Latest gun ruling a case of conservative judicial activism
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of ruling that the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms was an individual right rather than a right tied to a “well-regulated militia.” Today, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled 5-4 that state and local governments are as bound by that interpretation as the federal government, a step that greatly restricts their ability to legislate in that arena.
Symbolically, the ruling is a big victory for the gun lobby. But its practical effect is another matter. A decade or two ago, when hot political battles were still being fought over gun control, rulings such as these would have had significant impact. But the truth is that the single-minded passion of gun-rights advocates long routed their opponents in the political arena, making gun-control arguments in the political arena all but moot.
In that sense, the Supreme Court is merely following the election returns, as Mr. Dooley long ago noted.
But it will be interesting to see how the issue plays out. In Heller, the court wrote repeatedly of the constitutional right to self-defense and singled out handguns as “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” Heller also noted that the right to bear arms is NOT “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In addition, Heller expressly did not apply to “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.”
As Justice Stephen Breyer notes in his dissent, the rulings in Heller and McDonald strip power from state and local governments and place it in the hands not just of the federal government, but of the federal courts. In its centralization of power, its rejection of precedent and and its investment of legislative power in the courts, the court has taken a decidedly activist role.
In fact, Breyer notes, it requires judges, not legislatures, to now address a variety of questions regarding the costs and benefits of various firearms restrictions:
“Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time of day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the presence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting patdowns designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban? Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right (to self-defense) interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies?”
“Legislators,” Breyer notes, “are able to ‘amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it.’ United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 67 (1965). They are far better suited than judges to uncover facts and to understand their relevance. And legislators, unlike Article III judges, can be held democratically responsible for their empirically based and value-laden conclusions.”
The Supreme Court — the ostensibly conservative, anti-activist, pro-states’ rights Roberts court — has taken those decisions out of the hands of legislatures and city councils and placed them in the hands of its colleagues in the federal judiciary.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
619 comments Add your comment
Jefferson
June 28th, 2010
2:53 pm
s/b there.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
kayaker 71
From the National Guard website at http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx
“About the National Guard
The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation’s longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.
The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.” However, recognizing the militia’s state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today’s National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.”
Paul Stanley
June 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
First its our guns then its our LOVE GUUUUNNSSSSS!!!
Scout
June 28th, 2010
2:55 pm
I think if you will go back and read the 2008 SCOTUS decision you will find that “a well regulated Militia” is considered a subordinate clause to “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”
Translation …………. a well regulated militia is only “one” reason the founders gave for the 2nd Amendment. Others are hunting, collecting, personal protection, etc., etc.
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2010
2:56 pm
Paul, if you’re around–ya think the other big SCOTUS ruling
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628
impacts whatever hay the GOP senators were going to make at Kagan’s confirmation hearing, with regard to the whole military recruiter flareup?
kayaker 71
June 28th, 2010
2:57 pm
Doggone,
It has everything to do with protecting our citizens in each of the states when our government drops the ball. The state of Arizona is being forced to do the government’s job and being severely criticized from the left for doing what our government should be doing. Brewer is doing nothing but protecting her citizens from the incompetence of the Bozo gang and it’s do nothing attitude. The main function of government is to protect it’s citizens. Bozo is doing a piss poor job of it.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
2:57 pm
BANG, BANG, BANG!!! You’re dead!
Hunting Wabbits
June 28th, 2010
2:57 pm
R toons allowed to own firearms?
Y doesn’t someone rehash the old crime statistic comparisons that show how handgun bans don’t influence crime rates. or homicides. In fact, some spin the data to suggest that gun bans increase homicides and vice versa. How about we have a OK Corral reality show where all the contestants are armed and are forced to read each other’s comments on blogs, (or witness each other’s driving skills).
Preview: “Try spellcheck, moron”. BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! “Quit tailgating, loser.” BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!!
Outhouse GoKart
June 28th, 2010
2:58 pm
I would like to have one of those AR-15’s.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
2:58 pm
Scout
I believe some say it was the extraordinary way – was is Scalia? – went round and round to establish that introductory phrase as a subordinate clause illustrates how the decision was ‘activist.’
Dan
June 28th, 2010
2:58 pm
Libs just don’t get the real definition of activism, Jays explanation of taking the decision out of the legislators hands is right on the money, for a topic not specifically called out in the bill of rights. Now if he would only apply such logic to liberal activist causes he may actually pen an article where 1+1 = 2
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
2:58 pm
Go to statehealthfacts.org.
