A Day of Firsts, Part 1

It is a day of firsts, to be sure. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the constitution immediately on the heels of sodomizing it; a state governor has vowed to nullify their decision; and, perhaps strangest of all, Barack Obama and Big Whiskey Sam agree on something.

Mark your calendar, because I doubt that will happen often.

On the upside of things, the SCOTUS ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, aka the DC Gun Ban case, came down today. As anyone who's carried on a conversation with me at all in the past year already knows, I've been following this one with great interest.

In 1976, the DC city council enacted a total (and totally unconstitutional) ban on all handgun ownership in the District, as well as draconian regulations on rifles and shotguns (must be kept unloaded, disassembled, and cannot be transported, even between rooms in the home). The net effect is a total gun ban in DC. The net result has been that decent, law-abiding citizens of the District have been left disarmed, defenseless and at the mercy of the most wretched, foul and subhuman filth among their criminal class. A group which, of course, remains heavily armed.

DC is one of the roughest cities in America, and possibly the world. Anyone who doubts this is welcome to take a tour of the Anacostia neighborhood any night they want. I don't recommend it, but you can. Violent crime is rampant, and the ban has done nothing to stem this. In fact, DC's violent crime rates have more than tripled since the ban took effect, rising even when national trends were showing a decline. The city's murder rate is extraordinary: it was the highest in the nation for fourteen of fifteen consecutive years (I believe of the last seventeen, but I can't remember the last year it was), and is six times the national average.

Obviously, this ban has had no deterring effect on crime in DC, and no effect whatsoever in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Excuses for this from ban supporters are varied, but invariably lame. "Too many guns are coming in from Virginia, because their gun laws are too lax" (yet while DC had 186 murders in 2006, Alexandria VA, which immediately borders it, had all of 7), "the gun lobby is keeping us from passing strong enough laws" (a total ban in effect for thirty-two years. How much stronger do you want?), etc. etc.. The real reason of course, is that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. That includes gun control laws. Only the good people of the city are harmed by this ban. The thugs aren't even inconvenienced.

So as you may imagine, I was happy as a pig in slop when I heard a few months back that that the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC had stated the obvious truth that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of the second amendment, and struck it down. Today, when I heard that the Supreme Court had upheld that ruling, I let out a triumphant "Fuck yeah!" and punched a dent in the roof of my truck (my hand still hurts).

Now understand, this ruling does not immediately overturn all gun control laws everywhere in the country. Indeed, most will remain in tact, though the case will be used by groups such as the National Rifle Association (of which I am a member) as a basis on which to challenge other gun control laws in court. I'm not sure how these suits will pan out, as they will be challenging the laws of the individual sovereign states. DC on the other hand, is a federal territory. This does raise one question in my mind: while the court's decision effectively kills the handgun ban and the restrictions on rifles/shotguns, it leaves DC's requirement of licensing weapons in tact. Since DC is a territory, and the constitution specifically gives legislative power over it to congress (Article I, section VIII), and since there is no provision for gun licensing in the constitution, I fail to see how that part could stand. For that matter, I can't see how a DC city council even exists or is in any way legitimate.

Perhaps my inability to understand that is merely evidence of the very limited nature of my intellect. But if that is the case, at least I can take comfort in the fact that at least one member of the Supreme Court still makes me look like a freakin' genius by comparison. In writing the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens offered this little gem of pure ignorance, claiming that Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito and majority opinion author Scalia:

"...would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Yes John, that's exactly what they did (you fucking dolt). Not only the second amendment, but the entire constitution is designed to limit the power of elected officials, most specifically congress, to regulate the lives of the citizenry. The whole document is a litany of restrictions on governmental power, as well as a detailed and narrow listing of the authorities and duties charged to the three branches thereof.

He went on to say that such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Really? What part of "...shall not be infringed" is beyond your ability to comprehend, John? These statements couldn't have been more ridiculous if he had said of the first amendment that no evidence existed that the Framers meant to limit the ability of elected officials who wish to regulate civilian speech.

But John's idiocy put aside, I'm very happy for my fellow Americans in Washington DC, especially those who place the safety of their homes and families above the edicts of a few morons and a crackhead, and have been secretly keeping private arms in their homes for self defense anyway. They need no longer fear reprisal from their elected officials (most of whom are afforded armed police protection). I harbor no delusions that the District will become a nice place to live any time soon, but it's always good to see a wrong of this nature righted, especially after all of this time.

Supreme Court Shoots Down DC Gun Ban, via CBS News