Targeting The Supreme Court

How A Libertarian Who's Never Owned A Gun Brought The Decisive Case On The Second Amendment

(CBS)  Supreme Court decisions always have the potential to make headlines and provoke debate. Case in point: Its ruling this week on the right to own a gun. It's a cause one man worked long and hard to bring before the court, as we hear in our Cover Story reported by Martha Teichner.

---

Outside the Supreme Court the battle was still being fought as the decision was announced - the 5-4 ruling overturned Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and explicitly stated for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

Washington mayor Adrian Fenty's disappointment was palpable. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," he said.

Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley, bracing for an attack on his city's gun law. He said the Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is "very frightening" for America.

"Why don't we do away with the court system?" Daley said. "The old West - you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle on the street."

Within 24 hours, the National Rifle Association and like-minded groups had filed lawsuits against Chicago and San Francisco. Their aim: to test whether the court's decision has implications for all 50 states, not just the District of Columbia.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said, "The NRA views this as the opening salvo, as a step-by-step process of bringing relief to citizens all over the country that have been denied access to that freedom.

"The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes an important part of the American constitutional law, and that's monumental," he said.

How did it happen? Why this particular case? Why now? It took exactly the right cast of characters, perfect timing, and the determination of a lawyer named Robert Levy who knew just how to play the game.

"The financing for this came out of my pocket," he told Teichner.

Levy's story is remarkable: He got rich in finance, but cashed out and went to law school at the age of 50. (He's now 66.) This is the only lawsuit he's ever litigated.

He's never even owned a gun.

"The gun part of it is, I don't know that I'd say it was incidental, but certainly my primary interest was in vindicating the Constitution and the meaning of the Second Amendment."

Levy is a libertarian, a senior fellow at libertarianism's philosophical brain trust, the Cato Institute in Washington.

"We believe in free markets, individual liberty, private property and, most of all, strictly limited government," Levy said. "We don't like the government in our wallets, and we don't like the government in our bedrooms, so we're very happy to be a bridge between the left and the right, particularly on this issue, which has separated so many on the left and the right."

Levy deliberately distanced himself from the NRA.

"We didn't want to be identified with the usual gun lobby groups," he said. "This was the case that we brought because of our interest in the Constitution."

Levy hand-picked his plaintiff, security guard Richard Heller, and then calculated that the Supreme Court would move to the right before the case managed to get there.

"When we filed the case, in 2003, Justices Alito and Roberts had not yet joined the Court, but it did appear that over the near term there would be replacements of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Conner suggested that she might retire, and of course that did come to pass," he said.

And in Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, Levy had the perfect match with his own strict originalist views of the Constitution - in other words what the founding fathers intended.

Recently on 60 Minutes, Scalia said, "Sometimes people come to me and in, you know, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' You know, as though it's some weird affliction - 'When did you start eating human flesh?'"

"What you're saying is, 'Let's try to figure out the mind-set of people back 200 years ago, right?'" asked Lesly Stahl.

"Well, it isn't a mind-set, it's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia said.

The D.C. gun ban suit was a chance to take on the Second Amendment, with its reference of militia … its awkward commas … its ambiguity.

"I don't think the Supreme Court was backed into a corner to decide this case," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "I think there was enough folks on the court now with the change, with the addition of Samuel Alito, so that they wanted to do it.

"The problem is you have a horribly drafted Second Amendment," Cohen added. "The people who drafted the Second Amendment were just as addled and just as conflicted and contradictory as modern day politicians are when it comes to these tough issues."

Which may not be surprising, according to R.B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian at New York Law School, who said. "Constitutions are political documents and constitutional amendments are political documents. They're written by politicians. They're shaped by the forces of politics."

"I'm tempted to say to originalists sometimes, that you may believe that there is a Santa Claus bringing neatly wrapped packages of original intent, understanding or meaning for good little consitutional interpreters," Bernstein said, "but just as there is no Santa Claus, there is no originalist Santa Claus. We do the best we can with the language we've got."

In fact, in this case, the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is very much in line with public opinion.

According to a recent Gallup poll, more than seven out of ten Americans agree with the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to own a gun.

