Friday, June 27, 2008

Justice Scalia Writes Supreme Court Opinion Striking Down Washington D.C. Ban on Handguns


While North Korea has blown up its nuclear power plants cooling stack, the U.S. Supreme Court has blown up Washington D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision overturns D.C.'s handgun ban. The ruling reinforced the Second Amendment ratified in 1791. In 1939, our Supreme Court declared, "We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear" arms. But this historic 2008 ruling hods for the first time that the Constitution confers an individual right to gun ownership. According to Justice Scalia, the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."


While gun advocates danced in the street in Washington, D.C., in Chicago they filed suit to overturn Chicago's ban on hand guns. Major Dailey publicly expressed his displeasure with the Court's ruling on the D.C. law. He publicly questioned whether this will lead to going back to a time that disputes were settled on the streets with guns. Open up your eyes major, the Chicago law has not taken guns out of the hands of criminals or gang members. Quite simply, criminals who break the law most likely break hand gun laws too...

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh contrare. If it is harder for everyone to get guns, there will be less accidental shootings. If someone breaks into your house, let them have what they want and maybe you won't get hurt. While a criminal may still have a gun, he is less likely to be trigger happy if he doesn't think the home owner may have a gun. A lot of times "suspects" shoot because they think the home owner reached for a gun, etc.

Jaye

Anonymous said...

Jaye, you are living in fantacy land. While I want what you are smoking, if someone breaks into my home, I intend to show them the door by way of stretcher.


Pete

Joel A. Brodsky said...

There were 2 big decisions by Scalia this week. The 2nd amendment case, Heller, simply states that the 2nd amendment stands for the proposition that a citizen can possess those type of weapons traditionally possessed by people at the time of the founding of the nation, such as rifles and handguns. A person cannot be denied a license to own a handgun or rifle and keep it at his home or place of business.
The other case is Giles v. California. In Giles Scalia held that the confrontation clause of the constitution requires that a witness against a defendant be present to testify, or his evidence cannot be heard by the jury. No more “voice from the grave” evidence. The only exception is if the state can prove that defendant killed the witness for the specific purpose of keeping the witness from testifying about the crime the defendant is being tried for. Since in a murder case the victim does not become a witness to the murder until he is dead, the pre-crime statements of the witness (ie a letter that states “______ is going to kill me”) cannot be introduced into evidence.
It seems to me that Scalia is saying that the Constitution says what it says, and that we are bound to follow its plain language, whether or not we agree. At the end of his opinion in Heller he says that the policies of the founding fathers for the 2nd amendment may be outdated, but not following the constitution is not the way to deal with that issue. He suggested that there are other options to deal with outdated constitutional ideals, (i.e. amendment). He is right.

Anonymous said...

This should exclude any of the dead wives alleged testimony against D.P., correct?

Ms Calabaza said...

My local news is Washington DC news. If you heard what goes on there every night you would want to be able to defend yourself in your own home, methinks. The famous gun ban never stopped the bad guys from having guns and using them.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the whole idea of gun control has always struck me as somewhat fanciful…to say the least. How is it that a rapist, bank robber, murder, _________ (fill in the blank) is going to break all the other laws but follow the one on gun control? Give me a break!

And “let them have what they want and maybe you won't get hurt”? What the blind, cowardly….WTF?!?!....is that? Stand, deliver swift injury and death to the son-of-a-home-invading coward!

Sorry, about yelling and cussing…not my normal style…but damn it, fight back. Whatever the cost, whatever the situation, fight back! Fight back! Kill him! He does not fear or respect the law, so he must be taught to fear you.

Kill him!


L.S.

Anonymous said...

L.S. If someone takes your cloak, offer him your shirt as well...

Ok. Biblical passage more appropriate for your argument might be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...

J.J.

Anonymous said...

I am with L.S. on this one!


Jack

Anonymous said...

Pull da trigger brodder...


I wood!