« The Flood of ‘08, Shooting and the Price of Gas | Main | What's Wrong with this Picture? »

June 26, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

A Hit From The Supremes

“It was a damned near-run thing.”—Arthur, Lord Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, on the Battle of Waterloo, at which the English came very close to getting their asses whipped by Napoleon.

Well, this was a damned near-run thing. We averted disaster by one vote. If the Supremes had found against Mr. Heller and held that the Second Amendment refers only to militias, the future would be grim beyond imagining. We will, in all likelihood, have an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and a President named Obama. In the face of a defeat for our side, the new congress would draw up a really hellish anti-gun bill, and Obama would sign it immediately. Democrats can’t help it; it’s genetic.

Justice Scalia (who, as I recall, went duck hunting with Dick Cheney and survived) wrote the majority opinion, holding that the right to self-defense is an intrinsic part of Article II and, in the process declared unconstitutional Washington’s idiotic rule that all guns in the home must be disassembled or have trigger locks on them.

We got a very, very big break today, but Sarah Brady will not go away, and Hillary Clinton will forget that she is supposed to be Annie Oakley, and Chuck Schumer and Michael Bloomberg will still be doing business at the same stand. If you would like to do something to celebrate, send some money to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. Armed with the Heller decision, the ILA will be fighting to roll back some of our more idiotic gun laws. And they have a long, long list to choose from.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Hit From The Supremes:


Jersey Guy

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, forget about it. Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.


Paul H., do you really believe the tough gun laws in Toronto account for a marginally smaller murder rate than Chicago? Hell, in Illinois you can't buy ammo without a hunting license or proof that you are there to shoot in the Grand American. Now Paul, I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but I have the damn common sense to realize someone who disregards the laws and does not respect the value of a human life, is not going to choose to abide by some frivolous gun law your crock of a mayor decides to throw out there.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot your idiotic comment about the death penalty. I had this discussion today with a relative, and we both came to the conclusion that there are people out there who are sick enough and do things so heinous that they do not deserve to take up space an breathe oxygen.

You also say that America is the #1 nation in the world. This may be debatable, but is it not plausible that some of the things you mentioned (death penalty, less handouts, fewer gun laws) are the exact same things that keep us great?

By the way, you keep asking for stats, so I thought I would say... Why the hell don't you look up the statistics yourself? Surely Canada does not restrict what you can look at online also. I guarantee you could Google "violent crime statistics in U.S." and immediately pull up thousands of sites with good information.

If you don't mind Paul, may I ask if you own a gun (or have ever fired one)? And if not, then how did you find this blog? Do you just fish and look as F&S solely for the fishing columns?

Sorry for the long post.



Not so! Thus the decision of the Court today. This is a very striking blow to those who wish to take guns from the hand of free citizens. The liberals likely will change tactics and as many have said the war is far from over.

Jersey Guy

cmcdonough,,,In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.

Jersey Guy

Did you know that Drug runners are buying machineguns, missle launchers, grenade launchers, and high powered bolt sniper rifles like those used by our special forces.
The ATF is aware of the sales, but "can't do anything to stop it. Most of the guns are coming from "tens of thousands" of "under the table dealers. Changing "national gun policy" so ATF can do their job, and "closing the gunshow loophole" would drasticly slow the flow of guns.


Jersey Guy what planet are you from? Your last statement is BS because city councils protect their citizens through the police departments who BTW according to The SCOTUS are not obligated to protect you as an individual. Additionally, to better understand the Second Amendment one must also read the Federalist Papers. There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution were referencing an individual right.
As far as your statement that the Second Amendment is an anachronism; I perceive that you may be one of those revisionists who would like to re-write history to better suit your progressive liberal opinions. The irony is that you live in a state with some of the strictist gun laws, and have two cities, Camden, NJ that was listed in "City Crime Ratings, 12th Edition as the most dangerous city in the US and Newark, NJ as another of the top 25 most dangerous cities. Why, one would think that with all your repressive gun laws and restrictions, New Jersey would be one of the most safest places to live in the US. I think you are here simply to bait people into a senseless argument about gun control.