But here's another statistic: Approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

We asked Robert Levy, who brought about the Supreme Court decision, does it matter to you that people might die because of it?

"Well of course, it matters," he said. "And I think it's indisputably true that there will be people who die because of this ruling. There will be other people who would have died were it not for this ruling, and so one has to take into account not just the cost but the benefits."

[mdjansen]

1. Gun crime is up in Washington D.C. since the gun ban
2. Criminals go where the citizens are defenseless
3. Dictatorships first remove arms from their people
4. Oh, it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Have you read our Constitution? Do you realize it is the law of the land?

Why do your commentators now question the competence of the framers of our Constitution and the Second Amendment? I could not believe I heard that. Do such elitists think we should just throw out the Constitution?

Levy "played" the system? "''Targeting'' the Supreme Court"? Again, it is the Second Amendment. It is not political, as you are trying to do with our Constitution.

I never have owned a gun and hope I never need to own one. But if we outlaw guns, I may need to get one.

[cfin5]

Just because he doesn''t own a gun doesn''t mean he doesn''t own his 2nd. Amendment RIGHTS. That is what he fought for and won. The question about people dying because of this defense of the Constitution is answered in part, but not wholly in clarity. The answer is that more CRIMINALS will die instead of innocent victims. Don''t think I''ll be losing much sleep over worrying for burglars wanting to commit "SUICIDE BY HOMEOWNER",.....I''ll let "them" worry about that!

[thoughtful99]

If I had been allowed to carry a gun, 2 muggers would have been dead, rather than surviving to murder a number of innocents.
In at least one town that encouraged women to carry guns, the rape dropped in a ratio of about 10::1.
Check the actual statistics &/or read, "More Guns, Less Crime."
A pool is riskier than a gun in the house.For those who are still doubtful,a maniac who shot a number of innocents was described as stopping because he was "convinced" to stop, but the news reports tended to omit the fact that the convincing was done at the point of a gun held by a private citizen. Otherwise, the murder spree would have continued.

[fuzzybear9]

Hello America

Today I should Like to take up the Topic of
Apartide.

what with the recent Mandella party, of all places in London, where he continues to hide.

now for our younger readers that know little of the topic, let me refresh you with history,

about oh say 30 years ago there was a movement among
the Liberal Black Caccus under the direction of Ted Kennedy, to spread on colledge campuses, the Liberal idea of Apartied. with pop singers such as Simon, Elton, etc. etc.

so Hawvard, Stanford, UC Berkley, Browns, Montana State and countless other Universities began the International, embargo against South Africa,
settled by White mainly Dutch immigrants in the 1850`s.

now South Africa had became prosperous with diamonds, gold, wheat and cattle. for nearly say 150 years.

After the White South Africans Fled to Australia and else where to avoid the unrest of Apartied flaming tires and whatnot, then came Nelson Mandella out of prison to run South Africa.

now 30 years later, Zimbabwee instead of being a country of vast resources, is now led under Mob rule from Apartied, starvation, anarchy. and Darfor and so on and so forth.

Fuzzy were is this going ?
I only wanted to show the results of Liberal Medalling after a period of time,
and to remind those Socialist Liberals of Hawvard and Stanford, how much pain and suffering their stupid ideas have had on Humanity, every time you see a starving black South African Baby.
sincerely Fuzzy Bear

[martin9p2]

DC''s handgun ban was a practical solution to a modern problem. Given that the Second Amendment is vague, why do we have to hash it over and over and over, as if it were god-given? Practicality has shown that hand guns are a menace, so we SHOULD be able to limit hand guns and let the good people of DC defend themselves with larger, less concealable weapons.

[ronnm2]

This was one of the most lopsided stories you folks have had in a while! Once more the attitude of "we are better than you, there for we know better than you" came through with a resounding blare. If you were to research the killings in the US by guns, you would find mostly gang involvement. How do you keep the guns out of there hands? Make a law to make it illegal for gangs to have guns? So, how would you stop it or enforce it? you want the criminals to have weapons, but the average citizen to be held hostage. let''s face it, any one, regardless of the laws can get a gun if they want one. So, the bottom line is; the 2nd amendment was put in place to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government if necessary. The forefathers weren''t stupid people as you would have us believe.

