment since the Constitution was signed."

I don't think anyone is arguing that it has changed anything. It's just nice to know that we still have rights we have always had. It's just a shame that what should've been 7-0 smackdown was a 5-4 decision.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

That part is rather confusing, and I'll need to read the dissenting opinion a little more closely to figure out why. I mean, was the dissent based on proceedural grounds or some actual constitutional precedent? That's what I'm wondering.