According to Kaiser Family statehealthfacts.org, the number of deaths due to Injury by firearms per 100,000 population in 2006 was 10.6. Interestingly enough, the highest rate (20.6) was the District of Columbia which attempted to ban gun ownership. Go figure.
Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include accidental discharge of firearm, intentional self-harm by firearm, assault by firearm, undetermined firearm discharge, and legal intervention involving firearm discharge.
Additionally, according to statehealthfacts.org, the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents per 100,000 population in 2006 was 15. Where’s the push to ban or severely restrict vehicle ownership in this country?
One final note, statehealthfacts.org identifies the number of deaths due to firearms per 100,000 population by race/ethnicity in 2006 as follows:
Black – 20.1
White – 8.8
Other – 4.1
Now, it doesn’t specify WHO is doing the killing, just who is dying. But still, the numbers are sobering. Perhaps, given DC’s rate and the racial breakdown, it might be in our best interest to find some other basis for restricting gun ownership.
Outhouse GoKart
June 28th, 2010
2:59 pm
When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
FIGHT THE POWER!!
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
3:00 pm
I personally prefer a rocket launcher when hunting for bear. A direct hit skins the critter while also blowing the meat into perfectly tenderized bitesize morsels.
TW
June 28th, 2010
3:01 pm
Since they were doing a strict interpretation, did Thomas’ vote count 3/5ths?
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:02 pm
stands for decibels :
You need to read that case carefully. The school could do that to the particular Christian student group because the policy applied to all of the other student groups as well. In other words, a Muslim student group can’t keep a Christian or gay member from joining either. As long as the school is consistent they can do that just like a high school can bar Christian groups from meeting on their campus after school hours “only” if they bar all other groups.
In other words, if a university allows “some student” groups to pick and choose who are members then they must allow Christian student groups to do the same.
Nothing really changed here.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:02 pm
sfd
I’d kind of doubt it. As I understand it, there was already law in place on the recruiter issue – ‘don’t give equal access, lose your funding.’ The other case was not so covered.
But then again, the case you cited does seem to illustrate the issue of justices making law based on what they see as ‘reasonable’ limitations or extensions, doesn’t it?
NWO
June 28th, 2010
3:03 pm
Somebody explain to me the reasoning for a woman’s “right” to have an abortion. Because I believe such reasoning would probably apply to my “right” to defend myself.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:05 pm
Paul:
As was supported by the study done by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:05 pm
” well regulated militia is only “one” reason the founders gave for the 2nd Amendment. Others are hunting, collecting, personal protection, etc., etc”
That is how I would read it also.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:06 pm
Bumper Sticker:
“Free Men Don’t Need Constitutional Rights”
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:07 pm
Doggone/GA :
……… and you would be correct. Thank you.
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2010
3:07 pm
‘don’t give equal access, lose your funding.’
well, except that it didn’t apply to Hahvahd, I don’t think…
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/27/why-elena-kagan-was-right-to-boot-military-recruiters-from-harva/
The details of Harvard’s precise policies and ensuing litigation are involved and somewhat technical. (For starters, Harvard Law School doesn’t actually receive federal dollars; in addition, the undergraduate college doesn’t prohibit its students from being in ROTC – it just makes them travel across Cambridge to MIT to drill and take classes.)
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:08 pm
“Free Men Don’t Need Constitutional Rights”
And that is about as wrong as it can be
Normal
June 28th, 2010
3:09 pm
Three freshly separated souls were on their way to that “Great Meeti ng Place in The Sky”, when they started talking to each other. One the others, what happen to them. The first one said, “I was just walking down the street when a refrigerator fell on me”. The second gasped, “Oh my GAWD, that was me, I’m so sorry. I came home early and found my wife naked in bed and a mans clothes on the floor. I searched,
and searched, but couldn’t find him, so in frustration I threw the frige out the window and because of the exertion, I had a heart attack.” The first guy, said, “well, I guess that’s all right then”. Then they looked at the third guy and asked, “how about you?” “Well, He said, “there I was, just sitting in this refrigerator…”
Ban refrigerators!
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:09 pm
stands for decibels :
I would like to see recruiters set up on public sidewalks (not interfering with pedestrian travel) ringing the campus and see what happens.
