Tammy Bruce: Time: Don't Get Too Excited About that Gun Ruling

Time: Don't Get Too Excited About that Gun Ruling

You bitter, clingy types. Yeah, and don't think you can go walking around with the thing.

I think the libs are getting a little cranky...

The Future of Gun Control

Proponents of gun rights may rejoice at winning this heavyweight tussle, but their victory comes by way of a nuanced decision. The ruling, which affirms a federal appeals court decree, makes clear that individual ownership rights are limited. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote... [Yeah, so there!]

In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice John Paul Stevens called Scalia's argument "strained and unpersuasive." He also blistered the majority for its expansive reading of the Amendment's "ambiguous" text. "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote. "The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding."

Welcome to the Land of the Upset Justice Stevens, Time, and everyone else who is crying into their soup today because we got a 5-4 decision to not, as Scalia put it, declare the 2nd Amendment "extinct."

Posted by Tammy · June 27, 2008 03:05 PM · Permalink
Liberal Idiocy | Mainstream Media | Second Amendment

Comments

It's reasonable to discuss the juxtaposition of the preface ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...") against the declaration that "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, can a reasonable person argue that the Second Amendment therefore gives me no personal protection at all? The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to defend me from government overreach. And the people trying to deprive me of this fundamental right are the same people that dig into the crevices of the Constitution with convoluted interpretations that protect child rapists and the terrorists. It's insane and disgusting.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at June 27, 2008 04:10 PM

I've never owned a gun. Never really wanted to own a gun. . . they frighten me a little. But I have always, ALWAYS been a believer in the importance of the 2nd Amendment. I figure, if the good guys can carry guns, the bad guys won't know if I have a gun or not, that uncertainty alone makes me a lot safer. This ruling is a relief. To celebrate I plan on joining the NRA ... and who knows, I may buy a pistol just to contribute to gun sales ... as I'm sure increased gun sales will give Justice Stevens and his ilk indigestion!

Posted by: marleed at June 27, 2008 04:27 PM

My rejoicing is tempered by the fact that the Constitution is still at the mercy of whatever mood Anthony Kennedy happens to wake up in.

Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at June 27, 2008 08:47 PM

Even though it was a close call, too close in fact, I'm still happy as hell that these marxist malcontents have a bee in their bonnets over the ruling. Did anybody catch the "special comment" on this ruling?

Posted by: josai at June 28, 2008 05:44 AM

So, the SCOTUS got one right. If we don't get more clear-minded people on it, God only knows how they will alter and profane the Founder's intent and protection for our free people.

Posted by: wyobluey at June 28, 2008 09:35 PM

This WAS way too close. But yes, the Left is cranky, because their plan to disarm the populace through legislative means has just been kicked in its gut, so they'll have to move more in the direction of destroying the sovereignty of the United States and having it ruled by the UN, with its armies tasked with crushing the bitter, clingy types.

It's very revealing how the dissenting Justices (barf!) seem to think of the Constitution; as a document which confers power upon government and limits the rights of the people, when in fact, according to the best of the Framers, it is exactly what the majority Justices seem to think it is; the exact opposite of that. The Constitution limits the powers of the Government, as the Founders knew all too well about the myriad abuses of a strong government using its armed surrogates (a strong standing army) against the People (and thus, the reason for the Second Amendment). IMO, those four Justices are not qualified to sit on that bench, and I'd put Kennedy along with them.

Marleed - let this NRA Life Member thank and welcome you to the fold. After you join, seek out an affiliated gun club in your locale and see if you can get some good experience with various firearm types. NRA can supply you with a list of clubs and contact info, perhaps one of your better local gun stores too. The "Second Amendment" thread on this site has great food for thought on firearm types/calibers to acquire for various purposes, but at the risk of duplication, I'd suggest these types as a good basic collection to keep around for critical times:

1) General-purpose handgun: a medium to medium-large frame double-action revolver in .357 Magnum caliber, made from stainless steel, barrel no longer than 4 inches, for handy home defense. Examples are Smith & Wesson Models 686 or 620, and Ruger GP-100. These will also be able to fire all .38 Special ammo of either standard-strength or +P variety.

2) Concealed-carry handgun (if legal in your locale): a smaller version of the above piece, sized to conceal well on your frame with minimal wardrobe modification. To maximize shootability, I'd suggest using only .38 Special +P ammo as the power limit. Example pieces would be S&W Models 640 or 642 (a twin to Snuffy Bruce), or Ruger SP-101.

