June 26, 2008
Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:16 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Finally, now DC has a chance at lowering its crime rates.

Anybody that thought taking a small area like DC and banning hand guns was for the good of the people living there should now promptly get their head out of the sand.

Bravo

Will you be packin', Alice?

Located next to the Handguns-R-Us state of Virginia, it's hard to imagine the law kept any handguns out of DC in the first place-- absent metal detectors at every entry point to the city.

I already own some guns, through my husband's grandfather who was an avid collector; derringer, pepperpot, Navy Colt pistols, Browning over and under, and a neat Winchester 1873 rifle, lots of other WWII hand guns. Also have some old bullett making molds, powder horns and stuff. As for the modern guns, I haven't bought and and wouldn't consider it without proper safety and training courses. My husband used to hunt, so he knows his way around a shotgun.

Freekin ammo is getting so expensive it's ridiculous. My ammo bill for Wyoming was $430!

Maybe you'll learn to aim better

Wow, who knew boating and firearms were such expensive sports?

That's nothing compared to boating with firearms!

The average kill rate is 22-27% and my kill rate was 52%, I'm pretty happy with my skills particularly on the 690 yard shot.

So, how much would an average person spend on ammo then?

The price of ammo depends on how much you shoot. If you shoot every week, then it'll get pricy. Couple times a month, well, it's all relative with everything else going up in price.

However, on another note, it is my understanding that even police departments have to order ammo well in advance to ensure they have enough for their bi-yearly qualifications due to alot of ammo going overseas.

I have a permit to carry and rarely leave home without my "little friend".

This proclamation of "middle ground" may be called an example of judicial activism. (The premise of overturn of Barron v Baltimore – so-called inclusion, is taken for granted here.)
Much if not most of the controversy about the Second Amendment is about the significance of its initial clause about a well-regulated militia. If it is interpreted strictly, then Congress must not pass any law restricting arming of such a militia, yet any government may in any way restrict arms not pertaining to such a militia. If that clause is deemed insignificant, then any abridgment of the right to bear arms is invalid – machine guns may be carried openly, for example. To me anyway, anything in between smacks of judicial metalegislation.

Those who are interested in the jurisprudence of this case (am I the only one?) can read it all here.

So by my calculation, you killed about a thousand animals in Wyoming??

You have an engineering degree, I'm pretty sure you can figure that answer out with a pen and paper.

You know, like nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.

Ammo? Ha...

I'm pretty good with a bow staff....

... otherwise known as drug smuggling.

Oeno...I see that no one has yet taken the bait.

So, what's your take on the premise of the cartoon?

There's more than one premise to the strip. The main one is that Justice Scalia has his own firm opinions on what constitutes original intent, one of the pillars of constitutional jurisprudence.
Some say that he was pissed off by not being elevated to chief justice upon Renquist's death. He does tend to 5 o'clock shadow, making him look sinister, much like Nixon. The strip makes him out to be a bully, but I think the cartoonist did so for comic effect.