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
3:09 pm
Doc Holliday was no choir boy
I’ll say! That good ol’ boy from Valdosta and later Atlanta has a documented eight deaths and six serious woundings to his credit. He’s probably responsible for more, but historians are unable to determine who shot whom in another eight killings involving the Earps and Holliday.
Joe
June 28th, 2010
3:10 pm
It is truly amazing that liberals are to stupid to understand the right to bear arms….
TW
June 28th, 2010
3:11 pm
“Somebody explain to me the reasoning for a woman’s “right” to have an abortion. Because I believe such reasoning would probably apply to my “right” to defend myself.”
If white men were responsible for carrying the pregnancy, you’d be able to get an abortion out of a Coke machine.
Your delusional ‘rights’ are not worth the 5-7 children who will blow their own heads off today by accident.
Grow a pair, coward.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:11 pm
Doggone/GA:
I just saw it ……… not defending it. Depends on how you interpret it.
One could say a “right” granted by a humanly written document could be taken “away” but FREE MEN won’t stand for that …………………
kayaker 71
June 28th, 2010
3:12 pm
I state the statistics again from the last blog regarding what Americans feel about gun possession. The USA Today poll just recently completed asks the question, ” Does the 2nd Amendment give private citizens the right to bear arms”. 97% seem to believe it does. Seems that over 60% of Americans did not want the Health Care Bill and 52% would like it repealed. Seems like more than 70% think that our approach to immigration is in the bucket and needs to be changed. Is anyone paying attention?
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:12 pm
“One could say a “right” granted by a humanly written document could be taken “away” but FREE MEN won’t stand for that ”
You could SAY that…but the Constitution does NOT “grant” rights…it PROTECTS them.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:13 pm
TW
More are killed in bicycle accidents each day.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:14 pm
Doggone/GA:
Ultimately a piece of paper can do nothing !
MEN must rise up and protect themselves.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:15 pm
“MEN must rise up and protect themselves”
but the bumper sticker you quoted said nothing – as you quoted it – about rising up. It said rights were not NEEDED. THAT is a description of anarchy, not freedom. And that’s why it’s about as wrong as it can be.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:16 pm
Jay is really laying low on this one today. He must be depressed.
Normal
June 28th, 2010
3:17 pm
O. K. Corral Gun fight
The place was Tombstone, Arizona territory, the time was Wednesday afternoon, October 26, 1881 and the setting was a vacant lot in the vicinity of the stables and sheds of the O. K. Corral. But the frightened horses landed the O. K. corral as the name forever to be remembered by the showdown
The showdown occurred with Morgan, Virgil and Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday being on one side and on the other side were Ike and Billy Clanton, Tom and Frank McLaury, Billy Claiborne, and Wes Fuller. The O. K. Corral Gun fight lasted 30 seconds, Frank McLaury was dead from a bullet wound to the stomach fired by Wyatt Earp’s gun, Tom McLaury dead from Doc Holliday’s shotgun, and Billy Clanton dying from chest wounds
Wes Fuller wasn’t present for the O. K. Corral Gun fight. Ike Clanton retreated into a shop the second the bullets started flying followed close behind by Billy Claiborne. Morgan Earp fell with a shoulder wound, Virgil with a leg wound, and Doc Holliday with a grazed left hip. Wyatt Earp remained unscathed by the gun fight
At the time, these key players had no idea that they had just been involved in the most famous gun fight in the history of the wild and wicked West. Even a hundred years later, it would still be a movie maker calling card.
O. K. Corral Gun fight
N-GA
June 28th, 2010
3:18 pm
md – You’ve made my point for me. If the federal government restricts possession of automatic weapons, that would also be at odds with the US Constitution. After all, the Supreme Court just ruled that Chicago cannot ban handguns (a TYPE of gun). Shoot! (no pun….), Chicago didn’t say you couldn’t bear arms, just no handguns. You could carry around a shotgun or rifle all day long….no problemo!
Matti
June 28th, 2010
3:18 pm
How about only WOMEN have the “right” to own firearms? After all, we’re smaller, weaker, and men who never met us are trying to force us to bear the fruit of men they’ve never met, conceived under circumstances they know nothing about. The Constitution did not even pertain to us when it was written! An equalizer is in order here. Who’s with me?
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
3:19 pm
TW writes, “Your delusional ‘rights’ are not worth the 5-7 children who will blow their own heads off today by accident.”
