SCOTUS
The Supreme Court ruled today on the Heller case that’s been in the news recently (having to do with the D.C. gun ban):
from the Scotusblog:
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.
D.C.’s laws are invalidated. The handgun ban is unconstitutional. The Court treats the District’s trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a “lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”
The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.
So the Court has spoken: guns are an individual right enumerated in the Constitution, and the “guns are only valid for an organized militia” argument has finally been put to rest. I don’t own a gun, but I’m glad that I could get one if I wanted. I grew up shooting different kinds of guns with my grandpa and know some basic gun safety, so I’m not one of those that think a gun is going to jump up and kill something.
The Court’s allowance of prohibitions also seems reasonable. What has never seemed reasonable to me is the anti-gun position that making guns illegal would lower gun crimes. You can always find examples of stupid gun owners who shoot themselves accidentally, but this kind of example cherry picking isn’t intellectually honest. Nor is ignoring the fact that most criminals already own their guns in extra-legal circumstances (non-licensed, obtained w/o a background check, stolen), so a general ban on gun ownership would have left law abiding citizens with no protection: basically the old “if guns ownership becomes criminal only criminals will have guns” argument.
Besides, I doubt that the ruling is really going to change anythign. Not counting police officers, I’ve seen exactly one gun in person in the last two or three years.