Cliff Notes for D.C. vs. Heller

Today the Supreme Court issued it's long awaited ruling in the District of Columbia Et Al. Vs. Heller case (pdf). It should finally put to bed (but sadly probably won't) the rediculous argument that the 2nd Amendment some how only protected the right of the federal government to form an army (militia). It also destroyed several other tired myths that gun-control groups have tried to pass off over the last 45 years. For example:

The 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own 18th century firearms only:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search,the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 8).

The 2nd gives the right to bear arms, but congress can take it away by amendment:

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed." (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 19).

That the last 'big' 2nd Amendment case, United States v.Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), confirmed that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to ordinary citizens:

Miller did not hold that (that the 2nd amendment was only for state sponsored militia members -subleum) and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection." (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 49).

That the Second Amendment is about hunting (and no one really hunts anymore):

Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 24).

All-in-all, the majority delivered a through and well founded opinion, laying out why the Second Amendment is just as important and individual a right as the 1st and 4th. Interestingly, the court did not touch on the issue of gun licensing/registration, primarily because the petitioner (Heller) only asked that the District process his license request. Scalia noted:

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 3).

That of course leaves open the question of whether or not the government is allowed to require a license in order for a citizen to exercise a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Can the government require a citizen to obtain a permit before exercising his Second Amendment right to own a firearm? Clearly, given D.C.'s post-decision statements, that exactly what they plan on doing. Given that the majority spent 64 pages explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was a right on the same level as the First and Fourth Amendments, it would seem contradictory that they would then claim "oh, but you need a permit from the government to exercise this one" unless the government is also able to require permits prior to speaking, publishing a newspaper or in order to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Or the more extreme example, a permit needed to exercise your right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Alas, this is another area that will have to be ironed out over the coming years.

For it's part, D.C. is guaranteed to do everything in it's power to minimally comply. The District's Attorney General, Peter Nickles provided a glimpse of their strategy:

We are going to strictly regulate the registration of handguns. There will be no authorization of automatic or semi-automatics.

Which to me seems like a very questionable legal strategy. Primarily because the SCOTUS opinion clearly says handguns are protected because they are common and popular self-defense weapons.

Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 58).

And semi-automatics are the most popular type of handgun. Sadly, this is not unexpected from the AG that declared that D.C. roadblocks were clearly constitutional. And oh, and he was on the wrong side of the Heller case as well.

The Baltimore Sun Lives Up To Their Abbreviation

The "BS" shows you can never stoop too low in an effort to sell newspapers.

An eye-catching headline like this is bound to sell some papers:

Illicit guns flow into Maryland: In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported

What difference does it make if that's a completely unsubstantiated claim?

The article, claims that 44% of the guns used in Maryland crimes were from other states, and then continues on to quote various Maryland officials who pat themselves on the back and take credit for the high percentage. Why? Because it clearly shows that Maryland's gun laws are so tough, criminals are going outside the state to buy their guns. Of course they don't take credit for the fact that the majority of guns are still purchased in Maryland. Only politicians have spines so flexible.

But what about that percentage? Turns out, if you actually look at the study(PDF) their story was based on, the facts are oh so different.

The study is based on gun serial number traces. It shows that in Maryland there were 7,517 gun traces (usually by law enforcement) in 2007. Of those, in only 4,397 traces were the ATF able to tell where the gun was originally purchased. Of those, 44% came from a state other than Maryland.

The front page of the study clearly states the following two very important facts the Baltimore Sun doesn't want you to know:

1. Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.
2. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals or any subset of that universe.
   

So how does the BS determine that 44% of guns used in Maryland crimes came from other states when we don't know if any of those guns were used in crimes? And even if they were, the study's own authors (ATF) state that they are in no way, shape or form representative of all firearms used in crimes in Maryland.

So what does that mean about the BS' statement of "In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported"?

The Baltimore Sun completely made that up. Why? The only answer I can come up with is that it supports an agenda either the Baltimore Sun and/or reported Annie Linskey has. There can be no other explanation.

Remember that the next time some 'news' source quotes some statistic. In this case, the BS story was absent any details (or even a link to the source). That should always tell you there's something really wrong with what they're telling you and their only option is to hide the truth from you.