This Mark Murray piece seems to make a lot of sense:
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment elevated an issue — guns — that hadn’t received that much attention until now. Remembering that the subject hurt Al Gore in 2000 and somewhat damaged Kerry’s image in 2004 (after his widely panned hunting excursion) will guns also be a problem for Obama? On the one hand, many of the swing states (actually check that, EVERY swing state) are places where the electorate tends to have pro-gun views and where the Mike Bloomberg position wouldn’t fly. On the other hand, as some have pointed out today, the Supreme Court ruling may actually help Obama because Republicans might no longer be able to argue that Democrats want to take your guns away. “The Supreme Court has said you can’t do that,” Democratic pollster Geoff Garin told the Washington Post.
Given that ownership of guns as an issue has been taken off the table by the Supreme Court, and that Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court wrote the majority report and affirmed almost every bit of gun control legislation short of outright bans in his opinion, it sure would seem that it is going to take some real creativity on the part of Republicans to get any traction on the issue of guns anymore. The only thing they could probably do is to lurch rightward, but then they run the risk of alienating the middle, who I presume favor many common sense approaches to gun control (not allowing them in bars, not allowing felons to own guns, etc.).
At any rate, this could be a major loss for Republicans in states like West Virginia, where the gun issue went a long way to defeating Al Gore. SCOTUSBLOG has a related discussion of the future of gun control here.\
Another piece on the same issue here.
It’s good to see another 5-4 decision by the high court. In my opinion, whether you lean to the left or the right, parity on the Supreme Court is crucial to maintaining balance in the government.
While I believe that SCOTUS made the right decision in this case, I have to agree with you that it won’t make a bit of difference. Their finding simply states that it’s unconstitutional to have a complete ban on gun ownership. It doesn’t address the issue of gun control. If the District of Columbia doesn’t want you to have a gun, all they have to due is make the licensure process so onerous that it will ensure that no one can meet the criteria.
Interesting. The Supreme Court may well have handed the Democrats a victory in taking the gun issue off the table, but Scalia’s eye was also on the larger issue of attempting to establish his view of “originalism” and text-focused interpretation of the Constitution. His majority opinion is actually quite disjointed, and he could have reversed the D.C. gun ban without all the intellectual contortions. But he wanted to establish the template to be used for future conservative court opinions.
And of course, the opinion is also a shout-out to the voters: “If you want more of this, vote for McCain.”
This seems self-contradictory to me. If the constitutionality of gun control is affirmed, then the issue of gun control is very much on the table. And for anyone truly invested in the issue, perhaps more than ever. As your post yesterday suggested, it’s now officially on with respect to what the rubber-meets-the-road boundaries are on the specific types of protected weapons, the right to carry, right to conceal, licensing, registration, equal protection as to selectively issuing permits, etc. I reckon that ownership is blood in the water to the NRA; we’re about to see a feeding frenzy.
Not to be cynical, but it’s not as if the supreme court making a decisive ruling on an individual right that’s unclear in the constitution has resulted in taking it off the table during elections. After all, now you need to stop the other side from being elected to keep the court tilted toward your side to prevent overturning.
If voters were rational, your argument would be unassailable.
But the main political impact of the decision will just be to increase the salience of gun issues.
People who care passionately about that issue are predisposed to hate and fear Democrats. So this is bad for America. How bad, I don’t really know.
Just Some Fuckhead
Has Obama put on the cammies and bright orange hat with ear flaps yet for a shooting excursion into the woods with similarly attired manly men? Because that’s about the only thing that will hurt him “on guns”.
The gun debate hasn’t been on the table in six or seven years. No one gives a damn about gun control when the DOW just lost 1000 points, gas is heading for $5 / gallon, and we’ve got more important things to talk about like government torture and spying.
The government can already listen to your phone calls, throw you in jail for no stated reason, and seize your land with Eminent Domain. But you can keep your guns. Whoopie.
I’m betting the flood victims in Missouri and Indiana are really glad for that.
If McCain plays this right, he can limit himself to losing only about 35 states. Luckily, he has shown himself more than able to turn almost any news story into a parable about his service to the country. So I’m sure he will make the most of this one, too.
On another note, is it just me, or does Antonin Scalia look like a mass murdere?
What this misses, I think, is the notion that — according to a certain view — it’s always been the case that the gun-grabbers were going to confiscate guns illegally — the 2nd Amendment has always been an individual right. The fact that the Supreme Court has said that gun bans are illegal changes nothing. The same people fear that the liberals will take their guns away the minute they get the chance. That’s why, for example, they must never be registered. Now more than ever, in fact.