Again, I ask you to provide a source for your comment. I did. Can you?
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:21 pm
Anarchy is the absence of adherence to law.
Rights are inalienable.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:21 pm
Scout 3:05
Thanks for that and your earlier explanation of the case.
sfd
We discussed this summary earlier.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/16/jeff-sessions/sessions-says-kagan-violated-us-law-regarding-mili/
The decision was 8-0 against one of her positions. What I found most telling was how quick she was to back off principle when $$$ were at stake.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:22 pm
“Anarchy is the absence of adherence to law”
And that is exactly what that bumper sticker was proclaiming.
jconservative
June 28th, 2010
3:22 pm
Irony.
A lot of conservatives, me included, are applauding the McDonald decision. But it has not been that long since a big portion of the conservative movement, me not included, wanted to ditch the 14th Amendment just because of the Courts application of the “due process clause”.
Constitutional law is never as simple as it seems.
What the Court did today was say that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states. The Court DID NOT say that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states on its on merits.
And yes, that is legislating from the bench. Always has been and always will be. That is what makes it a “living Constitution” even though many “proclaimed conservatives” shutter at the term.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:22 pm
Matti :
How about women having the “right” to be drafted in times of war. Right now the Supreme Court says no.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:24 pm
“How about women having the “right” to be drafted in times of war”
Women should be equally subject to any legal draft.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:24 pm
Matter of interpretation …………….
Agree to disagree ………….. just like this 5-4 decision …………….
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
3:25 pm
“just like this 5-4 decision ”
Nope can’t go with that, unless *I* have the 5 vote!
kayaker 71
June 28th, 2010
3:25 pm
Matti,
Times have changed. I would hate to see some unsuspecting felon confront my wife and her Glock 40.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:25 pm
Doggone/GA:
I agree with you but the Supreme Court doesn’t and that is what counts.
Smokewagon
June 28th, 2010
3:25 pm
Jefferson- Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
3:26 pm
And Big Nose Kate, Doc Holliday’s sometime companion and family feud partner when she wasn’t prostituting herself or running a boarding house, though born Mary Catherine Moroney in Hungary, would take on the name Kate Elder, as in the sons of Katie Elder.
mm
June 28th, 2010
3:27 pm
Isn’t it disgusting to watch the wingnuts tickle themselves when a republican or the supreme court do something that harms America more than it helps it?
Heck, we should just give guns away at McDonalds like they give away toys with happy meals. We should just walk around day and night with a holstered gun like it’s Dodge City.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:27 pm
Doggone/GA:
I would rather be “King” just for one day with no right to appeal or future alteration of my decrees ……………..
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:28 pm
mm :
Criminals do.
AmVet
June 28th, 2010
3:28 pm
“I would like to see recruiters set up on public sidewalks (not interfering with pedestrian travel) ringing the campus and see what happens.”
If it happened in Athens, all the pro-war UGA Young Republicans would just cross the street…
Outhouse GoKart
June 28th, 2010
3:29 pm
Nominee KagMan always appears as if someone had just given her a “dirty Sanchez”.
Outhouse GoKart
June 28th, 2010
3:30 pm
mm is just so lost.
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
3:30 pm
Oh fiddly dee dee…I don’t even own a water pistol. Everybody that wants a gun can have one legally. Isn’t that what the Supreme Court said?
My friends don’t seem to see the need of strapped on pistols. Well, no one has put one in the offering plate at church. No shotouts in the parking lot.
PAUL, Kagan seems to be so stuffed with liberal mantra she can hardly blink. I think we need someone on the Supreme Court who can blink!!! It seems that cutting fed funds at Harvard DID ring a bell somewhere in her upper story. And we need her in a court where she has rarely been? NO indeed. Is she from Chicago? There must be some reason that Obama likes her besides her liberal life style. Something!!
SCOUT “MEN must rise up and protect themslves. Yesh! Women too. Equal rights!!
You are married, aren’t you?
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
3:32 pm
mm:
There are more vehicle fatalities in American than firearm fatalities. Check my earlier post. DC had a ban on handguns and they had the highest firearm fatality rate in America. How do you substantiate your comment?
Matti
June 28th, 2010
3:32 pm
Scout, Bless your heart!
