Recently in 2nd Category

Earth to NY Times: People Already Have Guns

Marie Cocco is confused when she writes that the Supreme Court

reversed the historical interpretation to discover an individual right to bear arms.

In fact, that's not what it did. But it makes her feel better to tell the story that way, and who ever let a lie get in the way of gun reporting, anyway?

Via Soyer.

Glenn Reynolds writes something that sums up what I've seen as significant result of the Heller decision:

What's most striking about Heller is that absolutely everybody -- majority and dissents -- says the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

It's true that the dissenters' view of that right is somewhere between "minimalist" (to be charitable) and "incoherent" (to be accurate). But nonetheless, all nine Justices specifically said the right is individual, and thus rejected the "collective right" position on the Second Amendment, a position that's been the mainstay of gun-control groups, newspaper editorialists, and lower federal courts for decades, and one that was presented by those adherents as so obviously correct that those arguing for an individual right were called "frauds" and shills for the NRA.

Yet the collective right theory could not command a single vote on the Court when actually tested. It was, it seems, a paper tiger all along.

Decades of "collective right for the militia" arguments evaporated in the sunlight.

This needs to be remembered, because we're going to be hearing dozens of new "common sense" arguments about what "keep and bear" means or if certain types of restrictions and regulations are "infringing" on rights. They're going to argue that it's clear that the framers never meant this kind of gun or that it was okay to carry it there or use it for that purpose.

They're going to tell us that it's obvious that the 2nd Amendment means one thing, when a trip down memory lane to June 26th, 2008 will remind everyone that what they had previously told us it meant was completely and totally wrong and had been all along.

Yesterday I posted on Chicago suburb Wilmette suspending its gun ban, and now another one, Morton Grove, has done the same thing.

This seems good, but beware Chicagoland politicians bearing gifts. Rivrdog writes Gun law "Moratoriums" will outflank Heller and there's no reason to think that the banners will go quietly into the night.

The battle has not ended. It's merely changed.

Instapundit on the op-ed page of the New York Post: Winner's Test

I confess that I was one of the Second Amendment scholars who doubted that there were five votes on the high court to support an individual-right view of the Second Amendment.

I'm happy to be wrong about that, but there were only five such votes - demonstrating how narrow the margin was, and how out of touch the court is with the American public, which believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms by a 3-1 margin.

If, as some have been calling for, we had a "Supreme Court that looks like America," this case wouldn't even have been close. Ordinary Americans have generally believed that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied to, you know, the people.

It takes politicians, law professors (and, it turns out, four Supreme Court justices) to believe that a "right of the people" somehow actually doesn't belong to the people at all.

Now, I doubt that many (if any) of the people reading GunPundit subscribe to the non-individual view of the 2nd Amendment. And all of us probably think that the individual view is simply "common sense." As Reynolds says, about 75% of Americans think that way.

But 25% don't, and a lot of them are in positions of power.

Reynolds' larger point is that, now that Heller has been won, can the ball be kept rolling?

I think it can, for sure. It's not like Heller was a bolt out of the blue in the gun control debate. Concealed carry and castle doctrine have both been growing nationwide for a couple of decades. The Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset without too much of a fight. The Heller decision is really more of a final chapter in the opening sequence of the battle, not the beginning of the battle.

But there is no time to congratulate ourselves or pat ourselves on the back. The first round has been won and the opponent is reeling, but they are far from defeated. They have always played a long-view game, and until recently they played it well. They'll be regrouping quickly, and I doubt that many of the battles in places like Chicago or California are going to be as easy as some seem to think.

Meanwhile, other efforts by our opponents are still underway, such as the effort to strictly regulate ammunition purchases, put an end to gun shows as we know them, and reinstate the bans on "assault weapons." These are very dangerous campaigns, and the Heller decision is going to do little, if anything, to slow them.

We'll learn of the Supreme Court ruling today.

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.

Incidentally, I absolutely REFUSE to stoop down to the level of funny little third-grade word games with "Heller" like some folks insist on.

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.

Yes, that Chicago.

Murdoc could possibly be convinced to check it out. Via Instapundit.

Gun Control is a Basic Freedom?

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of gun control. Just like the Founding Fathers intended.

Public Believes Americans Have Right to Own Guns

Gallup results, which will surely be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and will lead off every evening newscast in the nation:

A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

To be honest, I would have thought the number believing it applies only to militia would be a bit higher. I know a couple of folks who espouse this view, and maybe they've convinced me that their views are more widely held than they are.

Even more surprising to me are the results from those who don't own a gun. It's certainly no shock that gun owners don't think the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, but even non-owners think it means that individuals can own guns by more than a 2-1 majority:

I often have the feeling that a solid majority of American who don't own guns are perfectly willing to dismiss the 2nd Amendment and to basically toss gun owners under the bus. Apparently that opinion isn't quite as widespread as I have feared.

I must have got that feeling from reading the newspapers.

I've worked out my conflicts and will definitely be attending the 2nd Amendment Blog Bash at the NRA Annual Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, in May.

There's a great lineup of bloggers planning to attend and the convention should be a good one.

You don't have to be a "gun blogger" to attend the Bash, and of course the NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits are there for all members.

Hope to see you there!

Lots of updates over at the Second Amendment Blog Bash site, so go check it out.

Murdoc is still unsure whether he's going to make it or not, but it definitely looks like a good time.