Handgun Hubris!
So Adrian Fenty’s announced that the District will be appealing the federal court decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban to the Supreme Court.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Have you been reading the papers, your honor? You don’t have to be Linda Greenhouse to realize this court will care for the sovereignty of the District about as much as it does for the sovereignty of high-school students to spout vaguely drug-related nonsense.
Not sure who the constitutional-law genius was who had the mayor’s ear on this one. The macho we-gotta-stand-up-for-our-rights talk is admirable, but even Clarence Darrow wouldn’t take this case to a court where it not only probably won’t win, but threatens to impose bad law on the rest of the country, too.
I can see it now, though: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, concurring, opt for an overreaching treatise establishing once and for all an individual right to bear arms, while Roberts and Kennedy somehow find a way to make the decision apply only to nonstate districts, possessions, and territories.
You really want to screw Guam like that, Adrian?
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: July 17th, 2007SayUncle » Parker to the court: The pants shitting hysterics
8:17 am[...] Mike DeBonis: Have you been reading the papers, your honor? You don’t have to be Linda Greenhouse to realize this court will care for the sovereignty of the District about as much as it does for the sovereignty of high-school students to spout vaguely drug-related nonsense. [...]
1:10 pm
I, too, regret the Mayor’s decision to appeal the decision, but only because doing so only delays the day when District residents are able to enjoy the Second Amendment right to protect themselves in their homes. Honoring the people’s Constitutional rights and allowing them to defend themselves (which even a cat or dog has a right to do) is good law — in the District, Guam, or anywhere else.
While the Roberts Court is likely to rule against the Mayor in upholding the lower court’s decision, there is always the possibility that the Court will render an appalling and ill-considered opinion that flies in the face of all logic and the original intent of the Founding Fathers, much as the Court did (with a slightly different lineup) in Kelo v. City of New London. You gun-banners might still have a chance.
1:27 pm
Sadly, many cats are deprived of their constitutional right to self-defense when they are de-clawed. That’s why we in the District need gun-control legislation with some serious teeth!
4:11 pm
I believe that DC’s handgun ban has been a failure and the some 3,000 people who have died inside DC by a handgun shows how much of a failure it has been.
1:08 am
Newsflash Rees: No one care WHAT you think, you nutcase.
3:45 am
Mayor Fenty:
Just what part of “… shall not be infringed.” can’t you understand?
7:10 am
If you want state and local governments to be allowed to infringe Constitutional Rights, the country shouldn’t have ratified the 14th Amendment. What, you think the Constitution is only to protect rights that _you_ like?
8:32 am
Newsflash Jim: No one gives a rats arse what you have to say you freedom hating anti-american POS wackbag!!!!
9:29 am
“…to realize this court will care for the sovereignty of the District about as much as it does for the sovereignty of high-school…”
I don’t think this is a newsflash, but Washington DC is not a sovereign nation. The laws governing the city must comply with the US Constitution, there is just no state constitution to adhere to in this case. The Constitution is in place, not only to specify what the federal government has the power to do, but also to state what rights the federal, state, and local laws cannot infringe upon.
Many will say that the correct ruling in this case will allow people to keep nuclear arms and such, but that’s not the case. The lower court ruling only states that the handgun ban and safe storage laws violate the 2nd Amendment. It’s a start at least.
My prediction is that the Supreme Court will not hear the case.
9:31 am
From the perspective of those who care more about reducing occupational hazards for burglars than about giving any real effect to the Bill of Rights, I suppose this appeal does indeed threaten to impose “bad” law on the rest of the country, or at least on the handful of cties that take their gun control to the same extreme that DC does. But I can hardly fault Fenty for appealing the decision. He’s the mayor of DC, not the mayor of the national gun control movement. Why on earth would he want to sacrifice his own precious gun ban just so Chicago can keep theirs?
9:50 am
“…impose bad law…”
So, the Bill of Rights is bad law, eh? Well, at least we know where you stand, you socialist cretin!
11:20 am
Poor Lynn. New here, and missed the running joke entirely. Typical.
11:58 am
DC is the poster child for proof that gun control does not work. Except of course, do disarm the law abiding citizens as a means of subjugation.
And it is also the poster child for the generalization that liberals only care about the rights of government not the rights of individuals.
12:11 pm
Jim, You wouldn’t even know what the word “typical” means. And your jokes are not funny. IDIOT
1:04 pm
I don’t see how a REAL man can fail to support the right to keep and bear arms. Let’s all put the 2nd Amendment FIRST!
7:28 pm
Fenty has to appeal it if the assumption that his constituency supports the ban (which I doubt.) I assume he wants to be re-elected. If he caves in he loses. If he appeals and loses…at least he tried.
Bad law on the rest of the country? A great portion of the country is already alot freer than DC and Chicago. The states with liberal gun laws will remain free regardless of the decision. The states like IL, WI, NY, CA are the ones that may ultimately pay the price of a Parker win in SCOTUS. I, for one, am looking for that day.
For the gun rights crowd, its a push if Parker loses and a win if Parker wins.
7:34 pm
No matter what the 2nd amendments says, apparently D.C. either never read it, or does not understand it at all. Nor have they learned much from 31 years of denying District citizens the right to defend themselves in their own homes. I look forward to D.C. people being able to effectively defend themselves for the first time in far too long. After misrepresenting its case to the Supreme Court, the Court has the opportunity to more precisely define the 2nd and right a terrible wrong. There is no case, fire, flood, hurricane and so forth that ever justify removing firearms from law-abiding people, ever. How can anyone with a brain between their ears justify disarming its people? Even Ghandi regretted the same and said so.