[gkc99]

""Why don''t we do away with the court system?" Daley said. "The old West - you have a gun and I have a gun and we''ll settle on the street." "

The Daley''s, the city of Chicago, and the state of Illinois in essense have done away with the court system--the honest court system, that is.

A culture of corruption, influence, and police brutality pervade Chicago and its parent state, and Daley''s own father went a long way to produce that evil culture with his use of the cops as his private goon squad in the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Ex-Gov. Jim Thompson made the implicit admission that the Illinois criminal justice system is so biased, corrupt, and loaded with influence peddling that in a moment of conscience he realized he couldn''t send men convicted under that system to their deaths.

But the Daley''s don''t seem to ever have had any pangs of conscience over the crooked empire they created.

If there ever was a populace in need of personal self-defense in the history of the USA, the people of Chicago would have to be numbered among them.

Another populace historically denied self-defense is the Black population--Jim Crow laws and crooked police and judicial systems having systematically denied them justice when it was only an "n-word killing", or a Black man was accused of harming a White person.

The right to self-defense is the first right, because all other rights are subordinate to the right of survival.

[mdjansen]

Cohen and the historian in his ivory tower feel our Constitutional framers were "addled" and just like today''s politicians. What an insult to those who risked their lives, families, and personal fortunes to found this country.

Based on these commentators'' twisted statements, then we should also do away with a free press and free speech. Imagine what that would do to CBS and higher education.

[minnick8-2009]

People who advocate that private gun ownership should be banned are saying they want a society where only the police, military, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and Criminals can carry weapons. That is not the socity I want. It sounds a lot like Communism to me.

I grew up in an isolated area of the country and back in the 1950''s and early 1960''s our family depended on the annual hunt for sustenance. I know people who still depend on it. Farmers and ranchers carry their weapons to protect their herds from wild animals. The major mode of transportation in Alaska is private plane. One native Alaskan told me that you don''t fly in a plane in Alaska without taking your rifle. If the plane goes down and no one has a weapon, potentials survivors have much less chance of surviving.

I don''t own any weapons, but I sure like it that I could if I wanted.

[kevboom]

Well, Levy better hope someone doesn''t use some of those un-banned handguns to play target practice with his ears, because they won''t miss!

[realpatriot1]

babykilller,

You are absolutely 100% correct! Conservatives cherry-pick the Constitution in the same manner that they do with national intrelligence and the Bible.

That said, this case is of much less consequence than many on both sides think. I''m not an expert and I''m still learning about this ruling but it seems clear that people still don''t have the right to roam the streets packing handguns.

The real public safety issue is concealability. Someone protecting their home is just as safe with a shotgun as with a Derringer. A criminal on the other hand needs to conceal their weapon to avoid detection.

[nabusdriver1]

Nancy, I understand freedom of speech but you have forgotten about the freedom to bare arms. I am a 39 year old woman who grew up with a true fear of guns brought about but my father, but I married a hunter and sportsmen who taught me a true respect for guns and hunting. For many of us it is not about looking cool, it''s about spending time with friends who have the same attitude we do. I have hunted for 20 years now. AND YES I do buy most of my meat at the supermarket. But to spend a day outside with nature, quiet, relaxed, weather I actually kill and animal or not, is an experience of it''s own. I hunt with a camera as much as I hunt with a gun. But the right that all americans have to bare arms is that A RIGHT!!! Guns don''t kill, people kill. I know you have heard that a million times but it is true. There are millions of us, men, women, and yes kids, who have a love for the outdoors and our families who have hunted for generations will not stand by and let that right be taken away from us. Maybe you need to talk about the need for ratial harmony, more money for police around the nation, a stricter up bringing, about parent who care enough to raise their children with the ability to know the EXACT difference between right and wrong. I do and I still love my guns.

