The New York Times took one look at the Supreme’s McDonald decision, striking down Chicago’s handgun ban and said what me worry? “The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical impact is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection.” The Boston Globe, like most left-leaning media mavens, is similarly reassuring: Supreme Court ruling to have little effect on Mass. gun laws. The BBC is, of course, self-referentially bonkers: “Correspondents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.” You mean BBC correspondents? The Huffington Post is (as always) huffing glue, its headline writer implying that the ban wasn’t tough enough, as I predicted in this morning’s videotorial . . .
As gun rights were extended throughout the country by SCOTUS, Chicago was recovering from another violent weekend that left at least 29 shot and three dead.
Coincidence? I THINK NOT! But perhaps not for the same reasons. OK, back on the symbolic victory train. The Atlanta Journal Constitution rides in the first class compartment, right next to their best buds from the Times.
Symbolically, the ruling is a big victory for the gun lobby. But its practical effect is another matter. A decade or two ago, when hot political battles were still being fought over gun control, rulings such as these would have had significant impact. But the truth is that the single-minded passion of gun-rights advocates long routed their opponents in the political arena, making gun-control arguments in the political arena all but moot. In that sense, the Supreme Court is merely following the election returns . . .
As opposed to, say, protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as they’re bloody well supposed to do. Never mind. The point is: don’t give up on gun control! Newsweek:
The good news for gun control is that this new-found right [?] may not restrict gun-control laws very much . . .
No statewide gun-control law appears to be in immediate jeopardy, because nothing in Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion appeared to undercut the court’s assertions in a 2008 decision striking down a similarly strict handgun ban in the District of Columbia that a wide range of less stringent gun-control laws could be upheld as reasonable public-safety measures.