You misspelt merde.
It’s already a ban that is impossible to enforce. D.C. is not Hawaii. It’s a tiny area surrounded by states in which gun purchase and possession is legal. There are a lot of guns in D.C.
He remains black.
Just Some Fuckhead
Fixed. Here in Virginia it’s nearly impossible to rob a convenience store without a gun. And don’t get me started on gangbanging.
Precisely. Facts and reality and stuff have only a tangential relationship with campaigns and with voting. This decision isn’t going to eliminate the “OMG, Teh Demmykratz r in ur hous, taking away ur gunz!” line. If anything, it will likely amplify it by rolling it in with the ever-popular “activist judge!” line:
“Barack Obama will nominate ACTIVIST JUDGES who will TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!”
Ah, the joys of politics. If you resolve (win or lose) an issue, at least it can’t be used as a wedge easily in the election.
Unless you double down, but that is often shooting yourself in the foot.
Wayne LaPierre was on Hardball last night debating someone from the Brady Campaign. He said he was happy about the bill, but he actually seemed really pissed off. The USSC put a dent in the purpose of the NRA’s existence yesterday.
The NRA can go after bans in Illinois and elsewhere, but don’t be surprised if those jurisdictions change the NRA-offending law on their own. It will be funny if the NRA transforms into a pro-ordinance organization at this point and starts advocating for ownership of .50 caliber machine guns and land mines.
So I think John’s analysis is right.
Yeah, on a second reading, I see that this is more the point of the post. I predict, however, that they will double down and that it will probably be a net gain for McCain, if anything. The right will eat it up, and the middle will shrug until something actually happens.
Another prediction: Getting closer to the ideal of having all black males within the Heller-approved felon exception to the 2nd Amendment will be moved up to the front burner of local law enforcement.
Does anyone really believe that obtaining an illegal handgun is any more difficult than buying opiates, cocaine, or high power weed? Geesh!
As a homeowner that has had the sanctity of his home twice invaded, and having the police come (after waiting 15-20 minutes) and then have me answer multipage forms as if I was the perpetrator, all I’ll say is that I am presently very well armed. Now, if a criminal comes to my home he/she is warned that they are taking their chances. I’ll probably take off their right leg first with my 10 guage mag. then make the phone call. The BEST way to stop crime is via a well armed populace. I also carry concealed when I go to the mall or other “public” places.
I’m done fucking around with the criminal assholes. I hope more law abiding citizens are as well.
According to the Unitary Executive Theory, the President can take your guns and shove them up your ass.
b. hussein canuckistani
I agree. That’s why crime is so low in cities where there are lots of guns.
The majority of the country favors gun ownership. The vast majority of the country also favors reasonable restrictions such as waiting periods and preventing the mentally ill and convicted felons from owning guns. Source
If the GOP goes hard line on this issue it will bite them in the ass. A hardline stance on unlimited, unregulated gun ownership plays really poorly in the suburbs. The best they can hope to do is try to paint Obama as a hypocrite flip flopper on the issue. I doubt that’ll be enough to fundamentally change the dynamics of the race.
Unless I’m mistaken (which I may well be), the NRA has opposed passage of bills in some states making it illegal to carry a gun into a bar. There seems to be wide variance in what “commmon sense” means.
Face it. We ALREADY have unregulated gun ownership.
Law abiding citizens go through the registry and licensing hoops. Criminals don’t.
At this point in our “civilizaton”, attempts to regulate ownership of firearms is an exercise in futility.
As I’ve said prviously, the best way to stop crime is to have a well armed populace. The cops aren’t going to come to your rescue until after they’ve finished their donut and coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts. Arm yourself. Shoot quickly and accurately. Fight crime. Fill out the forms later.
Yeah, it would sure seem that way…until you remember you are living in the United States of America, which is just crawling with Americans, nearly half of whom could care less what the facts are. All they know is that Hillary Clinton is coming for their guns, and no Supreme Court is ever gonna tell ’em otherwise.
…when have the Republicans ever had the slightest interest in the facts of something. Mike Dukakis loved rapists. Al Gore was a sociopathic liar. John Kerry was a lying two-faced coward.
And Barack HUSSEIN Obama only wants the blacks to have guns…just wait for it.
Wayne LaPierre is pissed off because the NRA missed the boat.
They were actively opposed to bringing this case to the Supreme Court, and played no role in it, because they were afraid of a verdict that definitively repudiated the individual rights theory.