3) Shotgun: a good, solid pump-action shotgun in either 12 or 20 gauge, with a barrel 18" long, as the decisive home-defense weapon. Interchangeable extra barrels can also be procured if hunting or claybird shooting is desired. This could well stand ready in a master bedroom, or other designated saferoom, in the home. Two excellent guns are the Remington Model 870 and the Mossberg Model 500. If you are small-framed, there are so-called "Youth" models available from both makers which have shorter stocks. As for ammo, both 12 and 20 gauge have good buckshot and slug loads available.

4) Rifle: a lever-action carbine in .357 Magnum caliber, which will use the same ammo as your handgun(s). IMO, the best one is made by Marlin, either their Model 1894C or 1894CS. Winchester used to make their Model 94 carbine in some .357 variations also, but since their US plant closed, all their carbines are scarce.

Based upon experiences and observations, and many years spent in the firearms retail industry, these types will tend to be the most reliable over the long term, needing few, if any, visits to a gunsmith for repair with normal use, and will keep your needed ammo types to a minimum. You may opt to have just the one handgun to cover both tasks, and if a shotgun proves to have a bit more power than desired, the lever-action carbine can stand well in its stead. If you prefer a good semi-auto pistol (and there are many!) to a revolver, there are some good semi-auto carbines as well which will share ammo with that handgun. There are also more powerful, longer-ranging rifles of various types to be had, should you determine you have the need. In any event, welcome to NRA, and when you decide to own one or more firearms, be of strong heart, and believe in your ability to handle one or more types, hopefully guided by good basic instruction.

Posted by: crossroads_gunner at June 28, 2008 09:36 PM

"Justice John Paul Stevens....also blistered the majority for its expansive reading of the Amendment's "ambiguous" text. "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote."

"Understood"? No, the good Justice is simply echoing the convenient, 20th-Century anti-gun lie about "A well-regulated militia" meaning the National Guard, in modern context and Leftspeak.

"The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding."

"New"?!!? Uh, no, not really. It is "new" only to those who seek to destroy the Republic through any means at their disposal. Those who seek this are not unmindful of exactly what the Founders meant, that the Second Amendment recognizes and enshrines a Right of the People AS INDIVIDUALS, and not in some cooked-up collectivist sham. That it is our individual Right is precisely why the Left seeks to take it away from us, because if we are not able to be armed, we are easier to be controlled by them, the Self-Anointed.

Thank you, Justice Scalia, for confirming the granite truth - the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL Right. It was in 1787, always was up to now, and has been confirmed to be, now and for the future.

Choke on your bile, Lefties.

Posted by: crossroads_gunner at June 28, 2008 09:59 PM

The reaction to this ruling has come to light what I have long suspected: The left does not want you to KNOW your rights, it is US they are afraid of. I akin it to keeping the Bible in Latin, once translated then people could read the Word for themselves, make up their own minds, they would not need the Church..I mean no disrespect to anyone in my analogy (as I am a Christian myself) but it is an apt one.

Justice Scalia has reminded not only SCOTUS but those in power who exactly is in power; a good day and indeed representative of the division this country faces as the election draws near.

Posted by: GenRach at June 28, 2008 11:09 PM

It is a sad comment that it took a lawsuit to clarify the common sense notion that the Bill of Rights is unambiguous in delineating a citizen's constitutional rights (not a government's) and that, as has been shown time and again that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment referred to every able bodied male in America. There were no state controlled militia at the time the Bill of Rights was penned. Regulation referred to training and preparation to repel tyrants and thieves.
Inherent in the Declaration of Independence is the right of "of life, liberty and pursuit of justice". Hard to guarantee if you place the population at the mercy of felons and politicians.
To understand the term "well regulated", read the history of the North Carolina Regulators prior to the Revolution.

Posted by: W J Ellis at June 29, 2008 04:51 AM

As usual, reaction by city and state officials is telling of what lies ahead. Gone are the days of "it's been decided, lets conform and get these laws off the books, or reduce the restrictions to conform with the ruling." The mayor of chicago vows to fight it's total handgun ban all the way, meaning that it will use all the tax money necessary to appeal it as far as necessary, to delay the bans demise.

Chicago has a near total ban on handguns. You must get a licence to buy one. You have to demonstrate a "compelling need" to own one, and as I was told 20 years ago, "My house has been broken into three times in 5 months isn't a good enough reason!" If you can obtain a licence to buy one, you then must apply for a concealed carry permit if you intend to carry it under any circumstances, such as needing to move it from your business to your home. You don't technically need it, but if your driving with it open and locked, and it falls to the floor, is it concealed? better get that permit. That is yet another batch of hurdles, the least of which is a healthy campain donation to the sherrifs re-election campain fund via a rubber chicken dinner.

