Hello, Chicago!
By Mitch Berg
I’d love to be at the federal building in Chicago right now.
I wonder how many potential handgun owners are bum-rushing the court administrators right now, filing suits against Chicago’s gun ban (even more draconian than the DC ban which Heller euthanized this morning)?
From Page 57 of Scalia’s opinion:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
Even more? Michelle Malkin notes:
And it’s not just that self-defense is a subsidiary right to the common defense, it’s (page 26) “the central component of the right itself.”
And not just self-defense in the sense of immediate threat to life: it’s for the defense of life, family, and property (p.54):
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
In other words, Chicago – to paraphrase old friend and frequent commenter Angryclown – your gun ban ain’t worth dicta.
UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long!
Yaaay, NRA!
June 26th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It’s a beautiful day. Not quite the decision I’d dreamed of, but it’s a great start.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Fifteen minutes. I wonder what’s taking the New Yorkers so long; they may not file until tomorrow.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The AP article isn’t bad, but it includes this line straight-faced:
“In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Dude, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature! That’s EXACTLY what the framers were doing – they were trying to prevent the new government they were creating from interfering with citizens’ God-given, pre-existing, fundamental human rights, specifically including the right to use weapons AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT when necessary. The framers would have known what that meant – they just finished fighting a long, bloody war against their former government, the King of England – and they intentionally made the federal government’s powers few and individual persons’ liberties large.
This isn’t Scalia having some right-wing gun-nut centuries-late brain fever. Read the Declaration of Independence. It lays out the intellectual framework for why oppressed people have the right, even the DUTY, to overthrow an oppressive government; yes, using force, if needed.
The Court’s analysis today is exactly in line with the thinking of the people who wrote the Constitution. If things have changed so much that their ideas no longer make sense, we can amend the Constitution. Until then, the majority got it exactly right and Justice Stevens is exactly wrong.
.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
From Nate:
“Dude, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”
Best
Line
Evah!
June 27th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Hey, nice to see you gun nuts rushing to the courts to overturn laws passed by popularly elected, local legislatures.
If you’re worried about appearing completely unprincipled, fear not. The rest of us already knew that.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yes, we’re rushing to overturn unconstitutional laws. Duh.
If that’s unprincipled in your book, may I suggest getting yourself a good dictionary to learn what the word means? I dare suggest you’re compensating for a lack of something–I can’t speak for what is or is not in your pants, but between the ears, I’m sure we could find some resonance.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hey, nice to see you gun nuts rushing to the courts to overturn laws passed by popularly elected, local legislatures.
So the Fourteenth Amendment – to say nothing of the Emancipation Proclamation – must really piss you off?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Not Angryclown, Mitch. But you wingnuts profess to believe in judicial restraint. Not so much today, eh?
June 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Jeez angryclown, which side of this horse are you going to ride?