Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds Government Right to Regulate Guns

[SecularMotion]

The truth is that the ultimate policy objective of the gun lobby is to completely de-regulate the ownership and use of guns. The NRA can mouth all the pious platitudes in the world about how only 'law-abiding' citizens should own guns, but in the name of Constitutional freedom they have attempted to stymie even the most minimal government efforts to keep guns out of the 'wrong hands.' If there even is a gun problem, the response of the gun lobby is to 'fix' the mental-health system, a non-sequitur if I ever heard one, or increase penalties for gun crimes, despite the fact that every, single gun used illegally or inappropriately first entered the market through a legal sale. What's the NRA's plan for preventing the massive and continuous flow of guns from the good guys to the bad guys? Let every good guy walk around with a gun.

From a pro-gun perspective, the Heller III decision voided some of the DC registration rules which, as far as I'm concerned, weren't of great value at all. This included dropping the 'one gun a month' rule, the re-registration of guns and a requirement that every gun owner pass a test on current DC gun laws. Most importantly, what the decision upheld was the constitutionality of gun registration per se, and perhaps even more important the use of 'intermediate scrutiny' for deciding the constitutionality of gun-control laws. Had the Court agreed with the NRA's argument that the government's attempt to regulate gun ownership could only be decided on the basis of 'strict scrutiny,' i.e., a law is only valid if it fits the exact issue for which it has been designed, you could basically throw out every gun-control statute that has ever been passed.

The Court also upheld the requirement that D.C. gun owners must take an online course in gun safety which I took while I ate breakfast, paid some bills and watched Morning Joe. If the gun-control community thinks they won a partial victory because the Court upheld this part of the D.C. law they should think again. Affirming the government's right to control firearms is one thing; affirming a silly and useless gun regulation is something else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/heller-v-dc-gun-control_b_8170192.html

[ileus]

1. The N R A......BOO!

[TeddyR]

2. Although I haven't read every thread relating to the RKBA

I haven't seen anyone arguing that government can't enact certain regulations with respect to firearms. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms on an individual basis, but it isn't an unfettered right. I personally don't like gun registration requirements but I imagine that most courts would find registration laws constitutional. In fact, the author of the article overstates the import of Heller if he thinks it recognizes some new authority for the government to regulate firearms -- even Scalia in Heller I recognized that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms was subject to regulation. The more interesting question in my mind from the recent Heller decision is the level of scrutiny applied -- I suspect that some appellate courts would disagree with the decision that strict scrutiny does not apply to gun laws so we may ultimately see a circuit split on that issue.

[DonP]

3. Brady said the same thing after the first Heller decision

After getting their ass handed to them in court in Heller, the Brady people stood on the steps of SCOTUS and declared themselves and gun control in general a big "winner" of the case, because the ruling allowed some regulation, ... which they already had anyway and nobody ever said that some level of regulation wasn't allowed.

It was just another desperate attempt to seem relevant and powerful politically, just like this article.

[Eleanors38]

4. Not much here that hasn't been coverd before. nt

[Straw Man]

5. I think ...

"Affirming the government's right to control firearms is one thing; affirming a silly and useless gun regulation is something else."

... this pretty much says it all.

[beardown]

6. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers wants to talk to the writer of the piece

" the response of the gun lobby is to... increase penalties for gun crimes, despite the fact that every, single gun used illegally or inappropriately first entered the market through a legal sale. "

Above statement per drunk drivers.
"the response of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is to increase penalties for drunk driving, despite the fact that every, single drink taken by a DUI first entered the market through a legal sale."

It seems like MADD has had a substantial impact on reducing drunk diving deaths, albeit with a significant reduction in the protections offered by the Bill of Rights. This writer not only missed the real life example boat, but missed the dock and seaport to boot. Exactly like current repubs that think trickle down is a viable economic model despite a 35 year record of abject failure.

Finally, " the response of the gun lobby is to 'fix' the mental-health system, a non-sequitur if I ever heard one,".
Puts the writers at odds with a significant number of gun control advocates per suicide by guns and crazed folks shooting up citizens and also ignores the dismal status of the USA's mental health support systems. This hits on the "okay to get killed by anything, but a gun" tunnel vision that invalidates their moral high ground to many of us.