And now, the NRA has relegated itself to the sidelines, of its own accord, in the most important gun control case in American history.
A lot of the gun nut base were pissed off at the NRA for their hesitancy.
You might want to compare crime figures between countries with large gun ownership on one side and stict gun laws on the other. Murder rates in the US are at least 150% higher than in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or Australia.
I don’t give a shit about the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or Austrailia. I care about my OWN safety in MY own house right here in the USA. I have no intention of murdering anyone.
Your premise is specious.
Murder and self defense are totally different.
Silly liberals. Figures are for fools. The best way to stop aids is to tell people to quit having sex. The best economy is the one in which businesses regulate themselves. The best way to fight them over there is to spy on us over here.
Unless someone breaks into your home ,disarms you and kills you with your own self defense gun
Mark Izzo wrote,
It’s balance when the five are far-right nutjobs, and the 4 are pretty much centrists?
Why losing this year wouldn’t be the end. Overturning Roe would toss a whole lot of folks back to the Dems and certainly get a lot of people off their asses in the states where it will be banned.
God forbid we actually have legislatures do any real representation.
Like my mom always said, all they’ve got is god, guns and abortion.
That’s really ironic. The NRA sat out of the most important case for proponents of an individual’s right to own a gun in American history.
Regardless, this decision affirmed and galvanized the core belief of the NRA. I suspect they will have some sort of gala retirement celebration and fold.
1) Someone breaks into my home.
2) Disarms me? UH…no.
3) Kills me? UH…no again.
Methinks you missed the point of exactly why I am armed and willing to defend myself. The perpetrator that invades my home might wish to discuss this matter with me, but alas, after #1, it just might be too late.
Hey! I was right about irrationality of voters, and I can prove it by quoting SCIENCE:
The Moar You Know
I suspect this isn’t going to work out well for the GOP.
Case in point: The NRA today is launching a series of lawsuits, one of which is here in California, aimed at overturning the ban on residents of public housing projects owning guns.
You read that right. Let me spell that out in Republicanese:
Talk about low-hanging fruit. Fellow Dems, it ain’t gonna take much to win this election, but we gotta stop being stupid and take advantage where we can. This is a place where we can take advantage.
It sure is lucky that this conservative Supreme Court has not ruled against abortion, then the Republicans would really be screwed.
The Moar You Know
Christ, vincentz, I hope you’ve taken a Gunsite course or some equivalent combat course or you’re going to get some people killed, and probably not the ones who you want to.
Also, refer to this site on buckshot penetration, The Box O’ Truth. You go blowing off a ten-gauge (where do you even find one of those these days?) with some 00 or 000 and you’re gonna kill family or neighbors.
I predict that in four years, the increase in the Washington DC murder rate will be blamed on President Obama.
Jesus. Let’s not, shall we?
Not to worry.
I’ve handled firearms since I was 8 years old.
I have two 10 ga. mags. The semi holds five 3 1/2 shells.
It’s my primary choice for gobbler huntin’, and it can reach out and touch someone at 80 yds. with size 4 copper plated.
My 22-250 is sighted for 400 yds with a 38X scope. You wouldn’t believe what it does to a woodchuck’s head. At 4,000 fps, it’s good out to 900 yds if I decided to be a sniper. I also made my own ghillie coat.
I won’t get into what I have in my personal arsenal as this site might be monitored. Most of my firearms aren’t going to be easily found by the gestapo if they come to try to take them as they are hidden in other places besides my residence. I’ll just say that many are very well prepared for intrusion on their homes and capable of patriotism should the need arise.
I take my Constitutional rights and self protection seriously. There are some within the government that don’t.
btw, did you know that one of the first things that Hitler did to the Germans was to have them register their firearms so that the gestapo could just round them all up?
Yes, they’ll try it: “We only won by 5-4! We conservatives are sooooo persecuted!”
This is either an opportunity or disaster waiting to happen for the Democrats, depending on how they play it. It’s an opportunity to keep quiet and have one less GOP hot-button issue to deal with. If they take the other road, fierce condemnation, they will have walked right into a trap. The GOP is ready and waiting to paint them as fascists who want to outlaw all guns. I’m half willing to bet they fuck up here.
Might not want to count the happy ponys on this issue quite yet.
I had an early business lunch today, and the SCOTUS decision came up after. A few (Rs) of course had to get their digs in on me first…”Glad to see your savior finally now sees President Bush was right on wiretapping. Now that’s change we can believe in!” Bastards.
Ironic that two guys, the scary R types Ds make a habit of running from, couldn’t have cared much less for the telco’s bottom line and agreed with me the FISA changes weren’t needed other than to give an executive more power.
