Comments on: Senator Dianne Feinstein On the Supreme Court’s Ruling Overturning the DC Handgun Ban

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:04:59 +0000

Ike

Thanks for chiming in here and sharing your view with us. Gun ownership does require common sense and as you said not everyone who owns them use it.

By: Theresa

Theresa — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:52:05 +0000

I agree entirely with Sen. Feinstein. I don’t think our founding fathers intended to look into the 21st century and decide for our local mayors, city councils, and law enforcement officers whether or not people in each city today should be allowed to buy and keep guns. There has been a serious problem of gun violence among young people in Washington, DC, for a long time. It will only be harder to solve when access to guns is made easier. Since Washington is the center of the federal government, safety is an even more complicated problem. Representatives of the people in each city and state should be able to make these decisions. Since only one person carried the Supreme Court decision, hopefully it will be overturned some time, but obviously not soon.

By: alrudder

alrudder — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:18:13 +0000

I think the court is where the people are, I’m sorry the vote was so close.
But for those who don’t like the legal interpretation, politically this is a winner for the Dems. in short…Republicans have now lost the gun issue to bash us with.

By: Ike

Ike — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:15:39 +0000

It is interesting many of the recent supreme court rulings have been so closely split by the court. There have been at least 3 rulings of 5-4. I support my own right to carry a weapon and allowed to do so in Texas (by license) but I also believe this issue should be governed by states’ rights. I have a gun to protect my home and my family and growing up in the country I was raise on the sport of hunting and believe I should have that right. However, it is disappointing many states will begin to challenge this ruling for a host of issues which, in my opinion, are not applicable to this ruling. Anyone with a gun should be required to lock it up when children are in the home. Everyone who obtains a gun should be required to have a background check. Many of these issues simply make sense. I had a nephew who shot himself because the family’s gun was not locked up. Gun ownership requires common sense – unfortunately not all Americans seem to have that trait today when it comes to fire arms. I am not an NRA member and I do not support their platform. I am simply an American with my own personal view.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:31:00 +0000

Darrell

Right or wrong — it seems that some people do see Miller as a precedent. Personally, I’m a gun control advocate like DiFi, so I’m fine with her lament and the fact that she evidently questioned both Alito and Roberts on this issue during their confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee and is no disappointed that they seemingly went against upholding “precedent” that evidently a discussion among Judiciary Committee members during those confirmation hearings.

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:41:06 +0000

What is nearly universally recognized in legal circles as clear dictum is being cited by media sources as the holding of Miller. Given the fact that the Miller case decided an entirely different issue than Heller (marginally related but different nonetheless) it is not a true precedent. Meaning that the Heller case was presented with the specific question of whether The Second Amendement guarantees a personal right to bear arms, or something different. The Miller Court was presented with a defendant and a case where they truly wanted to uphold a criminal conviction and proceeded to do so by assuming, but not deciding, that the Second Amendement is limited. Because the issue was never faced squarely, and decided cleanly, Heller is the first case in which the Court ever attempted (albeit in a fairly ham handed manner) to rule on the exact question presented by Heller.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:06:30 +0000

Darrell

On the “70 year precedent” — Via TIME Magazine:

The Court had not waded into this divisive issue since 1939, when it declared, “We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear” arms.

And from Bloomberg:

The Supreme Court hadn’t considered the Second Amendment since 1939, when it issued a ruling that both sides in the debate later claimed as support for their arguments.

Here’s Wikipedia on United States v. Miller:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:17:31 +0000

And the NYT is wrong also. Everyone knows exactly what the law is on abortion because Roe v. Wade established it. No one before now knew if there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms because it has never been considered by the Supreme Court before Heller.

As for whether the government has the right to control the manufagture of sawed off shotguns, the answer is still yes.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:32:36 +0000

Darrell The NY Times also notes the 70 years of precedent in an editorial: Lock and Load

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:52:04 +0000

Darrell

DiFi is a long time gun control advocate. That’s her lament.

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:13:44 +0000

I find that Feinstein disappoints time and time again. The “seventy years of precedent” that she laments doesn’t exist. Heller is clearly a case of first impression, maybe more so than any case in my lifetime. It squarely addressed a question of major importance that has never before been tackled head on by the Supreme Court.

For Sen. Feinstein to pretend otherwise doesn’t transcend seventy years of truth, it ignores more than two hundred years.