ShoutyBear: Politics. Foreign Affairs. Zarf.

With even the Brady Campaign opposed to D.C.’s decision to take its toughest-in-the-nation gun law to the nation’s highest court, most SCOTUS observers were expecting the Court to rule, at long last, that the right of Americans “to keep and bear arms” is an individual one. Judging by the oral arguments so far — C-SPAN started airing audio around 12:30 p.m. — it seems pretty clear which way the wind is blowing.

The District’s appeal rests heavily on the militia clause — and, in an odd way, on a state of affairs that no longer exists. The Framers intended the Second Amendment to restrict the federal government’s power over its people. It was in part a nod to Great Britain’s ultimately failed attempt to crush the colonies’ militias via blockades. The District is arguing that its gun restrictions are constitutional because they date back to the mid-1800s when all this militia business was still relevant. “No one thought these laws violated the 2nd Amendment… because the right to bear arms was believed to be intended for state militias,” writes David Savage in yesterday’s LA Times.

In other words, the Framers only ever intended for militias or armies to be armed, not individuals. That’s a tough sell, considering many of the Framers were land-owning men who packed heat themselves.

Walter Dellinger, representing the District, gets pretty beat up by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia (Dick Cheney’s hunting buddy). Dellinger is right when he points out that the Second Amendment was more about limiting the federal government’s power and less about enumerating what individuals may or may not do. But then he goes the extra step of arguing that as a consequence, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the District’s laws. How can he accept that the Second Amendment may confer an individual right to bear arms but not interfere with the state’s attempt to block that right?

Continue reading Say Goodbye To Your Gun Ban, D.C….