Terry Knepp

If banning all guns will save just one child's life, than it is worth it.The only people who should be armed should be the police.


It’s a great day to see the Leftist despots in the country bewail the SCOTUS decision. The other side is shaken, fellow bloggers. Not only have they been told their anti-gun position is flawed, but that it is immoral.

Where does the anti-gun crowd go from here where they aren’t on the defensive?

Other: Quite a history lesson in this decision. I'm shocked how many times it was written the 2A is to prohibit the forming of "selected militias" by government.

Scalia, with the other justices' blessings, is scathing towards the dissenting justices’ positions and those of anti-gunners.

To The Whining Toronto Cannook--Stay north of the lakes and we Yan-gee will stay south. It’s been that way for some 200+ years. The great lakes are more than just a mere physical separation. Wasn’t Toronto heavily settled by Tory Yan-gee? Love ya, but there things here you just don’t understand, and never will.

Jersey Guy

OH Mark ! Repeal the first Amendment also. If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all.


Jersey guy
You are WRONG! The Second Amendment as all the Bill of Rights Amendments, is for individuals, No sovereign state or nation has to give itself the right to be armed.

You've been Corzined or something!


Paul the Kannuck Komrad

You have no friggin right to tell our country what to do! You are probably among the hoard of fat, hairy, Kannucks who show up on Florida's beaches every winter in your too tight Speedo's and whine about everything!

The poster is dead on above, stay in your little Toronto hole!

Ed J

Jersy Guy
"If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all."

Do you really beleave that dopers buy that stuff at gun shows?

Ed J

If one armed citizen sves one child, shouldn't all citizens be armed?

Ed J

that should be "saves"

Bernie Kuntz

Think back to the Clinton administration, the numerous liberal judges appointed to federal courts, and the nut cases (Janet Reno, Jocelyn Elders...) appointed to cabinet positions. Obama is very dangerous by himself, but even more ominous is the crackpots who will be placed in influential positions if he is elected! As has been pointed out, one liberal judge on the Supreme Court would have decided the D.C. gun ban in an entirely different fashion. The shallow thinkers who buy Obama's "change" B.S. need to think more deeply.


Agreed, Dave, about the NRA and plenty of idiotic gun laws to go to work on.

Saw a bumper sticker today that had a portrait of Obama followed by the word, "HOPE". Really freaked me out, like he's supposed to be some kind of a social messiah! Third world societies have that sense about the Marxist men they vote in once, who then become dictators and then heinous oppressors!

John from Louisiana

Well, looks like the 2nd Amendment re-affirmation has the libs scurrying around like roaches and investing their flawed theories everywhere, even in this blog. Good! Gun banners and neo-liberals are their own worst enemies and their moronic theories can't stand the light of day. Disarm the law abiding citizens to make them safer? Ensuring that the criminals are the only non-police to be armed will keep you safe in your home?
Maybe Darwin was wrong.


The Second Amendment supersedes all the others as in the immortal words of Charleton Heston: "Without the Second Amendment, we would have none of the others...." Oh, and let's annex Canada, tax them, and include them in our DNR programs. We could hunt there, and Canada has probably 1/2 or better the reserves of oil in the entire world. Energy independence, hunting, fishing...what more could we want!


First on my list would be New York.

A change in NY law giving 'standing' for non-residents to apply for a permit to transport a handgun thru NY.

I mean that I can apply to Canada for a handgun permit, it may or may not be approved ... but I can apply. Not so in NY, and NY is a barrier state. There is no way to travel on wheels from New England to the rest of the USA without passing thru NY or Canada.

Forget that "federal safe port or passage statute" when trying to explain your handgun to some NY lawman, not likely to fly without much aggita .

I hope something can be done with NY.


I feel really sad that the NRA is gonna have to burn all the mailing material wailing that the Evil Feds are gonna take away all our guns.

Now they'll have to come up with a whole new approach to panic us into sending Wayne more cocktail reception money.

