Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Quote of the Day

    Posted by Lexington Green on June 26th, 2008 (All posts by )

    [T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

    Justice Scalia, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

     

    24 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

    1. Shelby Says:

      “Unaccountably removed from the opinion were the two sentences that followed: ‘Unlike that pesky Commerce Clause. And the Ninth Amendment.'”

    2. Dan from Madison Says:

      Today is indeed a good day. Lawsuits are being filed immediately in Chicago and elsewhere to eliminate those laws as well. I look forward to reading both the majority opinion and the dissents and trying to carve out a meaningful post on it.

    3. zenpundit Says:

      I am most pleased and without reservation.

    4. John Jay Says:

      “where well-trained police forces provide personal security”

      To the wealthy. To the rest of us, not so much. Or at least not consistently.

    5. renminbi Says:

      These laws have to be rewritten in an age where the MSM doesn’t set the debate.LOL gungrabbers!

    6. LotharBot Says:

      “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce…”

      Glad to finally have a justice who is willing to recognize the limits of the supreme court’s jurisdiction. If only the judges in certain other famous trials had done the same…

    7. Robert Schwartz Says:

      No Comment.

    8. Jay@Soob Says:

      “where well-trained police forces provide personal security”

      After both a phone call and a wait time. “Hang on a second before you kill me or rob my home. Just give me seven, eight minutes tops…”

    9. Tatyana Says:

      Guys, it doesn’t bother you that the opinions were divided 5:4? Tht just 1 (one) voice separated us from elimination of the Amendment? That this is a spoiler of how things will turn if (when?) Obama becomes a President?

    10. Lexington Green Says:

      “…it doesn’t bother you that the opinions were divided 5:4 …”

      A win is a win. I’ll take it.

      If, as is likely, Obama becomes president and appoints one or more justices, as is likely, then the Court will reach outcomes that I don’t like.

      Good thing this happened now.

      The Supreme Court does not like to reverse itself. Five judges signed onto a strongly worded opinion.

      In 2008, this is about as good as we can hope for.

    11. Joshua Says:

      Tatyana, several other blogs I’ve perused today have already claimed that today’s ruling will help McCain, for the very reason you’ve brought up.

    12. zenpundit Says:

      Quick reversals are rare for SCOTUS for the same reason senatorial courtesy persists – “you today, me tomorrow”

    13. Anonymous Says:

      If only it could have been Chief Justice Scalia….

    14. Tatyana Says:

      Joshua, take a look at the column on the left (Intrade). McCain wins: 30.7:31.
      Obama wins:64.0:64.1

    15. Smitten Eagle Says:

      I am delighted by the decision.

    16. Ginny Says:

      The forcefulness and beauty of the style/content is charming.

    17. G Hanson Says:

      “where well-trained police forces provide personal security”

      A common delusion, which governments encourage by promoting vague slogans like “To protect and serve”.

      Courts have ruled endlessly that police, and the governments which employ them, have no legal obligation to protect anyone, rich or poor. Police are armed for self-protection and no other reason.

    18. Lexington Green Says:

      “…charming”

      Ginny, Scalia is a good writer, and he does his own writing, or at least his own final draft. So his opinions have a distinct flavor to them. Most appellate opinions are written by clerks, or by committees of clerks, and hence are lifeless and boring. Scalia goes against that trend.

    19. renminbi Says:

      It is good that this right is recognised ,but so are ones 5th amendment rights,but in reality they are protected little. See Instapundit 7.02AM link. This is going to have to be fought for. The politics on this are good though;gungrabbers are going to have a difficult time in the future.

    20. Jonathan Says:

      I agree that this is the beginning of further legal battles. I don’t think that’s bad, however. It’ll just take time. There are plenty of capable people who are eager to fight legal battles on 2A issues.

    21. fred lapides Says:

      As for me, I have no problem with honest folks ownin g firearms. I do, however, note that record keeping is sloppy, just about anyone in many states can buy a gun, and some gun types feel that any weapon should be available to own, machine guns etc–and that bothers me. Further, a recent study I had seen the other day showed a graph that clearly depicted that those states with the most guns (owned) also had the most deaths by guns: a distinct correlation.
      I have shot weapons while in the military but prefer, oddly enough, to have more faith in law enforcement than in my ability to protect my family by owning a gun. But I may be quirky in this…so go forth, for those in Chicago may soon find that they can better evaluate the Court ruling when gun ownership laws change. Whee I live, you can buy a gun, register it after you have been cleared, and can even carry it concealed. You can not though take it out of state without either permission or in violation of the law.

    22. Lexington Green Says:

      “There are plenty of capable people who are eager to fight legal battles on 2A issues.”

      On BOTH sides. I know good lawyers on both sides of this.

    23. Jonathan Says:

      The prohibitionists took to the courts and regulatory agencies because they were unable to prevail via the political process. Now, after years of forceful pro-rights scholarship, the courts are starting to acknowledge the right to arms and prohibitionists’ judicial safe-haven is shrinking. The antis are on the wrong side of history, law and public opinion. In the long run, I doubt that their agenda will remain intact no matter how good their lawyers or how complete their control of regulatory bureaucracies.

    24. Lexington Green Says:

      “The antis are on the wrong side of history.”

      So were the Imperial Japanese, the Apaches and the Zulus.

      All went down with a serious fight.