[taotxzen]

(cont)


Justice Scalia warned after the recent Guantanamo Bay case, that the majority had almost certainly caused the deaths of many Americans with their decision. I think that''s absurd hyperbole. But what is entirely possible is that the second amendment decision written by Scalia will lead to many more American deaths. But I don''t begrudge him that. If he thinks that''s the correct interpretation of the amendment, then our only recourse is to pass another amendment overriding it (not going to happen). We''ll have to live with the extra deaths. Freedom isn''t free.

But here, I propose a very fair trade. I will trade the second amendment for the fourth amendment. If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I''m happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive. You keep the second amendment, we keep the fourth.

That seems like the fairest possible trade. My guess is that conservatives won''t bite. They will continue the party line about how crucial it is that we follow the constitution when it comes to the second amendme

[taotxzen]

(cont)

I think it is reasonable to disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. In fact, I''m torn on it. If I heard this case myself as a judge and ultimately came down against the majority decision (which is not a certainty at all, I think this presents an excellent and close constitutional question -- apparently the Supreme Court agreed since they split 5-4 on it), I still wouldn''t find the majority position unreasonable.

So, I am happy to concede that we should follow the second amendment to the letter of the law (as interpreted in this case). Now, can conservatives find it in their heart to agree that we should also follow the fourth amendment to the letter of the law? And if they can''t, what possible logical or constitutional arguments can they have for fervently defending one amendment and rejecting another?

he fourth amendment clearly states that the government needs a warrant with probable cause in order for it to conduct a search or seizure. The Bush administration has been in flagrant violation of this for seven years now. They refuse to get warrants to wiretap conversations of Americans speaking with or emailing people abroad. This is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But here conservatives find the constitution a little more inconvenient.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

I''ll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th

Cenk Uygur Fri Jun 27, 12:22 PM ET

Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.

I believe in gun control. I believe that guns do kill people. In fact, they are designed to kill things. It is indisputable that they make killing a lot easier. That''s what they''re made for.

But I believe my side has lost this issue for now in the court of public opinion and in the Supreme Court. There are actually two different issues here. One is the policy argument concerning how much gun control we should have. The other is the constitutional argument of what the second amendment means.

(cont)

[mrman321]

hey ya''ll. mista BIG EARS man is in da HOUSE babay!!!

[taotxzen]

If more guns is the answer why isn''t America the safest nation in the world?

And as far as interpreting the 2nd Amendment as the right to have guns to protect yourself from the government taking over...NEWSFLASH: The Bush Gang has taken over, why didn''t you stop them?

[txlakeside]

This had nothing to do with "hunting". How many folks hunt with a handgun?

This has everything to do with fear and the repubs 2 faced attempt to hide behind parts of the constitution with "fear" (they will take all your guns away) and generate more "fear" with their absolute bastardization of the Fourth Ammendent.

If they are going to promote and support the constitution then they need to do it for all ammendments. Fear mongering, lieing, two faced thieving, greedy crooks will soon be voted out because most "intelligent" Americans see through their dishonerable ways!

[tomamitai]

Dear nabusdriver1,

I fervently support the right of any woman to "bare" arms, or legs, or... :)

[rafterman1]

Guns don''t kill people, bullets do. Ban bullets :)

[gandalf2004-2009]

Awkward commas or not, originalist or not, the founding fathers wanted the officials in the central government subservient to and in fear of, the will of the people. This was outlined in the Declaration and is reflected in the Constitution.
The Continental Army was a militia, organized for the purpose of overthrowing the tyranny of the king of England, composed of farmers who owned their own guns and who often went home to tend to their crops and homes. This is what the 2nd amendment was about. Keeping citizens armed in case of national emergency or even in the case of an oppressive or dictatorial government seeking to restrict the rights of the People to be free.
Jefferson as much as said it outright when he said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it%u2019s natural manure."
There is nothing ambiguous about the 2nd amendment. They knew exactly what they were talking about. "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now we must decide what infringement is.

[bearcannon]

Jefferson also said that the masses were incapable of governing themselves. Go figure.

[seneca69]

"We asked Robert Levy, who brought about the Supreme Court decision, does it matter to you that people might die because of it? "

Here''s CBS at their filthy worst.

It boggles the mind that CBS would condone HIV criminal sodomy, but rail against a citizen''s 2nd Amendment right.