Kayaker, in a society where an hour of prime-time entertainment does not begin until some woman is raped and murdered for the “heroes” to show their determined faces in a close-up, and our lives are thought by many to be as disposable as a test tube next to the importance of someone who does not yet exist, and half the men hate their mothers or first wives so much they take it out on every woman who shows them kindness, we have little choice, IMO.
Union
June 28th, 2010
3:32 pm
whats the world coming to? sigh dang that supreme court.. then you have those conservatives rioting and getting arrested at the g-20 conference.. glad ctucker and jbookman spent so much time writing about those violent and dangerous tea party ppl.. thanks for the warning!
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:32 pm
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
“Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.”
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:33 pm
Well, the Democratic senators sure have their talking points down for this hearing. Kagan’s needed to protect the average consumer from the activist, pro-corporate conservative majority on the Court that disregards centuries of precedent and law to craft its rulings to serve corporations.
And the conspiracy kooks have moved from the right to the left -
A private sector employee
June 28th, 2010
3:33 pm
Let’s see, TW:
In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries
In 2000, 1,242 children in the United States died from intentional firearm-related injuries. Homicides of children are most often murders of teens by other teens.
In the United States, 1,236 children (0-18) died from drowning in 2000.
In the United States, 1,946 children (0-18) died in fires in 2000
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children. In the United States in 2000, 6,466 children (0-18) were killed in motor vehicle crashes
In 2000, there were 1,580 suffocations,
In 1997, 225 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes. Motor vehicles were involved in more than 200 of these deaths. In 1998, nearly 362,000 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.
In terms of ACCIDENTAL deaths, drownings, fires, automobiles, bicycles, and suffocation rank higher than firearms, which usually comes in at 12 or 13th on most lists. Once you throw in disease, accidental deaths from firearms falls to about the 30th most numerous cause.
Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags? Clearly, no pools, showers, walking and paper would be safer.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:34 pm
Matti:
Nice dodge !
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2010
3:35 pm
What I found most telling was how quick she was to back off principle when $$$ were at stake.
I don’t claim to know all that much about the history of this thing (which sounds like pretty small potatoes–we’re talking about what amounted to a rather a mild restriction in place for one (1) semester?). But it seems to me that if you get slammed in an 8-0 SCOTUS decision, isn’t it time to “back off”, if only because your job as Dean more or less requires that you do so?
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
3:36 pm
Georgia law was changed in recent weeks to specifically list places guns are not allowed. The change in the law removed the ban on guns at “public gatherings” but said firearms are not allowed on school property, at nuclear plants, in bars without the owner’s permission, in government buildings, at state mental health hospitals or in churches, temples or mosques.
And that just ain’t right. A person needs to have his right to bear arms, of whatever make and model, wherever and whenever he or she wants. It’s just the conservative thing to do. Blessed is the Alpha-Omega series.
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
3:38 pm
West Virginia is the top exporter, per capita, of illegal guns, with 41 traced guns per 100,000 state residents, followed by Mississippi, at 39 guns per 100,000, and South Carolina, at 31. The average national rate is 11 exported guns. Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, and North Carolina round out the top 10 exporting states, per capita, reads the report, titled “The Movement of Illegal Guns In America: The Link between Gun Laws and Interstate Trafficking.”
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28076911
All “I want my Second Amendment rights and they ain’t going to take my gun from me” states.
In terms of absolute numbers for the sources of guns shipped out of state and used in crimes, Georgia is the leader by far.
joan
June 28th, 2010
3:39 pm
I have a gun. I don’t want to use it. But if an occasion comes where it is use the gun or trust in the guy who just broke into my home to be “nice”, I will definitely use it. I sleep a lot better knowing it is there.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:40 pm
sfd
I believe there were a couple of issues and a couple of challenges going on during that time. The argument ’she didn’t respect the military’ seems to me rather weak and misses the point. I’m more interested in the idea she can so definitely take a course of action that every single one of the Court members said was wrong.
But, there are plenty of decisions with but one dissenter. And that’s fine with me.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
3:40 pm
We should ban wars. That would be, clearly, safer… and much more affordable.
AmVet
June 28th, 2010
3:40 pm
Guns don’t kill people. Idiots and scumbags with guns kill people.
And right wing heroes…
On July 27, 2008, a politically motivated fatal shooting took place at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, United States. Motivated by a desire to kill liberals and Democrats, gunman Jim David Adkisson fired a shotgun at members of the congregation during a youth performance of a musical, killing two people and wounding seven others.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:41 pm
joan
“I sleep a lot better knowing it is there.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be all that comfortable with a gun that can be readily accessed and fired if I had grandkiddies staying over -
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
3:43 pm
Define legal gun?
