Heller decicion

Since I'm told that comment is obligatory.

We won today, not huge, but about like I expected. Yes, you have a right to own a gun, subject to some restrictions. What restrictions? Why, practically anything the government wants, short of outright prohibition. More interesting than the decision, were the dissents. Thanks to scotusblog for these two, among others.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent:

"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations."

Get that, a new constitutional right. Delivered up from the clear blue air! Who would have thought?

Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent:

"The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens — namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But, self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.

"The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves."

The constitution allows the government to limit the rights it grants to the peasants, apparently to whatever degree the government wishes. So why have a constitution if not to circumscribe the actions of the government?

We really don’t need any more like these.

Here’s a reaction to the decision, again from scotusblog:

"This decision's going to say to these guys that it's OK to have guns — that's the message the street gets from this ... If you take this ruling the wrong way, everybody and their mother's going to go out and get a gun." — Tio Hardiman, of the Chicago violence prevention group Cease Fire.

Now imagine you’re a punk, in need of redistributing the public wealth from their pockets to yours. Imagine further that everybody took Mr. Hardimans advice. You need to put on your “thug mug” and try to intimidate someone into turning over their watch and wallet. Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?

We won a battle. We've not won the war by a long, long, shot.