Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment sends liberal media into temper tantrum

[Desertdog]

The Liberal Media isn't the only ones screaming about the SCOTUS ruling.  There are a number of liberal lawman that want to continue doing what they have always wanted to do , BAN GUNS.

Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment sends liberal media into temper tantrum
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5795

by Dean Rieck

Whhaaaaaaa!

Hear that? That's the national media throwing a temper tantrum over the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to own firearms.

No, the Second Amendment is not limited to those in a militia. No, it's not merely a collective right. No, it's not just about 200-year-old muskets. The Justices said clearly and unequivocally that the Second Amendment means that every citizen has an inherent and uninfringable right to own common firearms. Period. End of debate.

It's a simple idea that most gun rights supporters have always understood. But journalists and editors in mainstream news departments around the nation don't get it. In fact, many seem shocked that one of their primary assumptions has been so suddenly and utterly shattered with the hammer of logic and historical wisdom.

Here's just a small sample of this foot stomping fit from the media, along with my thoughts on their thoughts:

Chicago Tribune:
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
The Founding Fathers needed an editor? Who? Like you? Keep dreaming, you arrogant dolt. The court has spoken. The collectivist fantasy you've been desperately shoving down people's throats is over.

The New York Times:
Impact of Gun Ruling Limited, Experts Say
The individual right to bear arms identified by the Supreme Court on Thursday will have little practical impact in most of the country, legal experts said ...
Little impact? You think a ruling that tells legislators nationwide that they can't continue to violate citizens' rights will have little impact? You've got to be kidding.

The Salt Lake Tribune:
Second Amendment: U.S. Supreme Court should have left precedent alone

The U.S. Supreme Court's holding Thursday that the Second Amendment enshrines in the Constitution an individual right to keep firearms in the home outside the context of a state militia was wrongly decided and turned decades of settled judicial precedent on its head.
Settled judicial precedent? Nothing was settled. But it sure is now. This ruling doesn't just draw a line in the sand, it erects a 50-foot stone wall between citizens and gun-grabbing activists and legislators.

CBS News:
Outrage Over Gun Ruling
In cities that have high gun-related death tolls, many leaders are outraged over the Supreme Court's decision overturning a ban on owning handguns.
Outraged? Sure, they're outraged. They're outraged that they can no longer chase the red herring of gun bans to pretend they're "fighting crime." Now they might have to actually do something that works. Like arrest and punish criminals perhaps?

Los Angeles Times:
Guns, yes and no
Presented with two historically plausible arguments about whether the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court on Thursday opted for the interpretation less suited to a 21st century America bedeviled by gun crime.
Less suited to 21st century America? Nothing could be more suited. When exactly is the natural and constitutionally-protected right of self-defense out of date? What's not suited to 21st century America is a media that's still drinking the Kool-Aid of nonsensical and utterly disproved gun control schemes.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
A second thought on Second Amendment
Somehow, I ... don’t think the public is eager to start rolling back a whole range of gun laws, laws they had come to accept and support as necessary for public safety.
You don't think so? Think again. Since the vast majority of gun laws do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding gun owners, the public at large have been chucking anti-gun claptrap and embracing Castle Doctrine, concealed carry, and other clear-headed concepts.

The Associated Press:
Mayors: Gun ruling won't stop prevention efforts
"In limiting its opinion to the matter of self-defense, and in saying the right is not absolute, the United States Supreme Court decision today is an explicit statement of support for cities all across America who are creating reasonable measures to limit the ability of those who will do harm, who will maim, who will buy, carry weapons illegally," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said.
Did you read the same ruling I did? They're not supporting cities. They're slapping them upside the head and telling them to straighten up and fly right. You can't ban guns. You can't deny ownership. You can't infringe the right of self-defense using firearms. Give it up. You lose.

Let's get something straight right now. The Supreme Court's ruling isn't surprising except for the fact that the mainstream media thinks it's so surprising. Americans overwhelmingly believe that the Second Amendment makes perfect sense. Always have. Always will.

The media is simply out of touch. And they're having a hissy fit because they've been robbed of one of their most cherished myths: that owning guns is a privilege and the Second Amendment is an antiquated concept about an outdated militia.

Well, go ahead and stomp your feet and cry. Get it out of your system. Then you can wipe your eyes, blow your nose, and get back to your job of mangling reporting the truth.

[makattak]

Although I'm sure this will happen again, these responses are from Heller.

Heading of the article:

Submitted by drieck on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 00:05

[MechAg94]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

Here is the link from Drudge today.

[agricola]

Hello again.  Is this really Breyer's dissent?

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=insco20100628007t

If it is, I especially like:

Unlike the First Amendment's religious protections, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' insistence upon fair criminal procedure, and the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishments, the private self-defense right does not significantly seek to protect individuals who might otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at the hands of a majority.

