Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Justices extend gun-owner rights

June 29, 2010

Advertisement

— The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court’s embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.

On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join, jumped into the nation’s charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years.

A short distance from the court, the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Stevens.

In the guns case, Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said he was disappointed with the ruling, adding that officials already are at work rewriting the ordinance to meet the court’s gun rights guarantee and protect Chicago residents from gun violence.

Alito made plain that local officials still have some leeway in crafting gun laws. He noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities “limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.”

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Comments

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

No, Beatrice, on the repulsive part of unconscious America.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Beatrice, your avatar is particularly apropos given where your thumb usually is.

0

independant1 3 years, 9 months ago

limited constitutional government, there are ways to ammend the constitution. in the '20s it was ammended 4 times

SCOTUS is supposed to apply the constitution to case law not find new stuff in it. that way there is a certain consistency to this great experiment, USA.

best thing going.

0

TopJayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Aw Bea. So smug and simplistic as always. The fight is not over. There is just a lull. The time is being used by the smug liberals who don't care if it is Constitutional or not. They are just trying to figure out their next bogus argument to try and cirmcumvent the Constitution.

0

TopJayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

They can outlaw 'em anytime they want. Makes no differance. No one is going to come and get them. They know better.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Beatrice, had Dante lived today and met you, he would have immediately run the other way and the Divine Comedy never would have been written.

Your earlier, flippant statement "...with only four rational judges thinking clearly on the issue" betrays exactly how you view this decision, so don't try to cover that up with the BS you posted at 11:01 p.m.

By the way, is your avatar supposed to depict two kokopellis in flagrante delicto? Just curious.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Beatrice, it was first said long ago and has never been said better: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. It's unfortunate that you apparently don't understand this, but that's another failing common to pinheaded leftists like you.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Beatrice, if you believe that "rational judges thinking clearly" means judges pretending that plain English doesn't mean what it says and disregarding decades of judicial precedent made by fellow liberal Justices before them under the Supreme Court's incorporation doctrine, solely in order to reach a preconceived social outcome, then you clearly qualify for a Good Liberal Pinhead Merit Badge. Congratulations.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Pace, only my opinion? You had previously posted your belief that insurance should be required for gun ownership, thus proving that you do not believe in the unfettered right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, as I earlier stated, this puts you in the same company with the Mayor of Chicago, which should make you proud.

0

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Curious, but did anyone expect a different outcome? I mean, didn't everyone know that the result would be 5-4 in favor of overturning the ban, with only four rational judges thinking clearly on the issue?

Okay, just kidding about the last part.

However, didn't we all know that it would end up 5-4? I actually find it sad that our Supreme Court is so clearly divided along ideological / political lines and that their decisions are obviously not just based on impartial decision making. I mean this as criticism in both directions, left and right.

0

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

You might do better to just state your opinion.

I have no interest in correcting your assumptions or go into explanation how your labels and assumptions about my stand make no sense. , I assume you are just more comfortable with imaginary argument rather honest discourse. You would benefit just stating your position rather than continually prescribing what you imagine my position is, which (snore) is different than what you seem to want me to have said. Snoorreeee. In case you really don't read well. I mean, Your argument that my stance is the same as "some person" in Chicago is incorrect and does not reflect a logical extrapolation from my saying with gun owner ship there should be responsibility. I say training and insurance. If you prefer people to have no training nor be responsible for their acts then you should state that. I would hope if you have a gun you would not look down the barrel and pull the trigger to see if a gun is loaded. That would be harder to test someone on more than once. I am not so interested in that, as compared to someone who points at a school bus or neighbors dog and then swears they didn't know it was loaded. If you hold a gun, you are responsible for knowing how the darn thing works and how to handle it.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Vertigo, it's a fact that you can't comprehend political reality. Again, your idealism does you in, as it did in your belief that the Russians would deal favorably with Obama after he gave away the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and got nothing in return. The odds of both of two Kerry Supreme Court appointees failing to join with the four Justices who voted in the Heller case to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution judicially are zero.

0

c_doc77 3 years, 9 months ago

Lots of good comments here. Consider this headline:

"Justices extend gun-owner rights"

Since when is it within the purview of the Supreme Court to "extend" rights to anyone? At best they can offer an interpretation of the law to confirm or deny a right exists.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Vertigo, politically it's a fact. If you want to deal in speculation concerning the time-space continuum, be my guest.

