Recently in DC Gun Ban Category

Via a reader: Registering a Firearm in the District of Columbia

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

Discussion at Uncle's.

Next in Bus & Driver: Obama's position on guns
Who would have ever guessed Obama would flop on this one?

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.

Reuters:

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.

Individual Right.

And that is how history is made.

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.

A Layman's Guide to Heller

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.

Sebastian notes the five SCOTUS justices who seem to most strongly support us in the questioning, notes who appointed them, and writes:

This should give you all some idea of the importance of elections. Where do you think we’d be on the Heller case if Al Gore or John Kerry had won in 2000 and 2004 respectively?

This is another reason why I don't buy the "real Conservatives won't vote for McCain" reasoning.

Heller is the First Case, not the Last

Agreed.

Of course, everyone has tons of links. I've been busy and unable to follow things as closely as I should be, but here are a few.

Instapundit, including:

LOS ANGELES TIMES: U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban. I certainly hope so, though GOP partisans might prefer that it went the other way, since that would make a McCain presidency much more likely.

Index to SCOTUSblog’s Heller Coverage

Heller Thoughts, NRA Statement on Heller and a big collection of Heller Links at Say Uncle.

Guns and Gay Sex: Some Notes on Firearms, the Second Amendment, and 'Reasonable Regulation' by Glen Reynolds.

Gun-Rights Showdown in the Wall Street Journal.

Fighting for our right to bear arms in the Boston Globe.

Plus a Special Podcast: More Heller coverage and DC vs. Heller through other eyes by Caleb.

Robert Novak writes that by departing from the presidential administration's official position, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President Bush:

The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court's affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order. But if Bush agrees with Cheney, why did the president not simply order Clement to revise his brief? The answers: disorganization and weakness in the eighth year of his presidency.

Though the administration is clearly disorganized and relatively weak these days, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bush is nearly as pro-individual right or anti-gun control as Novak seems to think. I also won't disagree that the State Department has basically run amok and that they aren't lining up with Bush's policies, because that's also quite obvious on a wide range of issues, but, again, this doesn't mean that Bush is as gun-friendly as Novak claims.

Remember, this is the same president who said he'd sign a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban if Congress sent it to him.

So while Cheney's break with the administration's position wasn't nearly as dramatic as some liked to pretend, and while Bush probably isn't nearly as pro-ban as some would have you believe, it's tough to portray him as an ally against the banners. He seems pretty neutral about it all, and has never really convinced me that he's interested in my constitutional rights when it comes to guns.