Define illegal gun?
If it’s illegal, it’s a crime. Punishment is in order.
Should legal, law-abiding citizens be punished for the crimes of others?
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:43 pm
TaxPayer:
I agree with your 3:40 post in principle and would add banning all violent crime.
However ……………
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivlized who can.” Author Unknown.
SPQR(laissez Faire)
June 28th, 2010
3:44 pm
They were not activists, they simply correctly say the constitutuion trumps local laws and regulations. Its a great day ..and hell, a democrat died..bonus.
Matti
June 28th, 2010
3:44 pm
Scout, one of my best girlfriends was a Marine. What’s your point? Men aren’t being drafted now, are they? She enlisted same as the rest of the guys in her unit, and there are still men in the military who whine about women being there. Wah wah wah, why don’t you do something useful like fetch some ice cream for yourself and Lt. Dan? ICE CREEEAAAAM!
SPQR(laissez Faire)
June 28th, 2010
3:45 pm
Ok i shouldn’t say that about Byrd, It’s not as giddy as when Teddy died, at least Byrd was a constitutionalist,
stands for decibels
June 28th, 2010
3:46 pm
On July 27, 2008, a politically motivated fatal shooting took place at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, United States.
It’s not especially on-topic, amvet.
That said, everyone should have to read his Adkisson’s suicide note/screed at least once.
http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf
JKL2
June 28th, 2010
3:46 pm
“sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
That could include congress if it actually came to that.
The National Guard also takes an oath to the Governor of the state they belong to. Most loarge oporations wait on federal funding, but do run at the discretion of the governor.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:47 pm
Now Miss Matti:
I said “in time of war” ! I know there is no draft (but men must register).
Have you ever heard of “equal protection under the law”? I guess the Supreme Court didn’t either the day they heard that case.
When are you women going to step up and shed blood for your country in the same numbers as men? Do you realize how far you have to catch up since 1776?
josef nix
June 28th, 2010
3:48 pm
private sector
Nyanh…let’s just ban fire. Then the Cromagnons of both factions can go back to their respective caves and start over…
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
3:48 pm
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight,
then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivlized who can.” Author Unknown.they hire others to do it for them.Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
3:49 pm
Paul writes, “Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be all that comfortable with a gun that can be readily accessed and fired if I had grandkiddies staying over -”
Do you leave your car keys in the ignition all the time? Maybe you keep your gasoline can in the kitchen? Or perhaps, you keep your cleaners, pesticides and insecticides out in the open.
Most legal gun owners are responsible gun owners. Yours is a extremely lame argument.
LJ
June 28th, 2010
3:49 pm
It is impossible, even with the most basic understanding of the philosophies of the founding fathers, to interpret the 2nd Amendment as anything but a protection of the people to raise arms against an oppressive government. That means a right of the individual to stockpile evil rifles and ammunition so that if the government becomes too overpowering the PEOPLE may rise up and remove the regime from power.
Today is most certainly a VICTORY for all Americans that the Supreme Court upheld the original intent of the law. It is, however, a troubling sign of where our country has gone when it takes Supreme Court decision to make ownership of a firearm legal for law-abiding US citizens in certain oppressive cities in the nation.
Even more troubling is the biased reporting. The headlines that read “Supreme Court EXPANDS gun rights” is very telling to the complete apathy towards liberty in the media. The high court did not EXPAND anything- they protected a fundamental RIGHT that is inherent to ALL men and women in a FREE society.
Remember the original intent of the Bill of Rights- it in now way “grants” us our rights- it PROTECTS the fundamental rights of nature that should NEVER be infringed upon by any government.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:49 pm
Okay, I’m confused.
Sen Kerry just praised Kagan and repeated the mantra of how she took over Harvard Law, which was in such bad shape and she did wonderfully magnificent things to turn it around.
‘cept her predecessor had the job for 10 years and is not a Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard Law. Not exactly a new job for a guy who mucked things up.
So then I thought, maybe these Democratic senators have her position confused with the head of Harvard? ‘cept the guy who was in charge then when she was at Law is none other than Sarry Summers, who’s director of the National Economic Council. Which means, if they do have the positions confused, that Pres Obama brought on board a guy who was a muck-up.
