How Gun Control Lost the Battle in the United States and Other Thoughts

I have not commented too much on the big Supreme Court case on individual gun rights that we saw last week in .District of Columbia v. Heller At least not on this blog.

I do agree with the conclusion of the majority and I found Justice Scalia Opinion well reasoned. Besides the issue of guns rights it was an interesting show of Justice Scalia's own view of Const. Interpretation according to orginalism. In his case what is Original Public Meaning Originalism.

Though I agree with the majority I think there is a interesting discussion to be had about the limits of his approach and whether a more dynamic orginalism (That was used in parts of the dissent ) is better. I do think there are in the end some practical problems with Scalia's approach though I like much of it. On a side note I do agree that the Supreme Court members making analysis and decisions as amateur policy wonks has many problems. But how come no one raises similar objections when the Court is trying to pass themselves off as Historians?

However leaving that aside there was a major victory for gun rights last week. Though this victory could be short lived. Justice Scalia left a lot now to decide. Thus it important now more than ever that we elect a President that will appoint Judges that will rule in the spirit of Heller. This includes the District, appellant, and Supreme Court level.

Reason Magazine has a nice overview here at How Gun Control Lost-The long road to D.C. v. Heller. It is a good read



In my view it was a classic case of overreaching. The democrats paid dearly for their actions as to gun control in the 90's. I am pretty sure this caused Al Gore to lose the election in 2000. After that if you notice aggressive gun control legislation was not the hot issue it once was.

People will argue if the Court are political animals. Indeed I think the politics and the court are overblown or at least many time misinterpreted. As to this issue perhaps the the Court for years under Chief Justice Rehnquist could not just simply get to five. I have no idea for instance what Justice O'Conner's view on the subject were.

But perhaps , the court was listening to the political fight and decided that after the big gun control fights of the 70's , 80's, and 90's it was time to settle this. That the people had come to a conclusion and it was safe to enter this realm. Though people might think this wrong, the court has no armies, no power to tax, no way to enforce its judicial decisions. It must be a political animal to survive at times. For instance the land mark unanimous (9-0) decision in Brown Vs the Board of Education in 1954 did not occur because the Supreme Court had a burning bush moment. It judged the country was ready for what it was not just a couple of decades before. Needless to say if Brown had occurred in 1939 it is not clear if the Court would have just been ignored.

There are lesson here for the Pro -life movement to say the least.

It is a good opinion and despite both sides cherry picked their history to a degree (though I think Scalia wins on the nerits and his history) it is a fascinating look at American history that touches on many issues that have affected this Union. It is also full of ironies.

As Scalia points out the Miller case from the New Deal era , that the Gun Control people have put a lot of stock in, was sort of joke and a case where the Govt was set up too win. He even calls the Defendants CROOKS lol.

As the pro-gun side one cannot help but note that the NRA, which was in very large part responsible for this victory, was formed to finish off the cherished concept of the Militia that the founders and generations of Americans had for close to a hundred year. That is in the background to the Presser case that is mentioned briefly by Scalia. The dissent perhaps missed a opportunity to have some fun in telling the history of how The Railroads finished off the Militia, gave us the National Guard Association and out of that gave us the NRA way back in the 1800's whose purpose was in part to push the the individual right over the collective Militia interpretation in the public mind.

It was in the end a proper and correct opinion by the majority. However for those that support the second amendment right as voiced by the majority it would be folly to think the fight is won.