0

gogoplata 3 years, 9 months ago

It should read that the justices decide to protect gun owner rights. The rights were already there.

Rights are not given by government. Individual Rights exist. The constitution does not give them to us and the Supreme court does not extend them to us. As a human being I have the right to defend my liberty and that of others with a gun.

Governments job is to simply protect the rights that we have as human beings.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

No I'm not, Vertigo. No politically astute person would bet a dime against the fact of the result that I've posited, and both sides at the highest levels of this debate know it full well. Moreover, if Kerry had had the opportunity to appoint two Justices, as Bush did, then even in the extremely unlikely event that one of them had an epiphany and decided to uphold the Constitution as written, it would still have been 5-4 against the Second Amendment in the Heller case. The NRA put a great deal of time, effort, and money into defeating Kerry, and for good reason.

Based on our earlier exchanges, you appear to me to be an idealist. I'm a realist.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Agnostink, if you're thinking of going into stand-up comedy, I suggest that you stick with your day job (that is, if you have a job). Once again: If Kerry had been elected, neither the McDonald decision, nor the Heller decision of two years ago which preceded McDonald and on which McDonald is based, would have been decided as they were. In fact, if Heller had been a 6-3 decision to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution judicially, McDonald would never have been decided. If Kerry had been elected, our unfettered constitutional right to bear arms would have been emasculated. That's not speculation, dingbat. That's fact.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Pace, the cliche "advocate for responsible gun laws" says it all. I'm sure the Mayor of Chicago and you are on the same page.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

Instead of taking the high road on gun and immigration issues, the Obama administration chooses to take AZ to court over their immigration law which was prompted by non-enforcement of laws by the federal government which has done nothing but play politics with a serious breakdown of our border security.

By taking AZ to court, the Obama administration has exposed itself as having little regard for state's rights over national politics.

Should we start to fear the growing power of the federal government?

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Pace, if you don't wish to learn, that's your fault. I suspect, however, that you are not a fan of the unfettered right to own a gun, and favor government regulation or prohibition of same. I also suspect that you're just another liberal whiner. Yawn.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Agnostink, if you're going to continue to keep making a fool of yourself, please learn how to spell the word "written." You might also want to attempt to learn something about constitutional law. You could start by examining the doctrines of "selective incorporation" and "fundamental rights," which the Supreme Court has used for decades to apply provisions of the Bill of Rights against the various states. Reading the debates between Professors Fairman and Crosskey would be a good start. You might then want to consider how a Supreme Court Justice could write a dissenting opinion that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the various states while virtually everything else in the Bill of Rights does, and impliedly accusing the majority of "judicial activism" in doing so when activist liberal justices have done just that for decades. You might then begin to understand why anyone appointed by Kerry wouldn't have been appointed by him unless that person would have espoused the type of grossly hypocritical judicial "philosophy" evinced by the dissenters in the McDonald opinion. I doubt that you understand any of this, but feel free to attempt to learn about it.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

The silence is deafening when you wait for the Democrats to defend a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

The political parties have tended to hold extreme views and have not represented Conservative Democrats or Moderate Republicans except during election year speech making.

No better issue than the gun issue leaves middle of the road Americans longing for better people in Washington and finding little encouragement.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 9 months ago

Does Agno ever hold a "centrist" view whilst debating on LJW? He claims to be deep in the center......I've yet to see any true indication of this on LJW on-line, an award-winning open discussion forum.

Fight the good fight, cato.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One, your last post demonstrates that you don't believe in liberty.

Time to change your moniker.

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 9 months ago

"What's most sobering about this 5-4 vote is the realization that if John Kerry had been elected the Second Amendment would have been written out of the U.S. Constitution."

Clearly this passage is saying that any Supreme Court Justices Kerry would have appointed, had he won the election, would have gone over to the National Archives and taken a pen and scratched out the Second Amendment.

The notion that this passage means that they would have decided these second amendment cases in a way so as to render the second amendment completely ineffective and thus, for all practical purposes, no longer a part of the Constitution, well that notion is absurd.

0

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

Guns should be required to come with training and insurance, more dangerous than cars.

