OK

It's amazing what happens when you go on vacation. I'm not saying McDonald v. Chicago was planned to make me go online during my vacation but it's strange how these things work out.

So here's your Weekly RKBA subject diary on the recent SCOTUS decision (announced yesterday) about the Second Amendment and state/city firearm laws.

RKBA is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

So, first of all, what the hell am I talking about?

From SCOTUSblog:

Today’s opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago means that for the first time, state and local governments’ gun regulations must comport with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right “to keep and bear Arms.” Although many state constitutions have a gun rights provision, McDonald has the potential to radically reshape non-federal firearms legislation.

Quite frankly, I'm glad to see that a Constitutionally enshrined civil right will now not be restricted at a state level. I'd love to see the whole of the Bill of Rights applied (incorporated) against the states. I think that any time a civil right is restricted at a state or local issue, we have a problem. Jaime Frontero summed it up nicely:

Now why is it again, that when local laws are crafted about things like abortion and voting rights, we all agree that they are wrong, and designed to take away our federal rights?  We get quite noisy about that, in fact.

Kestrel had a comment that was on target as well:

Human rights and the Constitution won today.
There isn't anything more, really, to discuss.
I know you're mad, but deal with it.
My rights won the day over your phobias.
I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Buddabelly mentions original intent and full auto:

We have an individual right under the 2nd to "Keep and bear arms", considering the og intent we should and are allowed access to basically the full line of man portable and propelled military grade weaponry.

The 86 import and manufacture ban on full auto should be ended as all that has done is create a huge price increase in available, transferable weapons which takes the average citizen out of the ability to purchase military grade firearms.

I pulled this gem from 1911s out of a McDonald diary yesterday (emphasis mine):

That was my first thought: if banning guns doesn't work then what's the problem with allowing guns?  Gotta keep in mind the bad guys weren't paying attention to the ban, obviously.  So if those who respect the law are allowed by law to be armed might the bad guys give a thought to "maybe I shouldn't be a bad guy because I don't want to get shot"?

Not that more guns is the solution to violent crime.  Near as I can figure the solution to violence is embedded in ending poverty and social inequity, but I don't have linkage to support that so I'll just call it an opinion :)

On a final note: I am disappointed that the Second Amendment wasn't applied to the states through the Privileges and Immunity clause. This would give us a gap that we can wedge open and overturn DOMA and DADT, among other issues.

Originally posted to KVoimakas on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 03:55 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.