Ever since I was a kid, I was frustrated by clueless people who said, “The Second Amendment is about the National Guard or something.” Yeah, right…as if one of the most carefully crafted documents in the history of the human experience, devoted to individual human rights, would somehow have strangely included states’ rights to raise militias.

For decades, Constitutional scholars have again and again determined that The Second did indeed speak to an individual right. Our current President’s first Attorney General stated that in an official opinion. It was obvious to anyone who didn’t have an agenda.

Now, at long, long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken. They have confirmed – hopefully once and for all – that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual “right to keep and bear arms.” It is truly historic, a genuine “landmark decision.”

The fallout was instantaneous. In Chicago, literally fifteen minutes after the SCOTUS decision was announced, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association pulled the trigger of an already cocked hammer, a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of Chicago’s long standing ban on law-abiding citizens’ ownership of handguns. Early indications are that the Heller decision, in shooting down (pun intended) Washington, DC’s similar ban, will make the termination of Chicago’s current, onerous law a slam-dunk. Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley, raving against the decision, literally experienced a meltdown in his emotional press conference. The guy was practically babbling. Always a good thing to see in someone who has declared himself an enemy of you and your kind.

The decision came down on the first day of a Lethal Force Institute LFI-I class I was teaching in Harrisburg, PA. The 28 adult students literally cheered. Well, we had all waited a long time to hear this decision. The majority opinion written by Justice Scalia is said to be a model of logical, cogent jurisprudence.

Several of the students agreed that, to them, it would be one of those moments so pivotal to what they believed in, that they would always remember where they were when they heard the news.

Some of the more hard-core gun folks out there seem to consider the decision a failure, since it doesn’t automatically authorize everyone to carry a gun everywhere, nor allow the general public to buy machine guns the way they’d purchase a .22. These people have not figured out, apparently, that (a) none of those issues were on point to the instant case, and (b) the history of people who demand all or nothing is that they end up with…nothing. The simple fact is, the Heller decision is a landmark victory for the rights of citizens to protect themselves…a victory for civil rights of gun owners, and for the basic human right of self-protection.

I’ve been teaching more than ten hours a day, and doing class-related management stuff after hours, and have not yet had time to read the 157-page decision in all its detail. It can be found here.

We’ll be talking about this more down the line. It’s time to hear the opinions of the readers of this blog on the Heller decision.

What say you?

Mas was teaching this armed self-defense class when the Heller decision was announced.

1 COMMENT

  1. When a friend asked me my opinion of the decision, I stated “It’s a good beginning.”

  2. I put this up in my blog:

    My favorite line, of the opinion:
    >>In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners. and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia.

    [SNIP of a bunch of stuff]

    … Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.<<

    Scalia’s trips to the metaphorical woodshed with Stevens and Breyer are the most entertaining part of the opinion.

  3. I believe it’s a great first step, but it is ONLY a first step. Subsequent steps already appear to be happening around the country in cities that have immorally denied their residents the most efficient means of self-protection available today: a firearm. Let us hope and pray that these lawsuits against rogue cities are successful.

    Of course, I’m sure that even if they all lose, the cities in question will develop such onerous hoops for prospective gun owners to jump through, so as to discourage them from beginning the process, that relatively few will try; that is a matter to be handled at the local/state level. But at least it has been established legally (we gun owners knew it all along) that the 2A is an individual, not collective, right, and that’s a major move in the right direction.

  4. I think it’s a step in the right direction. Particularly given our presidential prospects come November. The next few months are going to prove very interesting and in the meantime I think I might put money down on an AR … just in case of another AWB.

  5. This is a historic opinion and hopefully will form the basis for further litigation to take back our rights.

    I agree with you, Mas – some of the grumbling I’m seeing from the hardcore “thou shalt not infringe” types is annoying and counterproductive.

    And I took no pleasure from seeing Hizzoner Daley’s meltdown on TV. None at all. Nope.

    (I’m a resident of Northeast IL, and our entire state is paralyzed by Daley and his ilk.)

  6. I too am a resident of N. Ill., indeed this is a first step, and I think fellow gunnies will keep pressing. There will be a downtown Chicago – 2nd Amendment freedom rally July 11th – Friday from 11am-1pm at the James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph St., Chicago sponsored by the Illinoiscarry.com and the Ill. State Rifle Assoc. Featured speaker will be Dr. Suzanna Hupp of the infamous Luby’s massacre.

    Mayor Daley is a tyrant who has called the shots in Illinois too long.

  7. This is a great decision, but more than ever it signifies the importance of who is president. Imagine if Kerry had made the two recent appointments to the court. We would all be crying the blues right now after a 6-3 loss.

    No matter what you believe politically, it is imperative that as gun owners we do all we can to keep Obama out of the white house. Even though he wasn’t my first choice, that means campaigning as much as I can for John McCain. The follow up cases that are being filed now will not make it to the supremes for several years. Before then it is very likely the make up of the court will have changed. Lets make sure we do all we can to make sure it doesn’t change in a way that will undo the landmark decision we celebrate now.

  8. First off, what a good gun week this was for me!

    Monday, Freedom Armory in Glenn Rock, PA called and let me know my wife’s LCP. Picked that up on Wednesday along with a used Glock 17 for $300. Then Thursday the Supreme Court confirmed my Constitutional Rights. And Saturday was a gun show. So it was definitely a better than average gun week.

    That said, I’m a tad bit bummed. I did not know you were coming down to Harrisburg, PA for a training course. Any way to find out about such future courses in my area?

    Sincerely,
    Jason

  9. I think it was a pretty good decision. I don’t care for the “reasonable” regulation part, but can live with it. I’m not totally against reasonable regulation, just don’t like the fact that we the citizens very seldom are the ones deciding what “reasonable” is.