Only cops,feds, certain security personnel like Brinks, and other guards that transport high value items, and of course criminals have handguns.

P.S. Way to go MARLEED. Join up, take an NRA sponsored safety class and when you decide on the gun you want, go to a range and rent one in that caliber. Have fun. when you get your own, the most fun with a gun is to find a good safe backstop out in the desert and plink away at bio-degradeable targets like saltines, and rye-crisp. Feed the birds and have a blast. You will soon get comfortable with the gun, and it will cease to be intimidating.

Posted by: mrfixit at June 29, 2008 08:37 AM

I joined the NRA yesterday... and appreciate the welcomes and the advice. I plan on doing a lot of reading about firearms (beginning with the second amendment thread here). Then I figure a gun safety class ought to be next.

I'm frankly somewhat surprised at the reaction of the left over this ruling. I figured they wouldn't be happy, but they're well beyond *unhappy*. I've even seen editorials suggesting that the second amendment be repealed. If that doesn't motivate us all to action, I'm not sure anything will.

Posted by: marleed at June 29, 2008 02:48 PM

Thanks CROSSROADS-GUNNER, "the Second Amendment recognizes and enshrines a Right of the People As INDIVIDUALS." You hit the nail on the head. This ruling was way too close for comfort. I don't know what enhanced Kennedy's mood to cross over this time, but I am thankful. I have no doubt that the crime rate will decrease in D.C. because of this ruling. When it happens will the leftist media ever give us the true facts as to the reason why?

Way to go MARLEED! Years ago I was nervous about handling guns, but once you learn how they work, take them apart, clean them, etc. they become less intimidating. In fact once you fire one I know you will enjoy it.

Posted by: Sally at June 29, 2008 07:55 PM

It's coming down to a simple choice. There are those that are against freedom, and there are those that are FOR freedom.

Having your own gun is part of being free. Part of freedom is the freedom to have a gun.

And no, it's not for hunting or serving in the army, it's specifically to protect yourself from the agents of the gov't if they try to take away your freedom.

The statists don't like that idea. They belief that nobody should be able to defend themselves from the gov't.

Screw 'em!

Posted by: joeblough at June 30, 2008 09:50 PM

Congratulations MARLEED! Like you, until recently, handguns scared me. My brother has been a handgun collector for about 20 years. About 6 months ago, something clicked--and I wanted to learn to shoot. My brother has been shooting with me (younger brothers really are good after all &;-p )and I have gotten my concealed weapons license, and now have a compact S&W 9mm M&P--named Spike. When I first started learning to shoot, I remember one night waking up in the middle of the night with my brain just screaming at me--"What the h*** do you think you're doing?? You have this knowledge, now you have the responsibility and you don't even like responsibility!!" Thankfully, my brain's not screaming at me in the middle of the night anymore, and I've gotten more comfortable by shooting and taking the class for the concealed license. Take a gun safety class--mine was only one day (it's a long day, and I thought my brain would explode) but it goes a long way toward making you more comfortable yet respectful of handguns. And do some shooting. . .you might find, as I did, there's a certain satisfaction in shooting the heck out of a piece of paper.

The crooks are always looking for the easy in and out--dark doorways, bushes, dark houses. It's not foolproof, but if you leave lights and noise on when you're out and things like that, the crooks have to stop and wonder. Same with guns. The crooks want you to be unarmed, and if they think you can shoot back, they move on to an easier target. Tammy quoted studies in her books and others mentioned it above--gun crime is actually less in places where your average homeowner is allowed gun ownership. I firmly agree, and that's part of the reason I wanted to learn to shoot and own a gun. That and just because I live in the US, and I can.

At first, I was really excited about the ruling--finally SCOTUS handed down an SENSIBLE desision. . .then looked closer at how close the ruling was, and got more than a little nervous. Dopey me, I thought SC justices were supposed to INTERPRET the constitution, not REWRITE it, and had made lifelong studies of the constitution and writings of the framers and what they meant by what they wrote to use in INTERPRETING the constitution. My husband just laughed and called me silly.

Is this a great country or what? Even a little ol' Irish immingrant's great granddaughter librarian can own her own gun.

Posted by: Miss Kathy at July 1, 2008 05:37 AM

By Category

By Month

Time: Don't Get Too Excited About that Gun Ruling

Comments

Post a comment