0

RobertMarble 3 years, 9 months ago

This was merely a common sense decision. The Heller case in '08 reaffirmed that the right to keep & bear arms did indeed apply to Amercian Citizens; McDonald v. chicago affirmed that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The only real issue here is the fact that 4 'justices' dissented....typical partisan bs on the part of those on the so called 'progressive left', or at least among their fringe elements. Perhaps if they'd taken note of the greatly increasing support of 2nd Amendment freedoms among moderate democrats the extemists like mayor daley would stop wasting time & money on mis directed causes & work on solving real problems.

0

Mike Ford 3 years, 9 months ago

Obama is sooo going to take your guns....really.... lert's see, he's handed a economic meltdown and bailout situation by the Bush Administration, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, health care reform being needed, a housing meltdown, and a whole bunch of agencies made impotent by Bush deregulation which leads to oil disasters... all of this and he's going to take your guns... really..... nothing funnier that watching a bunch of trailer dwelling AK owning end of the world health care forum interupting dimwits being led by the GOP and Tea party pipers back to the he's going to take guns BS. Ammo prices going through the roof, gun prices going through the roof, and the assault weapons ban is gone and one looks on the wall at the local gun/pawn shop and it looks like assault weapons R' Us. I'm a 20 year Democrat, grew up in a gun household, passed hunter's safety at 11 years of age and got my first shotgun at 8 years of age. I've helped identify collector guns since I was 10 years old at gun shows with my dad. Nothing enrages me more than watching dumblicans play on the class war fears of dimwits who have nothing but assault weapons. The NRA plays on the fear of people to maintain power when there so many guns in this country that they could never possibly be taken away from everyone. I love how fear is used to suggest the impossible and the dimwits continually bite.

0

Bob Kraxner 3 years, 9 months ago

All of you punks on here who think you're so damned smart, have succeeded in wasting your parents money on what was supposed to be a college education... so why don't you little b1tches keep your mouth shut and respect your elders, and remember: the more you open your smart a$$ 30 something mouths , the more you embarass your folks, who obviously wasted their hard-earned money on whatever it is you majored in. It is the majority of you 30 something idiots that make me feel very proud to not be a parent.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Agnostink, nothing I have said on this thread is remotely connected with anyone's "theocratic fantasy," whatever that is. I won't accuse you of "confusing" anything in particular. You're just confused, period.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Defenseless, you might want to read my response to Beobachter posted on June 27 at 3:24 p.m. concerning the story "Obama's Image as Leader is at Stake," which I gladly offered up to him in response to a similarly snotty comment like the stupid one that you just made. To the best of my knowledge, he never responded. I doubt whether you have the intelligence to do so, but you can always give it a try.

0

Agnostick 3 years, 9 months ago

cato, you're confusing "constitutional law" with "theocratic fantasy."

http://tinyurl.com/JustUsSunday

P.S. "written out"

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Agnostink, you know nothing about constitutional law. One of the many things you apparently don't know is that liberal U.S. Supreme Court majorities have on far too many occasions effectively amended the Constitution by finding "rights" that have never existed and disregarding or ignoring rights that in plain English do exist, all for the sake of perceived social engineering schemes. That's probably fine with you and your fellow pinheaded leftist cretins on this forum, but it's not fine with those of us who honor our Constitution and revere what the Founders of our Country envisioned by way of limited government and the freedom of individuals not to have their lives controlled by government.

0

thuja 3 years, 9 months ago

You can spend all day on what if's.

But what does it get you, except something other than what is.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Agnostink, I'll say it again: What's most sobering about this 5-4 vote is the realization that if John Kerry had been elected the Second Amendment would have been written out of the U.S. Constitution. Had yesterday's minority instead been a 6-3 majority, which would have been the undoubted result with two Kerry appointees, the unfettered right of the free citizens of this country under the Second Amendment to bear arms would have ceased to exist. The dissents in yesterday's decisions are perfect examples of the blatant disregard of plain English in the furtherance of social engineering - which has been precisely what far too many Supreme Court Justices have done since the time of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who backed down to Roosevelt's threats to pack the Court. This conscious disregard of the plain language of the Constitution in favor of perceived social engineering goals was thereafter taken to new heights of absurdity under the worst Chief Justice ever to sit, Earl Warren. Kerry's appointees would have been at least as far-left as Sotomayor and Kagan, if not more so. People need to understand this, and understand it well: Your vote for president has far-reaching consequences, one of the most important of which is who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. Had Kerry been elected, the result in this case would have been 180 degrees different. If gun ownership is important to you and you voted for Kerry, you dodged a bullet.