Paul H, don't pay no nevermind to most of these fellers. I have family in the GTA, been up there a ton of times, and the simple fact is us Amurrikins are simply a more primitive lot than you in the Great White North.


I notice no one seems to be providing a link to the opinion.

Here it is >> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.html


As Justice Antonin Scalia (the most conservative member of the Court, and a hunter and gun owner) noted in today's opinion:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

In short, some guns can be banned or restricted, you do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon, you cannot carry a weapon into any public building, you may be required to be licensed, a license can be taken away, sales restrictions can be imposed, etc.


CPT Redneck

#1 Lets all be thankful that the Majority (at least in the courts) have not lost their common sense.

#2 As a law enforcement officer and soldier, I am all for the right to defend both yourself (families and homes) and your freedoms (Speech, Religion, Assembly etc) I do agree that those who beat their weapons into plow shares will plow for those that didn't!

#3 I agree with the CCP and other work programs that we had in the thirties. When did it come out of favor for a man or woman to WORK for a living? I don't think we should reward someone for getting knocked up or being smarter than most in the unemployment line. THOSE PEOPLE CAN WORK IN SOME FORM OR FASHION.

#4 As someone who is in the military (and on my second deployment) I have seen first hand the strain that this war has put on the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in this country. I have been to the hospitals with the 20 year olds who are blind or amputees. I think a fair reward for these fallen heroes would be exemption from taxes. Why should we pay for programs that reward people that were too lazy or unconcerned to join the military? how about annual hunting trips to Canada and Alaska where we could show our northern neighbors what it means to be a real patriot and stand up for freedom(s) that they are taking away from themselves annually. who knows maybe some of the American Gene pool could be deposited in Canada on these trips to help breed a back bone into their liberalist bodies?

#5 gentlemen the things that make this country great are still here. you can see it on the faces of the hundreds of thousands of new veterans that walk the streets now. They are not afraid to speak up for the freedoms that our "battles" died for. Because if we don't then what was the point of bringing democracy and "the vote" to Iraq if democracy fails?


Paul H.
You are a breath of fresh air. I don't agree with much of what you have to say, but you keep everybody honest. Without you, this blog typically deteriorates into a right-wing Kool-Aid drinking party, with everybody spouting the party line. Keep it up. Don't let the name-calling deter you.

Milton  Burton

A note to Paul Harricks: We do not "tolerate" the death penalty down here in the states. It is not something thrust upon us by oppressive legislators. In those states that have it, it reflects the will of the people. Period. I am sure that you claim at least to believe in "democracy," for that is one of the prime virtues of modern life. So just accept the fact that capital punishment is very popular in the states, particularly in the South where I live. A recent poll showed that 77% of the people in Texas were in favor of it. What could be more democratic? Are the people of Texas merely "tolerating" the death penalty? No, it seems to me that they are embracing it fervently.

Milton  Burton

To Jersey Guy: When you read the Constitution you find that every time something is delegated to a governmental entity, either to the states individually or to the federal government, the word "powers" is used. When something is reserved to individual humans, the word "Rights" is used. The term "State's Rights" is and always was a misnomer. States don't have rights because they are not humans. The Founders were very precise thinkers, and not given to sloppy language. They were very aware of this distinction. Plus, in the 18th century the "militia" was not an organized body necessarily. It was the legal definition of that group of able-bodied male citizens who were between 16 and 60 and who were therefore subject to being called out in times of insurrection . If you fell into this group, you were by law in the militia even when it was not organized and/or mustered out. Secondly, in the 18th century the word "regulated" did not just mean "controlled,"it also meant "well provisioned." A "well regulated" ship was one that always left port with enough food, water, etc, for the crew to make the voyage in relative comfort. The term did not so much refer to the way in which the captain kept order, as the way he kept order and provisioned his ship. So in light of this, what the second amendment has to mean is this "A well provisioned and able militia being necessary to the common defense, congress shall make no law abridging the right of individual citizens to keep arms." Besides, Madison wrote the first ten amendments, and we know from his correspondence that is what he intended to say. This business about it giving the states the right to have guard units is a late model fiction.

Our Blogs