Gun-control advocates across the country reacted with shock and outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns today, saying the ruling would threaten gun-control measures in other states.

They say that like it’s a bad thing. 

Today’s ruling was a significant victory for civil rights in America.

And so the other shoe drops. A lot of these same people were giddy a few weeks ago regarding the California Supreme’s ruling that the individual rights of gays and lesbians trumps trumps the community’s right to define marriage.

Ack…that should be only one “trumps.”

Judicial legislation is judicial legislation, whether the legislators are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Who elected the High Nine to determine (this week alone):

that juries must cap their awards of punitive damages to equal the actual damages,

that states cannot extend the death penalty beyond the bounds that five men in Washington set for them,

that Congress cannot provide public funding adequate to counter the privately-funded campaigns that are turning public office into a millionaire’s club,

that someone who kills a witness must be allowed to complain about his inability to cross-examine them,

that Indian tribes cannot regulate fraudulent land transactions on their reservation if committed by a non-tribal landowner,

that states cannot define when a criminal prosecution commences,

and that state firearms regulations will be subject to years of litigation because all the bright lines have been erased?

Judicial legislation is indeed a bad idea- see the files of it’s arch advocates- especially the 9th Circuit Kangaroo Court of Appeals. This decision is however an instance of the Supremes applying adult supervision and REdrawing a 200 year old line in the sand.

The “real job” of the Supreme Court is to test the laws of the land against the Supreme Law of the Constitution. This had to be a fairly easy one for them. The reasons for the enactment of the Second Amendment and it’s true meaning are apparent to the clearheaded. I’m not sure why there has been no clear ruling in the past.

No one- not even that fiend Alito- has suggested that gun regulation is unconstitutional, but gun banishment by whatever means is. Propose an amendment if you don’t like it. Enact constitutional regulations if you wish.

The Constitution can indeed be an uncomfortable read for those with statist whims and agendas but it says what it says. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks we’d be better off if we burned the Federal Law Code and started over again after Amendment 10 or 14.

state firearms regulations will be subject to years of litigation because all the bright lines have been erased

What “bright lines”? The D.C law forbade any private individual from possessing a firearm. What line is there between that and a nullification of the second ammendment, which is supposed to represent inalienable rights? There is no line. Gun restrictions are clear violations of that ammenment, if it is to mean anything.

In general, those aghast at decisions like Roe v. Wade are probably pleased with this one. Those who loved the boldness of the court in sweeping away local laws in he California marriage case recently, or in Roe, are generally agitated—like Sen Feinstein.

At the same time, I would like to think that one important difference between this decision and the others I cite is that the second amendment really does focus on guns. Whatever its meaning, it is clearly a 200 plus year old attempt to articulate limits on government intrusion into the ownership of firearms.

7. drfnw   The other distiction is that the phrase “The right to keep and bear arms ” actually appears in the constitution!

And what part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear?  As Dale Ray knows that is the strongest language a legislature can use other than adding “And we really mean it!!!” at the end.  However courts are notorious in their ability to ignore language.  I once wrote a statute and put a statement of the legislative purpose in it to avoid this very problem.

The right to bear arms has always been infringed and that is part of the problem. It is illegal to own a number of weapons and not every can get a pistol license. The irony here is that the liberal dissent looked to the original intent.

What we have here is a failure of 3rd grade reading skills.

The same people who cannot understand the plain words of the Constitution “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged” also cannot understand the plain words of Holy Writ “men shall not lie with other men as with women.”

Those who compare this truly great ruling with Rowe v Wade miss the distinction that makes all the difference. Rowe v Wade made constitutional law out of absolutely nothing to be found in the Constitution. In Heller, the Court, quite rightly, affirmed what the Constitution already clearly said.

The irony here is that the liberal dissent looked to the original intent.

Oh really? Where did they look and whose intent did they seek? There is no rational reading of the text that can justify saying their intent was to take arms rights from the people. The nice thing about the Constitution is that it is written, and one can just look at the text and search for the simplest, in an Occam’s razor fashion, meaning. One doesn’t have to use a Ouji board to talk to the writers