0

Agnostick 3 years, 9 months ago

I've posted this several times before here on LJWorld.com .... and here it comes again. This is probably the single best idea for dealing with this tug-of-war, once and for all.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html#amend

0

beobachter 3 years, 9 months ago

Just what we need, more gun nuts claiming their "rights" to be total nutcases.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 9 months ago

The weasel who knows or doesn't know weighs in.

0

Agnostick 3 years, 9 months ago

June 29, 2010 at 1:56 p.m. cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…

"What's most sobering about this 5-4 vote is the realization that if John Kerry had been elected the Second Amendment would have been written out of the U.S. Constitution."

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies… June 29, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.

"The only way to write something out of the Constitution would be to amend it."


It's fun to watch cato_the_snake try to wiggle out of his pool of quicksand, isn't it?

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but... that was f-f-f-f-f-figgertuv speech! Figgertuv speech"

Perhaps more than anything else, cato... you'd love to go back and amend your 1:56pm post. To be clear: I'm not talking about "figuratively" rewriting it--I mean literally having the ability to go back into your own posts and edit what you said, to make it easier to squirm out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Figuratively speaking, of course. ;)

Extremist Crackpot Snakebite Antidote #1: "No, no, no... that's now what I really meant."

Extremist Crackpot Snakebite Antidote #2: "Oh, c'mon, you really think I was being serious? Obviously, I was joking. It was a joke! Sarcasm!"

Nice try, though. Give ya an "E" for "effort," 'kay?

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

oneeye_wilbur 3 years, 9 months ago

Now population control can work.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Tomatogrower, you also have no grasp of figurative speech. Additionally, however, if you think that anyone with half a brain couldn't predict how two Kerry appointees would have voted in this case, especially given the doctrinaire liberal dissents that were completely predictable, then I've got a great bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 9 months ago

Cato is right, and like Obama, if they could use the courts to take away gun rights and get away it (the key element as Palin said----get away with it) they'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the first step in establishing absolute power regardless of the constitution. Was abortion written into the constitution? Nada. It was a court mandated law (settled under very, very nefarious and shiftless means). Get the constitution and the courts in two separate parts of your far-left brains. The leftist activist courts are out of control.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Vertigo, you obviously have no grasp of figurative speech - just as time has proven that you had no grasp of how badly Obama got bushwhacked by the Russians on the missile defense shield in Poland and Czechoslovakia the last time you attempted to defend the indefensible.

0

Bob Kraxner 3 years, 9 months ago

Stop crying beatrice ! Were it not for the second amendment, people like yourself would have had their door kicked in and been indentured into servitude a long time ago, so you need to thank all gun owners... if it weren't for guns the tyrants of this world would just be using some other method , such as clubs or broadswords to enforce their oppression, perhaps you would like that better?

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

I think a lot of Americans are tired of having to choose which is the lesser evil.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

I won't vote for somebody that is trying to take the state of AZ to court over their immigration law.

I won't vote for somebody who wants to deny a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

If the only other option is a right winger, then I guess I won't be voting.

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 9 months ago

"What's most sobering about this 5-4 vote is the realization that if John Kerry had been elected the Second Amendment would have been written out of the U.S. Constitution."

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to write anything out of the constitution, and you have no idea how these justices would have voted. Many justices have disagreed with the presidents who have appointed them if they are upholding the constitution. Keep on whining. You would gladly throw out the constitution and force everyone to believe as you do, just like your hero, Cato the Elder. I assume, since the Constitution is important to you, that you realize the proposed Arizona law that would deny the citizenship rights to children born on US soil of illegal immigrants would go against the constitution. Or do you just pay attention to those parts of the constitution with which you agree.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

To those who posted above who obviously know nothing about constitutional law, Supreme Court appointments, or how the Supreme Court operates, the two Justices appointed by George W. Bush would have instead been appointed by John Kerry. There can be absolutely no doubt that each would have been at least of the ilk of Justice Sotomayor (who by her vote with the four-Justice minority on Monday apparently believes that the Second Amendment has never existed), or worse. For those with at least a modicum of intelligence, Supreme Court appointments are one of the most important things that presidential elections determine. If you don't get this, then you know nothing about how the process works. The fact that one of the posters thought that I was referring to amending the Constitution is a real laugher. I suggest that you all stick with something you know something about, i.e. Kokopellis, tomato growing, or just being Defenseless - or in Agnostick's case, given his name, just being himself and knowing nothing.

