Second Amendment
I'm not gloating....
Monday, July 07, 2008
...quite the opposite, in fact.
A client sent me this link to the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department's FAQ regarding handgun ownership. As you know, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Heller case struck down the handgun ban in DC. However, it did not address the ban on semiautomatic handguns in the District, which still stands.
The result is that the only handgun DC residents will be allowed to own is a revolver.
As you are no doubt already aware, I'm a big fan of revolvers. I'm on record as saying that there is no job a good revolver can't do; I originated the phrase "the world isn't flat, your gun shouldn't be either." I believe that owning a revolver displays innate good sense and good taste, and an appreciation of the finer things in life.
Still, people shouldn't be forced to own one by limiting their freedom to choose something else.
It's great that the District's residents may now own a handgun; it's not so great that they won't get a choice in what kind of handgun. I'm hoping that someone will take the District back to court and have that part of their ineffective laws struck down. At that point, residents will be able to decide for themselves what they'd like to own.
If you're in DC, I support your right to decide for yourself which to own: a beautiful, graceful, efficient revolver - or an ugly, ungainly, unreliable, ill-fitting, bottom-feeding, ground littering, reciprocating monstrosity.
(Not that I'm biased, you understand!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
BREAKING NEWS: DC v. Heller decision affirmed!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just announced their decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case: the lower court decision, striking down the onerous firearms laws in Washington, D.C., has been upheld.
The Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Hooray! On the downside, there is only a single majority opinion and at least two dissenting, so it's not a slam-dunk. Still, it's good news.
UPDATE: The full text of the opinion is available at this link. (Note: it's a .pdf file, not a webpage.) Quote from the decision: " possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
You will see this phrase often: "traditional lawful purpose."
-=[ Grant ]=-
Supreme Court update
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce their decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case tomorrow morning, commencing at 10:am EDT. The best place to follow their announcement is the SCOTUS Blog, which has live coverage of every Court decision.
Regardless of which direction the Court takes, tomorrow will be groundbreaking in the history of the Second Amendment.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A funny thing happened on the way to the Supreme Court
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
From Kim du Toit comes this gem.
Heh.
***
Everyone with access to a keyboard is blogging about Heller v. D.C. today. The level of insight varies from brilliant to "yesterday I couldn't spell blogger, today I iz one."
Lest I be thought in the latter category, I will refrain from commenting on the proceedings. I will, however, leave you with this quote from Gun Law News:
That, folks, is the only certainty in this whole case!No matter what the outcome from the Supreme Court, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center will declare victory. Then they will initiate fund raising based upon their "victory".
-=[ Grant ]=-
In case you haven't heard
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Supreme Court of the
United States has agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v.
Heller (the case is better known as
Parker v. District of Columbia, wherein five other D.C. residents
seek to join Mr. Heller's suit. Heller, then, is the base decision
that we are most concerned with.)
There is much hand-wringing about this case. A certain segment of the firearms fraternity (I'll call them the Not Ready Alliance, or "NRA" for short) doesn't want the case to be heard, because "we might lose, and then what will happen?!?" The other side, which I'll call "Gung-ho Order of Allegiance" ("GOA", in case you don't get the joke) is proclaiming "this is GREAT! Now we'll get rid of all those unconstitutional laws all over the country! Let's go get 'em!"
My position? Simple: sooner or later, the SCOTUS is going to hear a Second Amendment case. That much is sure. It might as well be this one.
From my standpoint, it's best if they hear Heller and not something else. Why? Because we are unlikely to find another case anytime soon that has a better chance of coming out on "our side." It is as close as to a "slam dunk" as we will probably ever see, and I'd rather they look at Heller than some other, less solid, case.
What's more, this court is probably the best relative to individual rights that we'll have in a long time. Don't get me wrong: this court is no friend of the Constitution, and has shown so time and again, but it's about as good as has existed in my lifetime.
(Given the field of likely Presidential nominees - of either party - they aren't going to get any better, either. Only one candidate holds out hope of real change in this matter, and unfortunately he's not getting a lot of support from the "gun culture." More's the pity.)
Again, it's not about the downside if we lose or the upside if we win; it's about timing. This battle has always been inevitable, and the smart warrior chooses to engage when he is strongest and his opponents are weakest. For us, that is now.
Let the chips fall where they may.
-=[ Grant ]=-
There is much hand-wringing about this case. A certain segment of the firearms fraternity (I'll call them the Not Ready Alliance, or "NRA" for short) doesn't want the case to be heard, because "we might lose, and then what will happen?!?" The other side, which I'll call "Gung-ho Order of Allegiance" ("GOA", in case you don't get the joke) is proclaiming "this is GREAT! Now we'll get rid of all those unconstitutional laws all over the country! Let's go get 'em!"
My position? Simple: sooner or later, the SCOTUS is going to hear a Second Amendment case. That much is sure. It might as well be this one.
From my standpoint, it's best if they hear Heller and not something else. Why? Because we are unlikely to find another case anytime soon that has a better chance of coming out on "our side." It is as close as to a "slam dunk" as we will probably ever see, and I'd rather they look at Heller than some other, less solid, case.
What's more, this court is probably the best relative to individual rights that we'll have in a long time. Don't get me wrong: this court is no friend of the Constitution, and has shown so time and again, but it's about as good as has existed in my lifetime.
(Given the field of likely Presidential nominees - of either party - they aren't going to get any better, either. Only one candidate holds out hope of real change in this matter, and unfortunately he's not getting a lot of support from the "gun culture." More's the pity.)
Again, it's not about the downside if we lose or the upside if we win; it's about timing. This battle has always been inevitable, and the smart warrior chooses to engage when he is strongest and his opponents are weakest. For us, that is now.
Let the chips fall where they may.
-=[ Grant ]=-