[Scout26]

Unlike the First Amendment's religious protections, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' insistence upon fair criminal procedure, and the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishments, the private self-defense right does not significantly seek to protect individuals who might otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at the hands of a majority.

So what Breyer said in essence is "Hey, Lynchings aren't all bad."   

[French G.]

Hello again.  Is this really Breyer's dissent?

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=insco20100628007t

If it is, I especially like:

Unlike the First Amendment's religious protections, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' insistence upon fair criminal procedure, and the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishments, the private self-defense right does not significantly seek to protect individuals who might otherwise suffer unfair or inhumane treatment at the hands of a majority.

Applying slightly more logic than he did in his dissent I can only conclude that the Supreme Court, unlike the military, is not subject to random urinalysis.

[RocketMan]

Many a panty is firmly bunched betwixt liberal butt cheeks this day, I can tell you.

[Scout26]

Many a panty is firmly bunched betwixt liberal butt cheeks this day, I can tell you.

Quote o' the Day !!!!!!

[longeyes]

Let them have their own country.  It's going to come to that.  Just a matter of time.

[S. Williamson]

Rather, it seems that it is we who will have to relocate.

[CNYCacher]

Rather, it seems that it is we who will have to relocate.

Seems we already did that a few hundred years ago.

Their turn.

[Hawkmoon]

Seems we already did that a few hundred years ago.

Their turn.

True. Blighty has a whole bunch of laws just like the ones the liberals think we should have. If they think those laws are so great and work so well, they should go live in Great Britain.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

The antis are already at it. From Fox News:

CHICAGO-The day after the Supreme Court cleared a path to overturn this city's ban on handguns-among the toughest in the U.S.-frustrated city officials began Tuesday to consider new measures to circumvent the high court's ruling.

At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who'd been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training. They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.

If the city can pass a dog ordinance that "can protect the public from a dog bite," we should be able to tighten handgun regulations, Alderman Freddrenna Lyle said.

The debate comes at the direction of Mayor Richard Daley, an outspoken critic of gun access who reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision.

[Waitone]

The fight ain't over.  We've decades of lawsuits to clarify the court's intentions.  At a minimum expect a counter suit should leftists, progressive, fascists, marxists, et al gain 5 seats on SCOTUS.

[MillCreek]

Speaking as an insurance expert, I wonder just what kind of 'liability insurance' Chicago is thinking of requiring of gun owners.  Your homeowners/renters liability policy generally covers accidental shootings, but generally does not cover deliberate shootings, even in self-defense.  Although I do point out that in some jurisdictions, case law has extended coverage for some of these matters. 

I wonder if it will be like some jurisdictions require the purchase of liability coverage if you own a particular breed of dog.  The sticky wicket is that some insurers now specifically exclude coverage for some dog breeds, and there may not be any insurance available to purchase in your jurisdiction.  This can be a 'back-door' approach to prohibition: you have to have insurance, but if you can't find insurance, that is not our problem, so you cannot own the item/animal.

[HankB]

. . . The debate comes at the direction of Mayor Richard Daley, an outspoken critic of gun access who reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision has armed police bodyguards 24/7.

I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop . . . or have as many armed cops as I want accompany me everywhere I go.

[Monkeyleg]

All this talk from city officials about licensing, insurance, and other obstacles has me wondering: isn't this much like a poll tax? Isn't there a point at which the courts would say that Chicago's aldermen are being obstructionist?

[Balog]

All this talk from city officials about licensing, insurance, and other obstacles has me wondering: isn't this much like a poll tax? Isn't there a point at which the courts would say that Chicago's aldermen are being obstructionist?

I hope so. Supreme Court gets a bit pissy when people blatantly defy their rulings, I hear. I wanna see some Chicago policritters in leg irons.

[longeyes]

from the Wall St. Journal, yesterday:

JUNE 29, 2010
Five Gun Salute

The High Court's four liberals are holding out to overturn Heller.

Judicial liberals have been discovering the virtues of legal precedent now that conservatives are finally winning a few cases at the Supreme Court, but in yesterday's major gun rights case that all went out the window. The four liberal Justices rejected a 2008 landmark precedent as well as one of their own bedrock Constitutional principles.

That's the most surprising news in yesterday's 5-4 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects the same Constitutional right in the states as it does in Washington, D.C. The decision is the logical extension of 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment was an individual right like the rest of the Bill of Rights. In McDonald, the Justices established that this right also applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment and cast doubt on a Chicago ordinance banning handguns.

Most Court followers had expected the decision to "incorporate" the Second Amendment to the states to be relatively easy and perhaps draw a large majority. Over nearly a century of cases, the High Court has extended to the states most of the rest of the Bill of Rights including part or all of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. It would be passing strange for the Second Amendment to be the lone outlier.

