Skip to main content

View Diary: The only constitutional right that comes at the annual cost of thousands of human sacrifices (625 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Respectfully Disagree In Part..... (8+ / 0-)

    While the Heller decision recognizes the 2nd Amendment as advancing an individual right to keep & bear arms, nothing in the Heller decision conflicts with gun control measures that places certain limits. The one & only gun control measure that Heller threw out was a complete & total ban on handguns under all circumstances.

    From Pages 54 & 55 of Scalia's Majority Opinion:

    Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.
    From the New York Times (December 18, 2012): Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls
    Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.

    The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

    Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

    Also, there's a bit of context to go along with the decision, since it centered around Washington D.C. stringent handgun ban which didn't seem to stop gun violence in the city. It should also be noted that the same Washington D.C. government that fought to preclude its residents from legally owning a handgun in their own homes (i.e. we're not talking about concealed carry or people arming themselves with semi-automatic assault rifles), also pushed in federal court the argument the city had "no duty to protect" its own citizens.
    Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site