Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


DC gun ban overturned

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 13:52:55 PM MDT


It's official: the DC hand gun ban has been struck down, and the SCOTUS has affirmed that individual gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment. (The opinion - pdf.)

I seriously doubt that anyone reading this blog needs a recap of what was at stake, but in short the idea that firearms should be limited to "well regulated militias" has effectively ceased to be a constitutional argument.

That said, the Heller decision still left gray areas. The SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein:

Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense.  The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill.  And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks.  The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.

The decision also strikes down disassembly laws, but Basically the SCOTUS has upheld the status quo. The decision really doesn't limit or force change on the way most Americans think about guns.

And honestly this decision was no big surprise. It even went further than expected.

Of course, that doesn't mean good ol' Dennis Rehberg isn't mopping his brow in relief that he won't have to back down from his bold secessionist talk. Just a little reminder about our Representative's courage when confronted with authority:

Remember, this group's ringleader - Rehberg - has folded each and every time in the face of government authority when civil liberties have been on the line. Patriot Act. Real ID. Torture. Habeas corpus. Domestic spying. Warrantless wiretapping. He supports waging war without a declaration from Congress, and the theory of the unitary executive. In short, his stance on civil liberties was succinctly expressed by our state's Republicans' choice for president:

"Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."

I just wish our representatives were as eager to talk trash over our other constitutionally-guaranteed rights, like those found in the Fourth Amendment, say.

Jay Stevens :: DC gun ban overturned
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Kennedy must feel so conflicted (0.00 / 0)
They are making the poor guy write all the big ones these days.  He seems alternately discouraged and hopeful.  He appears to have taken the entire weight of making the SCOTUS responsive to public opinion on himself, which doesn't leave much room for him to say how he really feels, perhaps.  SCOTUS is so amazingly polarized right now.  But stark contrast necessitates bright light on things that have for so long been shrouded in code-speak, IMO.  I like your comments about Rehberg's selective defense of civil liberties.  At least after Boumdiene they have to tell us what we are charged with before prying the gun from our cold dead hands.  

The BUSHISTAs have now moved civilian protection (0.00 / 0)
from a societal responsibility back to being just one more concern for strong, self-reliant individuals.
Frederick Turner would be chagrined...  

I don't have any problem (0.00 / 0)
with people owning guns...but I do have some problem with the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted.

It is my understanding that the 2nd amendment is a protection against standing armies...it is a "check" against the federal government maintaining a standing army to suppress its citizens...it is my understanding that it is suggesting that in a time of peace we have no standing army...

Now, personally, I think that would be a great idea! If we did not have to maintain a 700 billion dollar a year military we would be much richer for it...maybe one day we can live on the strength of our democratic ideals instead of protecting capitalism at every corner of the world?


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox