Marin County, California:

In August, a man shot two people to death on a bridge near San Francisco. At the moment of the killings, two on-duty Marin County sheriff’s deputies were within 100 yards of the shooter. One was close enough to see the muzzle blast of the shotgun. The police officers, however, did not move against the culprit. One, stuck in traffic, called in a description of the killer’s vehicle as he fled. The other positioned her car to prevent traffic from entering the crime scene.

These two law-enforcement officers did what police officers tell the public to do: Don’t intervene. Get a description of the offender. Call the police. Be a good witness.

Much debate ensued about whether the officers’ behavior was appropriate, but the real tragedy is that the victims of this rampage did not have the legal opportunity to arm themselves. To them, the message was clear: Be a good victim.

“May Issue” can be better than “No Issue”, but it’s a compromise that can work against the God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms. Sheriff Robert Doyle in Marin County requires applicants to demonstrate “extreme need” before he’ll okay a permit. That’s like forcing drivers to demonstrate that they’re going to be in a traffic accident before the government allows them to put on their seat belts.

Rittgers writes about the District of Columbia and concealed carry, adding:

Tom Palmer (disclosure: Tom is my colleague at the Cato Institute), once used a handgun to deter a mob of violent aggressors who were yelling death threats at him. Tom’s right, and the right of any other citizen, to arm himself should not be subject to approval by a civil servant who will not be present to protect them.

Criticism leveled at he Marin sheriffs for the August incident may not be warranted. Though close, they may not really have been able to do anything.

Which is exactly the point.

Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment by Brian Doherty:

This past June, the Supreme Court decided a question at the heart of one of America’s most impassioned debates, ruling that individual citizens have the constitutional right to possess guns. With that decision, the District’s handgun ban–one of the toughest and most controversial in the nation–was ended.

In Gun Control on Trial, journalist Brian Doherty tells the full story behind the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. With exclusive, behind the scenes access throughout the case, Doherty delved into the issues of this monumental case to provide a compelling look at the inside stories, including: The plaintiffs’ fight for the right to protect themselves and their families from violent neighborhoods. The activist lawyers who worked exhaustively to affirm that right. The forces that fought to stop the case, including city officials and the NRA. The story of the Heller case stretches back to long before the decision struck down D.C.’s restrictive gun ban and forward to the future of the political and legal battle over gun control in America. Doherty provides clear, concise explanations of the issues and battles that have driven the gun control debate for decades, detailing how the Heller decision is a new starting point for the gun control debate as it passionately and energetically continues in the years ahead.

It’s important to note that the Heller decision does not settle every controversy in the gun control debate. It only settles the legal question of whether or not the right to possess weapons under the Second Amendment extends to personal self-defense: it does, writes Doherty. What the Supreme Court decided in Heller may be narrow in its direct and immediate effect; but it’s deep in its implications for the relationship between the government and the American people, explains Doherty. It establishes a new shape to the arena in which the legal and political struggle over guns and gun control will be fought. And that fight assuredly continues.

Via Instapundit.

Not much time right now, but it’s pretty crazy.

Discussion at Uncle’s.

Stevens’ dissent–egad!
I guess I’m not surprised by the inaccuracies in there. Sometimes I wonder if people are maybe motivated by idealogical agendas.

The spirit of liberty that animates the Second Amendment has survived today’s narrow decision in D.C. v. Heller
Hooray liberty!

SCOTUS Decides For Individual Rights in Heller, Liberal Blogger Calls on Scalia to be Murdered
Most of the most deranged and potentially violent people seem to be those calling other people deranged and violent.

Seen At Think Progress
See? Deranged.

Recognizing Property Rights Without Actually Protecting Them
The time for high-fives and champagne was yesterday, people. Keep on fighting the good fight, because it’s far from over.

And The “Reasonable Restrictions” Start…
See? Far from over.

Uhm, you were just told no to that one
DC still claiming that weapons should always be locked or disassembled. They don’t think it’s over.

Down Range Radio Special Edition
For your listening pleasure.

The Candidates on Heller
Obama, of course has an “I believe in an individual right BUT…” lede. Remember, this is the guy who said he believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms so he would use California’s model as the basis for his system of gun control.

When it rains, it pours
Taking on Chicago’s gun control post-Heller. It is crucial to push Obama on this and keep on pushing no matter who he blames things on.

Rolling It Out
Sort of “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Inc.”

I Just Spoke to Alan Gura
Very cool.

Paul Hemlke responds to the SCOTUS Heller ruling
Clearly a case of “inaccurate but true.”

Helmke: We Lose…But We Win Anyway!
This one is actually accurate but true. Well, “accurate” in the sense that it’s really Helmke. The rest of the accuracy is a bit, well, less accurate.

Let’s play spot the hysteria and spot the outright lies
I don’t understand why the ACLU isn’t celebrating this great victory for civil liberty and freedom. Well, okay. I do understand.

And anybody that thinks Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn’t have been much different than Bush, should think again.
But I doubt they will.

The Heller Victories
Ride Fast. Shoot Straight. Repeat as necessary.

Special edition of the Second Amendment News Roundup
Even more links.

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter. [emphasis Murdoc's]

Via the Free Constitution Blog.

As I noted earlier:

No matter which way the SCOTUS goes, their decision will define what the 2nd Amendment has been all along.

It’s not that they’re redefining it, and that this afternoon it will mean something different than it did yesterday. It’s that they’re going to decide what it’s meant since the day it was written.

This is not a “new right.” People are going to tell the story that way, but they’re either mistaken or lying.

Here are the quick points I posted over at Murdoc Online:

1. The official position of the United States of America is that the keeping and bearing of arms is an individual right.
2. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does not grant that right to citizens.
3. It guarantees that government cannot infringe upon that right, the right that Just Is.
4. The Court’s ruling does not change what the 2nd Amendment means. It doesn’t mean something different this afternoon than it meant yesterday. It has always meant it. Some people and some laws were just wrong when they claimed otherwise.
5. This isn’t the end of the gun control battle.
6. But, to coin a phrase, it might be the end of the beginning of the gun control battle.
7. Future debates will center on thing like the definition of “arms” and what “shall not be infringed” and “keep and bear” mean.

And that is how history is made.

I predict a solid win for the “individual right”-view. Either way, it’s going to be an historic day in the history of the gun control debate.

UPDATE (9:50am): Heller poll at Uncle’s.

I don’t know how to answer, because A) I didn’t buy an booze or cigars, good or otherwise, and B) guns and ammo have been buried in the back yard for months.

Also:

I think we’ll probably be spending the next several decades arguing over exactly what Shall not be infringed means.

Absolutely we will.

Finally, he notes that both sides are going to be claiming victory, whatever the decision is. He’s right, but I think most folks (at least those who aren’t 100% invested in the losing side) will know that BS for what it is.

The coworker of mine who has said “What? You mean the National Guard?” every single time someone brings up the 2nd Amendment will have lost all of his previous arguments if the “individual right” view carries the day. He won’t admit it, of course, and will adopt new tactics. But years of what he claimed was an argument-winning point will have evaporated in one morning.

A last thing to keep in mind is this: No matter which way the SCOTUS goes, their decision will define what the 2nd Amendment has been all along.

It’s not that they’re redefining it, and that this afternoon it will mean something different than it did yesterday. It’s that they’re going to decide what it’s meant since the day it was written.

Ten minutes to go.

Pretty childish, really. Murdoc doesn’t do that sort of thing.

(Besides, for the life of me I can’t think of any good ones that haven’t already been taken…)

UPDATE: No, not today. That means tomorrow for sure.

The unabridged column by Randy Barnett than ran in the WSJ.

Jay at The Right To Bear Arms notes an interesting paragraph in a story on the Heller case:

District officials call the gun restrictions reasonable and necessary for public safety. In 1974, shortly before the district imposed the ban, handguns were used in 155 of the 285 homicides committed in D.C. In 2007, the city reported 181 homicides, nearly 80 percent of which were committed with guns.

I’m sure a lot of you know this, but, if not, here it is again: If a news story gives you two statistics for comparison and provides a percentage for one but not the other, calculate the missing percentage yourself. It often proves that their point is completely wrong.

Luckily, Jay does the math for us. Here are the results

• 1974, before the ban: 54.3% of homicides were committed with a gun
• 2007, three decades after the ban: nearly 80% of homicides were committed with a gun

They don’t think you’ll catch on. They think you’re stupid and won’t notice that they’re full of it.