Democrats cheer gun ruling (for now)
Kasie Hunt writes at Politico that the Democrats are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled as it did in McDonald v. Chicago because it removes guns as an issue in the next election;
“It removes guns as a political issue because everyone now agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and everybody agrees that it’s subject to regulation,” said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the culture program at centrist think tank Third Way.
A House Democratic aide agreed that the court’s decision removed a potentially combustible element from the mix.
“The Supreme Court ruled here that you have a fundamental right to own and bear arms, and that means at the national level it’s harder — whether it’s Republicans or whether it’s the [National Rifle Association] — to throw that claim out: If Democrats are in charge. they’re going to come get your guns,” said the aide. “It pretty much took that off the table.”
That message seems to have filtered down to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in her confirmation hearing to day. When asked by Dianne Feinstein about yesterday’s decision, Kagan responded (Fox News link);
“Senator Feinstein, because the court decided them as they did — and once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent,” Kagan answered.
The nominee said that unless the circumstances that led to a decision change or some other significant grounds can be found to challenge, “the operating presumption of our legal system is that a judge respects precedent. … You assume that it’s right and that it’s valid going forward.”
Notice she added that “unless circumstances change” proviso. What could change circumstances? Democrats could get a big hard-on for guns and write new law. So nothing has really changed – Democrats can smile nicely at you and stroke your revolver until Fall. Their attitude towards guns certainly didn’t change over night with the Supreme Court decision.
Harry Reid wrote;
“I am pleased that the high court has taken steps in both the Heller and McDonald cases to guarantee this fundamental right,” he said in a prepared statement, referring to both the 2008 Heller decision, which struck down the District of Columbia’s restrictive gun law, and Monday’s McDonald v. Chicago decision against Chicago’s handgun ban.
Only because guns have beating the living shit out of Democrats for more than a decade. But give them 61 votes in the Senate and watch it all change.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Dennis Henigan of the Brady group published a pathetic attempt to spin the decision in his org’s favor on HuffPo. Early commenters fell into lockstep, once again reciting lines about the NRA’s desire to keep the masses afraid in order to control them. This from supporters of a group that frequently distributes fact-light propaganda wherein they inquire how knowing that anyone might be carrying concealed makes the reader feel.
Of course, the anti-gun tards betray themselves in the same thread, where one of their ilk whines “What I want to know is what happened to my right to walk down a street without fearing guns possessed by non-law enforcement people and worn in public??”
Mah gawd! Think of the children! Will no one stand up and fight for our right to not be abstractly afraid of the law abiding citizens who surround us?!
So it’s the “gun nuts” who are living in fear. Right.
Regardless of the possible future fall out, I’m ecstatic over the court’s ruling. The final clear acknowledgement that this is a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right is worth the price of admission. Regardless of how anti-gun folks spin this, it strengthens the foundation of any future challenges to draconian limitations. WhoopWhoop!
I’m sure Ms. Kagan and Sen. Feinstein had other Supreme Court rulings in mind with that question and response… Other rulings that others would like to see thrown out as faulty, but that they (Ms. Kagan and Sen. Feinstein) personally support; McDonald v. Chicago not really being one of them.
What the (D)-bags have in mind is that yes, they agree you have an absolute right to keep and bear arms. However, you will first have to fill out all these forms, have background checks, register each weapon and where it’s located, how it is stored, prove you have taken safe-handling courses, nave a permit to purchase each particular weapon, and that you are allowed to choose which weapon to apply for the right to purchase from an approved list of types and calibres and capacities.
Don’t sell the (D)-bags short. If they are supporting this, they are up to something and they will use the generalities of this law to push for all sorts of impediments to your actually BUYING a gun, let alone keeping it.
What I dispise with the current crop of d-bag lawyers is their reliance on, right or wrong, PRECIDENT law, not original source Constitutional law.
Kagen is just the latest in a too long line of same ol’ same ol’.
If the gun issue is off the table why do Dems still say Republicans want to take away abortion rights after Roe??? Hey Dems, shouldn’t that be off the table for you???