All the more so given that Justice Samuel Alito's plurality opinion used "substantive due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment to justify the decision. This is the logic that liberals have long used to apply the other Bill of Rights to the states, and objections to it have most often come from conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned his own "misgivings about Substantive Due Process" as a matter of original Constitutional interpretation in his concurring opinion yesterday. But he said he "acquiesced" in this decision "'because it is both long established and narrowly limited.'"

Justice Alito's majority opinion was indeed careful to define the reach of substantive due process, saying that it should apply only to those rights that are "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty." Heller had decided that basic question, the Justice wrote, and thus to decide not to apply it to the states would "treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause." This reasoning was endorsed by Justices Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority ruling but did so using what he called a "more straightforward path" to incorporation, using a long-dormant part of the Fourteenth Amendment known as the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court had made that clause all but a dead letter with The Slaughter-House cases of 1873, though Justice Alito acknowledged that "many legal scholars dispute the correctness" of that decision. He's referring in particular to libertarians who want to revive the Privileges or Immunities Clause to enforce property rights and other protections against state regulation.

The majority opinion does leave room for some state and local gun regulation. And the liberals could have joined the majority to help shape the opinion and allow for even more state and local latitude. So it's striking that they instead came out in full-throated dissent and refused to accept even the basic finding in Heller.


Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even did a rare turn as a states' rights advocate, noting that incorporation will curtail the ability of states to craft their own gun laws. This problem doesn't seem to bother Justice Breyer or the other liberals when they overturn state laws based on a "right to privacy" that, unlike the Second Amendment, is mentioned nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

All of this suggests that the liberals have decided to bide their time and wait for a fifth vote so they can overturn both Heller and McDonald. This means that the matter of Second Amendment rights is far from settled, and the National Rifle Association and other advocates had better keep their legal guard up.

Elena Kagan may soon replace John Paul Stevens on the Court, and it's notable that Justice Stevens used his final opinion to issue a blistering attack on the Constitutional "orginalism" that informs some of today's conservative Justices. Mr. Scalia fired back in delightfully brutal fashion, and if you want to understand the Court's current philosophical divide, you could do worse than to read all of the opinions in McDonald.

As for Ms. Kagan and gun rights, as a clerk to former Justice Thurgood Marshall, she declared herself "not sympathetic" to a Second Amendment case similar to the issue in Heller. As an aide in the Clinton White House, she advocated aggressive gun control regulations. Despite yesterday's welcome extension of gun rights to the states, the liberal effort to make the Second Amendment a second-rate right is a long way from over.

[Desertdog]

Every time a state or city passes any type of gun restriction, be it insurance, safes. trigger locks, age limits, or anthing else, there should be a lawsuit filed the very next day to make them fight to prove the law is constitutional.

[HankB]

Every time a state or city passes any type of gun restriction, be it insurance, safes. trigger locks, age limits, or anthing else, there should be a lawsuit filed the very next day to make them fight to prove the law is constitutional.

I'll go a step further, and say that every time a law, rule, or ordinance is passed that is later ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, the governmental unit that originally passed it ought to pay all the legal expenses of the prevailing party.

And if the objection is raised that "The poor taxpayers will have to pay for it" . . . my response is "Maybe the poor taxpayers will learn the consequences of voting for the wrong people."

[Hawkmoon]

I wonder if it will be like some jurisdictions require the purchase of liability coverage if you own a particular breed of dog.  The sticky wicket is that some insurers now specifically exclude coverage for some dog breeds, and there may not be any insurance available to purchase in your jurisdiction.  This can be a 'back-door' approach to prohibition: you have to have insurance, but if you can't find insurance, that is not our problem, so you cannot own the item/animal.

Just follow the Feral government's own logic. HUD contracts for A&E (Architecture and Engineering) services typically require the consultant to have a minimum of $1 million in professional liability coverage. HUD also wrote the contract that they required As and Es to sign. When it was pointed out to HUD that their contract included 15 specific items that were explicitly NOT covered by any standard A&E professional liability company, the response was "That's their problem. As far as I'm concerned, our contract says they have to have insurance. If they sign the contract, they have insurance." And HUD would then accept as proof of insurance a standard proof of insurance form that said the professional has errors and omissions coverage ... without ever reading the policy to see if the things HUD required were actually insured, or were excluded.

Morons.

[MillCreek]

^^^ I encounter this very same issue all the time when we are doing contracts.  The other party will ask for things that are not in the standard property, casualty or liability insurance forms.  I just line out those clauses in the contract, initial them and send it back.  Hardly anyone has ever caught this.  The few times they have, I asked to speak to their risk manager or insurance broker, and we have been able to clear it up pretty darn quick.  It is the people who don't know much about insurance, yet specify insurance requirements, that will be the death of me.

[Tallpine]

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even did a rare turn as a states' rights advocate, noting that incorporation will curtail the ability of states to craft their own gun laws.

Next thing you know, these liberals will be advocating nullification     

[Hawkmoon]

Next thing you know, these liberals will be advocating nullification     

We cans nullify liberals?