    I see the results of this decision as acting as a general catalyst to re-energize the pro-gun movement. We’ve won a round, so lets keep the momentum going.

  10. This opinion is dead on. Scalia wrote an academic tour-de-force of the 2nd Amendment. The essential point here is to finally determine that the 2nd Amendment confirms and individual right, and that gun bans are not permissible.

    Scalia coupled his opinion with a careful analysis of the history of the 2nd Amendment, and (I think) most importantly, debunks the anti-freedom arguments proposed in the Stevens and Breyer dissent. Everyone has been ignoring Scalia’s skewering of Stevens, but what he has done with his careful and forceful refutation of the Stevens dissent is to close innumerable potential avenues of appeal , thus denying the antis many possible arguments to overturn the Heller opinion in the future.

    This is truly the camel’s nose under the tent. Once you admit to an individual right to gun ownership and self-defense, the whole gun-control house of cards starts its slow fall.

  12. I was very disappointed in the ruling. I do not see how the second amendment is giving individual rights to gun ownership. Certainly, I don’t see gun ownership as any kind of human right as I have read in places. Guns are dangerous weapons. We should have control over access to them.

  13. Will, you blithering idiot. Try reading the second amendment all the way through before you make a stupid comment like that in the future. Just because you are not bright enough to figure out the meaning, just like the four supreme court liberals, does not make the ruling wrong.

    Using your logic I would assume the first amendment should not apply to individual either. Doesn’t that seem equally asinine?

  14. The decision seems good when you just read it. The problem is with the wording… “Reasonable Regulation”. They ruled that “Reasonable Regulation” is allowed as long as it’s not an out right ban.

    That’s too broad and vague a term to be in such a crucial decision. What’s reasonable to one is not to another, who decides? It also leaves a way to essentially ban guns without banning them. Let me explain. In this day and age of “spin” like saying “Enhanced Interrogation” instead of torture and using executive privilege to deny investigations of criminal action. They can use the word game to neuter your ability to own and use guns.

    Let’ say they use the environment spin. Lead is toxic and they could rule that you can’t shoot lead anymore because it harms the environment. Does that sound reasonable? The new environmentally friendly bullets they come up with now cost 20 bucks a round maybe even 50. You can still own a gun but can’t afford to shoot it.

    How about something that’s already happened… In New York City they said “We are gonna register and license every gun, that’s just to keep track of them, ya know in such a large city we need to know who has them so criminals don’t get a hold of them”. Sounds “Reasonable” right?

    Then they simply stopped issuing certain licenses… not the gun. You are allowed to own the gun… with the license, but they no longer offer the license. They did not ban the gun out right, just sopped issuing the license.

    That won’t happen you say? Why not? It’s with in their power to do so. Just like the illegal spying on citizens and many other things that would never do, that they ARE doing.

    When ever you license something you are given permission to do something that is normally against the law. The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT not a privilege.

    My point is not to be so overjoyed over the decision. The fight is not over and is just a “Reasonable” regulation away from ending your 2nd amendment right.

    ~Brogan

  15. As a retired Special Operations soldier ( Green Beret ), I am just as pleased as I could be about the decision. It has been so long overdue. I understand that there are Americans out there that disagree with the decision but, I assure you it was a correct one. I have been afraid for so long that we were going to lose our right to own a gun for defense. I am telling you now, if you have never heard it before, there are groups and countries not so far away that want nothing more than to see the United States crawl. If we had lost that decision I am certain without a doubt that they would move on this country with all speed. It would make 911 look like a childs accident. Most people think that the military has our countries defense and that it is sufficient. I am here to tell you, our men and women are everywhere but here. It would not surprise me one little bit if we wake one morning to find groups had entered the United States and are leaving distruction in their wake. It is a simple fact that without the right to own and carry a gun in this country we would not be here today, or tomorrow. I was not and am not concerned as much with the crimanl elements in this country. Our police forces can and do a fine job. I am however worried with the groups and orginizations sitting across the border and across the gulf of mexico that are waiting and watching. Make no mistake, they do exsist and they are hell bent for our distruction. I have never been someone that hide my head when trouble came nor am I someone that goes looking for it. I won’t have to if we ever lose the right to own and carry a gun. Trouble will find you and me at home without a prayer. God Bless

  16. I will always remember where I was when JFK was shot: Ninth grade gym class, Nathan Eckstein Junior High School, Seattle Washington. And where I was when the Heller Decision came down: first day of LFI-1 course-Harrisburg PA. How special.

    If you carry for self-protection, scrape the tuition money together and take the LFI-1 class. It will rank right up there in the top five most memorable things you have done during in your lifetime! It may also save your life.

    Thanks Mass.

  18. I was extremely pleased with the decision. However, I was disappointed that it was such a close decision. I have owned a pistol since 1971. I would not be without one now. I live too close to the Mexican border to feel safe without one. I was not in the Special Forces, however I did spend 6 years in the Army and 14 in the USAF. The last 10 years was as a Special Agent with the USAF OSI and carried concealed as part of my duties. It is now a part of my wardrobe. Thank you for the excellent article.

  19. All the arguments are well founded and well spoken. The point that is missing is the 2nd Amendment confers nothing upon us. The Bill of Rights is a short list of all our Rights and one of the most important being the Right to protect ourselves and our property as we see fit. That is, Rights are not given by the Government, but they can be IGNORED by the Government. The Constitution, where we find the Bill of Rights, is the Rule Book that the Federal Government is to follow – but have not been following for,oh, 76 years or so. When someone says ‘You don’t have a Constitutional Right’ to that, say ‘You are right, I don’t.’ The Constitution doesn’t give or confer Rights, I and everyone, including you, are born with natural Rights that you can exercise without obligating anyone to you.