If the 2nd Amendment ever goes, the 1st Amendment''s demise will shortly follow.

Metro centric bigots just don''t get it.

[magicman73-2009]

I can''t believe you people. Why is it ok to be able to choose whether or not someone is allowed to take a life via abortion but it''s not ok for someone to be able to choose whether or not they want to be armed for self defense? Dragonwagon is acting like this decision is FORCING guns into American''s hands. It''s not. We now have the choice as to whether or not we want to be armed. If you don''t want to own one, then don''t. And as for Taotxzen saying that he would be willing " to consider" the USSC decision and final, uh, sorry but it is. As a citizen you don''t have the ability to cherry pick which laws you adhere to and which you don''t. As soon as you do that, you become a criminal. Extremists, from either side, is never a good thing. I''m utterly shocked that so many here would willingly sacrifice a Constitutional right for the perceived sense of safety. "Those who would willingly forsake their rights for safety deserve neither." The right, and ability, of self-defense is even more important when one realizes that the police do not have a legal duty to individually protect us.

[thejerk54]

Since the ruling this week by The Supreme Court concerning our Second Amendment, the media has been flooded with reports which I am so dismayed to see as being so biased. While even the statistics show that a vast majority of the people agree, all I hear from the media are commentaries as to why this opinion by the court was wrong.

On your Sunday Morning show you throw out numbers. While in a sterile invironment, those numbers may be right but when you structure your report by reporting th ose numbers imediately following sound bites of the Chigago and Washington DC mayors proclaiming that there will be gun fights in the streets, it is irresponsible. It leaves the unknowing watcher to believe that ALL 30,000 gun deaths (the number you use) are all a result of violent criminal activity. This is not true.

Why don''t you report of the very verifiable fact that firearms are used over 2.5 MILLION times a year to deter or prevent a violent crime where a shot is NEVER fired? It doesn''t raise alarm in those who are easily alarmed due to ignornance.
I saw you interviewing people who criticize those who take a strict view of the wording of the constitution, but nobody who views it otherwise. There are just as many well respected scholars and language experts who can present equally compelling arguments for such strict construction But they don''t serve your anti-second amendment bias.

[thejerk54]

The Bill of Righs was authored by James Madison. In those first ten amendments, the words "the people" are used in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Nobody argues that in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th, that the rights guaranteed by those amendments are individual rights. So why would the same writer use the same phrase any differently in only 1 of the 5 amendments he uses it in?

All we seem to hear from the mayors of Chicago, Washington DC, New York and San Fransisco and so on is how this ruling is going to do nothing but make for more gun violence and death on the streets. Chicago and Washington DC have some of the most restrictive gun regulations in the country yet they still have some of the highest rate of gun violence. Can''t anybody ask why this is or even put two and two together. Obviously their gun controls don''t work. With such strict restrictions on the the private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens, it would be very safe to say that a majority of the firearms are in the hands of the criminals, thugs, rapest and so on. Hence the saying, "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". The balance of power is WAY out of balance. The crooks have the upper hand and they know it. It is statistically verifiable that where law abiding citizens have weapons for thier self defence, such crime is much lower.

[seneca69]

As an political Independent, with Libertarian leanings, I too believe the 4th Amendment needs protecting, as does the 1st Amendment, and all for that matter.

The problem in America is that the left-wing neo communists have sabotaged the good standing of liberalism and our culture continues to coarsen under the onslaught of hedonistic behaviors. Making heroes out of criminals who knowingly have HIV infected sodomy *** the red flag that is ignored by Democrats nation wide. Republicans aren''t much better.

[rafterman1]

===If more guns is the answer why isn''''t America the safest nation in the world?===
Posted by taotxzen

I support the SC decision on this reasoning. The fact that guns were made so easily and legally available originally, years ago, led to criminals gettting them. So, the idea that banning handguns keeps them away from bad people was once valid. Criminals had to have gotten guns from the same places we did - after all, it''s not like criminals had their own gun factories.

Unfortunately, the genie is already out of the bottle. They could ban all guns today and there''s 300 million guns in the country, enough for every person in the country. Now, "new" guns are no longer a factor, it''s handmedowns, which are out of the control of any gun laws.