Aw heck, maybe it’s just political rhetoric -
But hey, Republican Scott Brown like her!
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
3:51 pm
Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be all that comfortable with a gun that can be readily accessed and fired if I had grandkiddies staying over -
That’s where teaching, discipline and training comes in. I was raised in a house where there were always firearms and they were always loaded. Daddy made sure we always knew where they were and we also knew we would get our asses blistered if we messed with them. He taught me to shoot when I was 5 and I was never allowed to shoot unsupervised until I was well in my teens. Most people who are accidentally shot were never taught proper gun respect and safety. If you were to hand me a gun today and say “It’s not loaded”, I’d immediately check it anyway. First thing I was taught is that all guns are to be treated as loaded.
If somebody doesn’t want a firearm, that’s fine by me but I’ve always had them and I’m always going to.
Jonathan
June 28th, 2010
3:51 pm
When the gov’t and/or liberals can 100% guarantee my and my families safety I will gladly turn all my guns in- until then………
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
3:52 pm
Oh come on folks, I’m too tired to read yur long cut’n'pasties. Don’t you have a short opinion of your own to present? One little dingleberry of delight we can enjoy in all its concise content??
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:52 pm
Yum yum
Joan’s point was she could get to a gun and take out an intruder. I made the explicit point ‘readily accessible.”
You spoke of unsecured gas cans in kitchens and such.
Try again.
Scout
June 28th, 2010
3:55 pm
TaxPayer:
So ban “war” and “crime” (we hire police to fight that) and you won’t have to worry about it.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
3:55 pm
Did someone say “constitutionalist”.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:56 pm
Yum yum
Apparently there are thousands and thousands of gun owners who aren’t all that responsible leading to the deaths of thousands of children.
“HE STATISTICS are astounding. In 1991 alone, 3,247 children and teenagers were murdered and 1,436 committed suicide with guns, and 551 died in unintentional shootings, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Gun mishaps were the fifth-leading cause of accidental death in 1992 for children aged 14 and under, reports the National Safety Council. Firearms are too readily accessible and youngsters are finding them and killing or wounding themselves and others.
These tragedies have become so common that support groups are springing up around the country such as Zero Accidental Killings (ZAK)-Texans for Gun Safety and Gun Responsibility in Every Family (GRIEF). ZAK was created in direct response to the unprecedented and disturbing number of children killed or injured by guns. The founding directors, Dianne Clements and Paula Reyes, are mothers whose sons were casualties of accidental firearm discharges. Both boys were playing with children when shot by another youngster. In each case, the weapons were loaded and left easily accessible.”
From USA Today – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2584_v122/ai_14741862/
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
3:57 pm
So ban “war” and “crime” (we hire police to fight that) and you won’t have to worry about it.
God banned crime so all we need to ban is war.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
3:57 pm
Paul,
My point is regarding personal responsibility. It would be irresponsible to leave your keys in the car all the time, gas in the kitchen or poison out in the open. Same with a weapon.
Come on now; you can grasp the concept. Can’t you?
Paul
June 28th, 2010
3:58 pm
Hillybilly
That’s fine. Each household is different. Seems to me, though, there are some pretty irresponsible people with guns. Add to that kids they may see once in a blue moon and…. lousy odds, it seems to me.
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
3:58 pm
LJ
June 28th, 2010
3:49 pm
It is impossible, even with the most basic understanding of the philosophies of the founding fathers, to interpret the 2nd Amendment as anything but a protection of the people to raise arms against an oppressive government.
Nope. Historical context is everything. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution and its amendments, there were no national armies intended to stand. Militias were the only way states could defend themselves from invaders. It was a militia, not a national army, that fought the British in Massachusetts. The idea of a militia as a defense against a national government was unthinkable. It was only in the 1850s that the South came up with that nonsense. Your Confederate forbears would no doubt be delighted that you are carrying on their thinking.
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
3:59 pm
Well you progressive liberals just go out in the streets rioting and demonstrating and set someone’s car on fire now! You may receive fire without a flame. I love it. Liberals shot demonstrating while burning cars, throwing punches, and threating voters with bats. The conservatives stood by and witnessed the whole thing.
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
3:59 pm
Hey Paul, you got it!
Kerry=Democratic senators=Kagan=zeroes=muck it up=Obama’s lil’ mudhen for Supreme Court nestings.