0

rockchalk1977 3 years, 9 months ago

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg has used The US Constitution as toilet paper for years. All the dissenters are cut from the same liberal democrat cloth just like Obama. Political ideology trumps the law of the land! How sad.

0

Fatty_McButterpants 3 years, 9 months ago

Whoowee! Boy...I tell you what, I was as nervous as a cat in a room fulla rockin' chairs 'bout this here ruling interferin' with my God-given right to shoot things. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

Too bad the Democrats are on the wrong side of the gun issue just like they are on the wrong side of the immigration issue.

They make it too easy for the Republicans. They are starting to look turkeys before Thanksgiving just waiting for the axe to fall.

Most Americans are not going to get much from either party I am afraid. You have to be very rich or living off of the government to get a break anymore.

I guess that explains the Cheshire Cat grins you see on these Republican Congressman lately.

I just hope the new Republicans are not the same idiots we have been seeing for the last 10 years.

0

YourAnIdiot 3 years, 9 months ago

Setting the record Straighter, In which well regulated militia are individual rights to bear arms being hindered, EVER? Which State is in need of security by that well regulated militia? It does not state anywhere in the 2nd amendment that any individual, anywhere, anytime may have a hand gun or bear arms. IT DOES NOT STATE THAT. In general the best interpretation you might find is that The Constitution Preserves the Right to Bear Arms of the States National Guard Units. Not some idiot trying to be tough. If you JackA$$es would've read the damn thing to begin with it wouldn't be so devisive. Same thing with el Bilblio.

0

LJ Whirled 3 years, 9 months ago

Is there any honest analysis on the effect of the ban in Chicago? Do they have fewer violent crimes? More? Is it possible to tell the effect? My guess is that it would not have made much difference, but I'm curious if it has been studied.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

Perhaps now the corrupt politicians and the thugs in Chicago won't be the only armed citizens in that fair city.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

What's most sobering about this 5-4 vote is the realization that if John Kerry had been elected the Second Amendment would have been written out of the U.S. Constitution.

0

gogoplata 3 years, 9 months ago

Nice to see they got one right.

When guns are outlawed I'll become an outlaw.

0

thebigspoon 3 years, 9 months ago

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6...

0

kubacker 3 years, 9 months ago

The four dissenters are out-and-out hypocrites (do as I say not as I do) because every Justice on the Supreme Court has his/her own armed personal body guards.

0

Jim Phillips 3 years, 9 months ago

Sad day for Bloomberg and Company! Great day for America.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 3 years, 9 months ago

"...officials already are at work rewriting the ordinance to meet the court’s gun rights guarantee..."

It's the Constitution's gun rights guarantee, not the court's.

0

independant1 3 years, 9 months ago

There is nothing that makes a nation or an individual as mad as to have somebody say, “now this is really none of my business but I am just advising you.” If I sleep with a gun under my pillow, I don’t want somebody from across the street to “advise” me that I don’t need it. (Will Rogers)

0

Liberty_One 3 years, 9 months ago

Breyer and the other dissenters argue that gun ownership deserves little judicial protection because "Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose [self-defense] often puts others’ lives at risk."

This is rather hypocritical since Breyer has fallen on the side of giving procedural protections for accused criminals, even though this inevitably means some guilty criminals will go free and commit violent crimes they would otherwise have been prevented from doing.

Regardless, he's flat-out wrong. Gun control laws do not reduce violent crime rates, guns do. Here's an article with extensive citations to that effect: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf

One study in particular focused on right-to-carry laws, which reduced violent crimes the most in urban areas against women and minorities. Lott, J. R., and Mustard, D. B. (1997) “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.” Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–68.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.