So, in the end, today, bad people can still get these guns illegally secondhand while law abiders can''t, unless they go black market.

I believe Washington DC statistics showed no change in the murder rate during the ban period. It''s a sucky place we put ourselves as a nation, but the reality is, banning handguns will do nothing to stop the violence.

[seneca69]

txlakeside says: "This had nothing to do with "hunting". How many folks hunt with a handgun?"

This is typically callow metro centric bigotry ensconced in ignorance.

There is a segment of the hunting culture that does indeed use handguns to harvest game; particularly whitetail deer and feral hogs.

[dtschuck]

The only solice I take out of this ruling is there''ll be a lot of gun toting, gun slinging fools shooting each other. It''s sad that innocents will also have to die because of this activist court.

[mountianmike]

This interpretation of the 2nd amendment is for all the people that are able to own guns. I agree that in some cases that there are people should not be able to have guns.
If a person thinks that they should carry a handgun, then let them apply for a CCW at the police department and do it the legal way. The Laws are there to protect people and not hinder them.

[jumkey]

Another libertarian carrying water for the authoritarians. Who would have thought it?

Really, all that mewing about "principle" and yabber about the Constitution would bring a tear to my eye if those so eloquently asserting their right to own weapons spent time actually fighting for the Constitution, not just the tiny parts that they like.

Where was Mr. Levy and the gun owners when Cheney was asserting his office was a special 4th branch not subject to the law?

Where was Mr. Levy and the gun owners when Bush was arguing that he didn''t have to follow the law and the executive was not subject to oversight?

Where was Mr. Levy and the gun owners when 99.9% of Republican Congressmen signed the bill allowing the AG to spy US citizens simply by his say so?

Libertarians and Conservatives aren''t Constitutionalists - they''re opportunists, only concerning themselves with "their" rights while actively working to destroy representative government when it works to secure the rights of others.

The 2nd Amendment is red meat for the insecure base, just like abortion is Christians. It''s what the leaders use to distract the rubes from the REAL assaults on freedom of speech and privacy and the separation of powers.

Ironically enough they will eventually get around to taking our Second Amendment rights as well, when everything else is gone. They''ll have to frankly. And Mr. Leay and his "principled" colleagues will suddenly decide this "right" wasn''t so important after all.

[seneca69]

magicaman73 says: "I''''m utterly shocked that so many here would willingly sacrifice a Constitutional right for the perceived sense of safety."

Most of these posts decrying the upholding of our 2nd Amendment right, are just the neo communist liberal element of the democrap party. They have a political agenda, constitution and true freedom for all be damned. They''re fine with ripping the beating heart of out of 3rd Trimester baby in the name of "choice." They are the dangerous hubris of the hedonistic cabal that now owns the DNC.

[x123x123x-2009]

decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is "very frightening" for the CRIMINALS in America !

[creekjammers]

Priorties? "health care for every citizen" or "guns for every citizen"? Your nation has the economy of a superpower and the mentality of a third world nation. Further, a 1 week expenditure of funding the Iraq war could restore your National Mall to the thing of bueaty it was and could be again. I watch and enjoy your show every week, but sometimes I wonder about the mentality of many of your citizens. Ron Christianson, Newcastle, Ontario

[sistatee-2009]

In Detroit, you ain''t even safe WITH a gun.

[x123x123x-2009]

magicaman73 says: "I''''''''m utterly shocked that so many here would willingly sacrifice a Constitutional right for the perceived sense of safety."

No criminal ever attack him or people he loved to have him have the sense of helplessness after the fact! Maybe these anti Gun people should watch videos on peoples lives that were destroyed by gangs that came at night to either rob rape or murder families that the only thought they had was love and security!
They all wish that they had a gun to defend the perpetrators, that came at night, to of had stop them from raping their children or killin their loved ones while they slept!

