Today the Supreme Court rejected the DC gun ban. Here's the opinion. I've asked resident gun nut Ragnar to write a reaction, but I wanted to post a thought one of my most politically astute pals just sent me. He thinks Heller will be good for Democrats long term.
oh -- and to clarify -- I don't think Heller necessarily helps dem candidates this cycle. Now they have to deal with the question: Do you agree with heller. (although I think the easy answer to this is simply "yes"). I think Heller helps dems in the long run. Politically, we always lose the 2nd amd. argument. Going forward, we don't have to argue about what the 2nd amd guarantees because the supreme court just told us what it guarantees. In the future when a dem candidate is asked to you believe in an individuals right to bear arms all she has to say is "sure do - that's the law of the land".This has always been a losing issue for Dems, particularly in the Midwest, where most of this blogs readership resides. What do you all think the political consequences will be?
Labels: guns, Joshua Roman, politics, second amendment, Supreme Court
Doesn't this question basically hinge on how many people voted Republican solely b/c Democrats are anti-gun? I can't imagine that is a big enough # to make that big of a difference in the long run.
Another point of clarification:
This opinion is good for Democrats because it relegates the NRA to political impotency. By that I mean whenever an interest group is built upon one specific argument or premise, when that group effectively wins that specific argument, its reason for being evaporates. The NRA has always been great at raising money and support for Republicans, so anything that weakens it is fine by me.
And yes, I realize the NRA will not disappear entirely. They will still fight all forms of gun control, they will fight closing the gun show loophole, they will fight gun registration laws. They've always waged these battles and they aren't going to stop just because of Heller.
However, I posit that their arguments on these issues will now be much less effective and the support they do garner will be much more lukewarm. All along, the the central tenant of the NRA's arguments on these issues has been the proverbial slippery slope: "if you let them require registering of handguns (or close the loophole, or ban assault weapons, etc) they'll come after right to own a gun next!" Well, now, thanks to Heller, the Supreme Court has said that "they" can't go after "your" right to own guns. Ever. And without that argument holding up the others, they all fall.
The problem with this reasoning is that it relies on Republicans not making the argument, "Hey, look, it was a 5-4 decision, if you elect a Democrat they're gonna appoint justices who will overturn the decision and take away your guns." That becomes LESS of a potent argument if Democrats don't campaign in favor of overturning the decision the same way, for example, Republicans campaign on overturning Roe v. Wade, but it's still a pretty strong argument for Republicans to make to retain the gun-toting vote.
Joshua, you should most definitely go buy a gun like any real man would. Denny Crane!
Brian -- that's an astute point. However, I doubt (or maybe just hope) democrats won't campaign to overturn Heller like Republicans campaign to overturn Roe. It would be a politically boneheaded strategy for just the reason you describe.
My advice to the party: accept it. It's over. Lets fight about policy now. Lets fight about making gun ownership safe. Forget about arguing over whether the right exists because (1) it apparently does, and (2) that plays right into the republicans' hands.
Josh's Friend,
I totally agree that Democrats aren't gonna campaign against the decision and are gonna do exactly what you recommend. I'm just saying, even with that being the case, Republicans can still make the argument. And in all honesty, it's probably an accurate argument. Not that a Democratic president is gonna go looking for somebody who will overturn Heller, but just that the sort of nominee a Democrat is going to appoint is likely going to be the type of justice who will agree with the dissent and not the majority in Heller.
Where things will get really politically dicey for Democrats is if the above turns out to be true and this decision gets overturned based on the key vote of a future Democratic appointment.
Only delusional liberals could spin the NRA's biggest victory into a castration. This decision gives the NRA more power than ever. It was beginning to look like the NRA's darkest hour. The country is slipping further and further to the left. The frontrunner for president is a confirmed antigun fruitcake, the Supreme Court has just handed down several decisions that are so left wing it is frightening, and the Republican brand is badly tarnished. Yet from the abyss the NRA snatches the biggest victory for gun owners in the history of the country. Already Pelosi and her happy band of idiots are crying foul and looking for a loophole to allow the DC (and other) Gun Bans to stand. The Brady Group, Move On.org and others will continue to try to rob us of our rights, and as always the NRA will be there to oppose them. Stronger, More Resolute, and finally, Vindicated. I wish our president, Mr. Heston, could have lived to see this day. Can I have a big "HELL YAAH!!!!"
I should note in regard to my previous comment that I don't EXPECT Heller to get overruled. Even if the court shifts to the left, I very much anticipate them respecting the precedent that Heller sets and just applying its standard for what a "reasonable" regulation is a bit more broadly than conservatives might. If they DID overrule Heller, however, it would be awfully interesting to see how that would affect things politically.
I agree. I doubt if the majority swings to the left they'd overrule Heller. Dem senators harped on stare decisis with both Roberts and Alito. I don't think you can support a nominee that supports the selective application of stare decisis (eg apply it in Roe, don't apply it in Heller)
Another interesting point about Heller though is that the majority opinion does not identify the level of scrutiny to apply to laws that regulate the right to bear arms. Scalia even discusses this (because Breyer notes it in his dissent) and basically says, "yeah we don't decide that now, but we'll get around to it in the future."
Crazy stuff.
The other thing that went unadressed is whether the 2nd amendment is incorporated into the 14th and thus applies to the states. It will be interesting to see how conservative anti-incorporation types and liberal pro-incorporation types handle that when it comes to a right to bear arms.