UPDATE: Supreme Court to Rule on Handgun Ban in D.C. w/Poll

The Supreme Court of the United States of America will be issuing a ruling from the bench today regarding a 32 year old law that bans handguns in Washington, District of Columbia.  

Yesterday, John Roberts & the Supremes issued a ruling regarding Capitol Punishment where they found, once again by the magic number of 5 – 4, that Capitol Punishment was only to be used in cases of murder and not for cases of rape or rape of a child.

Of course, the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse (John Robert, Clarence Thomas, Vlad Scalia and Samuel Alito) all wanted to expand the ruling regarding Capitol Punishment but were held at bay by the more thoughtful members of the Supreme’s.

Much Wingnut gnashing of the teeth, pulling of the hair and wailing of the in-lockstep voice of the Right Wing could be seen and heard directly after this ruling.  

I must admit, I do get a slight kick out of watching and listening to the Right Wing extremists when they get told they can’t go forward and do what they want to do!  It’s like witnessing a mass group of 5 year olds being told they have to take a nap before they can eat their cupcakes!  Quite noisy and somehow hilarious!

From BBCNews:

The US Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling shortly that could have a far-reaching effect on gun control laws in the United States.

The nine justices have been considering whether a 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington DC is unconstitutional.

It is the first time in nearly 70 years that Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, set out in the US Constitution, has been considered by the court.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitution has raged for years.

Authorities in Washington DC, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the US, are challenging an appeal court’s ruling that the ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

Since 1976, the private possession of handguns has been prohibited in the nation’s capital, while rifles or shotguns are required to be locked or dismantled.

In March last year, a federal appeals court agreed with Mr Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and that the DC ban was unconstitutional.

The city appealed against that ruling, with the case going to the Supreme Court.

I’m going to go out on a limb here.  No, please allow me to set myself up for this one.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse (referred to as FH in the poll below) will ALL come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment, whose very language states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed“, doesn’t mean that States or local governmental bodies have any jurisdiction over whether handguns can be banned or not.  

We call this “legislating from the bench”, a situation that the Right Wing extremists also gnash their teeth and pull their hair over, but only if they feel it is a LIBRUL opinion from the bench.

Strict Constructionalists my Ass!

As to what the other five Justices opinions will be, I’m just not sure.

However, I would hope that you might take the time to answer in the poll below what you think will happen, and if you would like to give more detail in the comments, please feel free to do so.

The justices could now issue a landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The debate is centred on whether the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects an individual’s right to possess guns, or simply a collective right for an armed militia.

It will be interesting to see how many of the Supreme’s go along with the Four Horsemen and decide that “legislating from the bench” as opposed to reading and literally intrepreting the words of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment is appropos.

UPDATE

Well, they were quick to announce this one.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority. The FH stuck together again with Justice Kennedy joining them!  Say hello to Right Wing legislating from the bench…..

Is the Pony/Pie/Hide rating system too cutsie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

10 comments

Skip to comment form

    • brobin on June 26, 2008 at 4:32 pm
      Author

    I’m still willing to bet that the FH of the Apocolypse stick together once again.

  1. because i’m waiting for the wingnuts to suddenly capitulate on gun ownership and take it away…

    i think the 2nd amendment is clear: citizens have the right to bear arms. the militias were groups of citizens banded together to protect themselves from the excesses of gov’t

    read James Madison… he said what made US different as a country is that it didn’t take guns away from its citizens. primary source. primary writer. it’s clear what the intent was.

    Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

    To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[28]

    • brobin on June 26, 2008 at 5:22 pm
      Author

    problem with this ruling, on a gut level basis, whereas the wingers would have gone all-out ballistic once again if they didn’t get what they wanted.

    There is such a divide between us and the way we think.  Back to your discussion in your essay today.  While we on the progressive side of things tend to say what we feel as individuals, the right wingers tend to band together as a unit and appoint someone to speak for them.

    Less consequences for the individual that way, I suppose…

  2. I have no idea if he has any history on this issue or whether he’s ever given any hints about it. I’d say it looks like it all comes down to his vote.

  3. I don’t know what else to say after SCOTUS’s 5-4 decision. Not that DC was safe city to begin with, but I wonder what it will be like now. Obviously homicide rates will go up and more John Muhammeds and Lee Malveuxs will be popping up around the area (no thanks to the Iraqi occupation and skyrocketing PTSD cases).

    These are weird times we’re living in. I just hope today’s ruling doesn’t reflect where American culture is headed.

    ***THIS JUST IN***

    The Washington DC Chamber of Commerce has begun a new ad campaign aimed (no pun intended) to attract more tourism. Docudharma has obtained an unreleased TV commercial, scheduled to run on most Washington, DC networks. Have a look.

Comments have been disabled.