[thejerk54]

"The only solice I take out of this ruling is there''''ll be a lot of gun toting, gun slinging fools shooting each other. It''''s sad that innocents will also have to die because of this activist court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by dtschuck at 11:21 AM : Jun 29, 2008
+ report abuse

You coudn''t be more wrong. In the past 15 years over 35 states in our country have implemented various forms of laws governing and allowing law abiding citizens to carry conceiled weapons. In the early states, the arguments included Florida, "the Sunshine state" would become "Gunshine State". Predictions of shooouts on street corners over traffic accidents were rampant. By your comments, it is obvious you have NOT done any homework on this. In the 12 plus years since Tennessee enacted their carry law, there is NOT ONE case of a permit holder being involved in an illegal act of gun violence. There are strict guidelines concerning the use of deadly force and in state after state, it has been shown, as a Texas state official said, gun owners have shown themselves to be very responsible people. The law enforcement community,who we generally trust to carry guns, can not boast such a record of trustworthiness.

[thejerk54]

As for the number of those toting guns increasing, I certainly hope the number of law abiding people will increase. I want the criminal element to know it. Because if they know that the liklihood that they could be met with deadly force should they choose to attack me or a family member, maybe they will think twice about it.

[seneca69]

Hey jumkey, where were we? Well, we weren''t sitting around posting callow political rants from a neo communist partisan position. You''re own hypocrisy is showing like ragged dangling petticoat. Where Independents differ with folks like you is this: We don''t take sides. Bush has his baggage, but to ignore the 8 years of Clinton''s wholesale and treasonous deals with China and NAFTA in general obviates your partisan opine.

[x123x123x-2009]

People who are against guns live in an ideal frame of mind when it comes to guns? They try to approach it as guns are bad? I respect their opinion. But they have never encountered someone whos only thought is to bring havoc to a family lives during the night. These anti gun owners do not understand real threats in the world, I wish we all could think that way, but we cannot because of jealousy, drugs, s-e-x, covetousness and gangs and criminals who just want to have jollies!

[seneca69]

Hey Ron from Ontario, blah, blah; just remember, we''ll be the ones to save your sorry hind end when Russia shows up enforce to steal your northern oil assets under the ice. I fear this truth will further enrage your already inexplicable hate for American''s but there is a reckoning coming under the polar ice and we will be the ones who will stand shoulder to shoulder with the few brave Canadians left in your country.

[shipwrcksoul]

Did you ever have a evil man attack you or anyone you cared for?

[l8c6]

Libertarian rhetoric has been used by the neo cons to dismantle a public government and privatize it. To borrow somewhat from right wing jewish economist Milton Friendman''s book "There ain''t no Free Lunch", The also ain''t no such thing as no government. The libertarian approach is for the american people to be subverted, we the people are the big government. Once we the people take our hand off the helm, large concentrations of wealth and corporate power become the government. Oligarchs practice socialism with in the private confines of their special interests. Big money and influence are destroying the founding principles the american revolution with a smile and a flag pin on their lapels.

The american revolution was about putting up a barrier to kings, dictators and oligarchs. The libertarians and the neo cons are about restoring old world order.

[bearcannon]

If you can''t make it illegal to own a handgun in D.C., why not make it unaffordable. Require each handgun to be registered annually, just like an automobile, charge an extremely high annual tax to register and make it a misdemeanor for failing to register. Pass an ordinance that anyone with a misdemeanor conviction cannot not own a gun. Hey, if you can''t beat''em at least make money off''em, it''s the American way.

[billorights]

Guns don''t kill people, bullets do. Ban bullets :) - Posted by Rafterman1 at 11:00 AM : Jun 29, 2008

Bullets don%u2019t kill people. Hemorrhage and shock do. Ban hemorrhage and shock. ;)

[seneca69]

Gotta go now -- I''m off to the gun range to practice with my new .45. Oh yeah, I''ll be with some good friends - mostly conservative Democrats :-) Go figure.

[jumkey]

crazy neocon spew

Posted by seneca69

NAFTA and *** and Canadians, oh my!

What a buffoon.

You should probably try thinking for yourself sometime.

[shipwrcksoul]

James Madison
One of the chief architects of the constitution.
%u201CWe have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.%u201D

[shipwrcksoul]

sorry to ruin your day with real history
Nancy_Naive at 11:58 AM : Jun 29, 2008