Handgun ban overturned in DC

[GrayMatterWife]

OK, ok, ok...a bit of humor (maybe):

Given the big-news opinions of the Supremes over past couple of weeks, what IS the Court really thinking? I was joking around with one of the judges today and suggested that, if we're looking for the bigger, broader theme that the Supremes are trying to send, it may be that they are promoting vigilantism.

Here's my theory:

1. They created, out of thin air, previously unheard-of habeas rights for Gitmo detainees, allowing them access to federal courts for the purposes of challenging their detention--which will bring them to these shores to be present for their hearings (presumably, to give testimony).

2. They held that individuals convicted of aggravated child rape cannot be put to death for that crime.

3. They held that individuals may not be prohibited by the state from possessing handguns for non-militia purposes.

Doesn't it sound, just a little, like the message they are sending is that they want to arm citizens to shoot terrorists and child predators to ensure justice?

** I can't figure out a way to work in the Exxon Valdez opinion reducing the punitive damages, but maybe that one wasn't meant to fit into this paradigm...**

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Handgun ban overturned in DC

Oh, I can't imagine it'll make any difference for the crime rate. I mean, it's been in place since the 70s, and there's been oodles of crime in the meantime.

ITA. Won't make a damn bit of difference. Criminals get guns whether they are legal or not, and no criminal thinks, "Oh, now that the Supreme Court has allowed private citizens the right to own a handgun in DC, I might think twice about committing that break-in. Now, I might get shot."

Bet there will be an upswing in DV-incidents related to legally owned handguns and accidental shootings, though. I'm not disagreeing with the decision (I haven't read it yet) and I'm not saying that these considerations should trump the Second Amendment. Although I have no problem with private citizens owning handguns, and I still choose not to have one in my house. I don't know how to shoot and I am afraid that there is a better chance of something bad happening with it than it is ever used to defend us. I am sure, if we ever have a break-in while we're here, I'll reconsider and learn to use a gun, but right now, all I can think of is the stories DH has about kids who are accidentally shot.

So I keep a baseball bat in our closet, instead. Hope I never has to use that for self-defense, either.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Handgun ban overturned in DC

Doesn't it sound, just a little, like the message they are sending is that they want to arm citizens to shoot terrorists and child predators to ensure justice?

Also Mexicans (per Medellin). And your girlfriend, to exclude her testimony against you (per Giles v. California yesterday). Good analysis.

Excellent! I'll incorporate your and Tara's contributions and start working on our law review article...!

[DCJenn]

Re: Handgun ban overturned in DC

It won't make a bit of difference except that once again, the people who LIVE in DC aren't allowed to make their own decisions. It's the institutional racism that continues to this day.

I always felt like the Feds were patting us on our heads and telling us that we don't know what's good for us so they'll make all the tough decisions.

If DC were a majority white town, it would be a whole different ball game. The mayor and city council can make decisions and then congress can totally undo everything that they've done. Anyone who had lived there can attest to the utterly bizarre world that is a city that is not allowed to be responsible for itself.

jenn

[DCJenn]

Re: Handgun ban overturned in DC

You're right, it's not the best example- but it is one more example!

Bastids.

J.