Anyway, what they were mildly concerned about was the SCOTUS decision in that it was a 5-4 decision. Way too close for them, especially since the next president just might be appointing a couple of Supremes. They didn’t think Obama would appoint 2nd Amendment friendly judges.
I’ve seen emails too circulating about Obama’s record in IL, also about how he wants to bankrupt American gun manufacturers through regulations, increase their liability exposure in the courts, and other stuff a lot crazier. Some Malkinette-type screeching ones are pretty funny.
Agree that the SCOTUS decision was good news for Dems. But could be the closeness of the decision might not be the best news for Obama.
Since Republicans so fervently believe that handguns can help law-abiding citizens defend themselves from criminals, I await their ground-breaking step of a program to arm and train our nation’s greatest sufferers of crime — our inner city lower income communities of color.
This is a sure way for them to represent their proud embrace of the 2nd Amendment and its importance for all our citizens.
Considering the price of guns are getting out of reach for most people as well as the ammo, I think Gun Control may be a moot point. Speaking of which, hey NRA!!! “zzup wid dat?
People clinging to guns and religion. Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?
This is totally false. It’s been debunked before (here, for example, The Myth of Nazi Gun Control), but keeps coming back like a bad case of herpes.
I got no beef with people who want to own guns. But I note that many of them demonstrate this delusion of perpetual righteous competence. They will always be in the right and always shoot first and straightest. This is just tiresome.
But on top of this, the distortions of history in attempt to buttress your point is noxious and a total waste of time.
Heh…basically. Far as I’m concerned the way that the average winger looks at minorities & the poor is the best pro-2nd-amendment argument there is.
Angry armed negroes FTW!
b-psycho for the win.
I think Barack Obama should re-introduce this valuable community-based organization during his inauguration, where, clad in his black leather jacket, black sunglasses, black gloves, and black beret, rifle strapped to his shoulder, he would also unveil the 1,000 member Soul Sistah Security Squad (The SSSS), and just at the very instant the armed colored masses are fanning out through the streets, the entire right wing wakes up screaming in their wet sheets, and then their wives or mothers tell them they were having Obama night terrors again and if this keeps up they’ll have to sleep on the couch or in the basement with the computer again.
4a) “Someone” turns out to be your son up in the night looking for something/your daughter sneaking back in after curfew/your brother-in-law fooling around/the cops executing a no-knock warrant.
4b) Your kid gets his or her hands on it.
True story: My dad was working in another state, so mom started keeping a loaded gun by her bed for protection. He came home late one night without telling her he was on his way because he wanted to surprise her, and she nearly shot him when he came into the bedroom.
4a) “Someone” turns out to be your son up in the night looking for something/your daughter sneaking back in after curfew/your brother-in-law fooling around/a drunken neighbor who thought it was his house/the cops executing a no-knock warrant.
4b) Your kid gets his or her hands on it.
Any one of these is more likely to happen than you blowing away a bad guy; they happen almost every day to other people who decide they need to keep a gun for protection.
True story: My dad was working in another state, so Mom started keeping a loaded gun by her bed for protection. (Of course it was loaded. If a bad guy broke in, she wouldn’t have time to load it. Of course it had to be by her bed rather than locked away in the gun cabinet. If a bad guy broke in, she would not have time to go get it. This is what you have to do if you’re serious about keeping a gun for protection.) Dad came home late one night without telling her he was on his way because he wanted to surprise her, and she nearly shot him when he came into the bedroom.
Now note: I think you have every right to have whatever guns you have, and as many as you like; I just think you’re deluding yourself if you think they’re going to make you and yours any safer than installing strong doors and windows with strong locks and getting a territorial pet dog would.
A burglar alarm wouldn’t hurt, either.
Thanks for your advice.
At this point, as a “problem solver”, I think I’ll stick with my current solution.
The “tarrarists” haven’t been comin’ around for a while.
I like it that way.
Perhaps the word is out.
Just Some Fuckhead
Good for you, W. My advice is to keep some quarter inch veneer ply and drywall seam tape handy in case you accidentally shoot a hole in the trailer wall. Those bugs’ll eat ya up quicker than the terraists can find ya.
I don’t think the supreme court will change anything either way, at least in the short term. One-issue gun voters got worked into a lather about all gun control laws, not just the handgun bans. They arn’t likely to change. Voters who care about guns but arn’t one-issue voters…maybe. I don’t think there are a lot of people this will actually sway though.
In the long term though… We’ll see.