Posted on 06/29/2010 8:24:23 AM PDT by LouAvul
When the Supreme Court extended the individual right to own a gun Monday, they handed Second Amendment advocates—many of whom are at home in the GOP—one of their most significant legal victories ever.
But who won the day in politics? The Democrats.
For them, the court’s groundbreaking decision couldn’t have been more beneficial to the cause in November. Now, Democratic candidates across the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign trail. And they won’t have to defend against Republican attacks over gun rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners.
“It removes guns as a political issue because everyone now agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right and everybody agrees that it’s subject to regulation,” said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the culture program at the centrist think tank Third Way.
A House Democratic aide agreed that the court’s decision removed a potentially combustible element from the mix.
“The Supreme Court ruled here that you have a fundamental right to own and bear arms, and that means at the national level it’s harder – whether it’s Republicans or whether it’s the [National Rifle Association] – to throw that claim out: if Democrats are in charge they’re going to come get your guns,” said the aide. “It pretty much took that off the table.”
The likely removal—or at least neutralization—of the gun issue this fall is of no small matter in the battle for the House and Senate. The Democratic majorities in both chambers were built, in part, on victories in pro-gun states and districts that had until recently been difficult terrain for Democratic candidates as a result of the national party’s position on gun control.
The chorus of responses to Monday’s ruling was a group of normally dissonant voices: It proved the rare occasion when both former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could find common ground.
In a Facebook post titled, “Another Victory for the Second Amendment,” Palin wrote that the case “should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.”
Reid essentially agreed, calling the right to bear arms “one of the essential freedoms on which our country was founded.”
“I am pleased that the high court has taken steps in both the Heller and McDonald cases to guarantee this fundamental right,” he said in a prepared statement, referring to both the 2008 Heller decision, which struck down the District of Columbia’s restrictive gun law, and Monday’s McDonald v. Chicago decision against Chicago’s handgun ban.
For congressional Democrats—especially those in seats outside major metropolitan areas where support for gun rights runs high—the ruling offered a chance to assert their pro-gun bona fides.
Should have never been heard there.
If every right is subject to a USSC ruling, we’re screwed. They get as many wrong as they do right.
I’d rather do battle on state level, state by state. I can always move to a free state.
Two points:
1. Four Democrat Justices think that citizens may be fully disarmed by their state governments.
2. The game is one for a massive generation of gun rights litigation, with rulings to be made by the federal judge and SCOTUS appointees of future Presidents, confirmed by future congresses.
Gun owners aren’t that easily lulled into ignorance. Democrats are out to destroy the Constitution/Republic, and the 2nd Amendment is a priority. With unemployment at 10 percent and rising, with housing tanking, gas prices rising and Socialism failing everywhere, Democrats have a full plate of crap to eat come November. We should shovel it on, not forgetting who the gun grabbers are as we go.
Yep. Somebody needs to tell Politico "It's the economy, stupid!" Most people I talk to know instinctively that all the runaway spending, the corporate seizures and all the rest of Obamalamadingdong's efforts aren't in America's best interests. If I were a Democrat seeking election or re-election that is what I would be worried about come November.
Nonsense. It just changes the debate to how much and what kind of regulation is "reasonable". The battles will be just as intense and the usual suspects will be lining up on each side.
Except for 4 of 9 SCOTUS justices who happen to be left wing.
I thought that this was going to be an article that admits
Yet another article from the DEM spin machine that a DEM defeat is good for the DEMs.
Secondly, I’ve never heard a democrat “quietly cheer” about anything.
This ruling only puts more guns into the hands of American citizens so we can take care of business.
As you might expect, the so-called “centrist” group “Third way” that Politico cites is actually a Dem Party front group, dedicated to “modernizing progressivism”, and with 6 Dem Senators on its advisory board.
As someone said yesterday, if the Left wins a case (such as Roe v Wade), then it's settled law. Everything changes overnight, for all time. No challenges or nuances need to be entertained, because the Supreme Court has spoken.
But, now that the Court has rendered this decision on gun rights, the Liberal talking heads on my local radio were saying: What about reasonable restrictions for violent misdemeanors (spouse abuse)? Or permits? Trigger locks? Machine guns? How many guns can you purchase in a month? Do you have to register your guns? The list was endless. It really painted the picture that, with about 23 additional Supreme Court cases over the next few decades, we will eventually have a clear understanding of what the Second Amendment means.
Sheesh!
All the steps you noted pertain to POSSESSION in the home, not to carry concealed.
I’d still rather fight those issues on a local level where I can “get in their face” (Obammy-style) than have it all dictated from some czar from afar or a dork in a robe.
Even though the four radical leftist dems on the court voted to OVERTURN the 2nd amendment??? The left wing Politico is REEEEELY looking hard for good news for its party, isn’t it!
Good point. And an important distinction.
I did all that for concealed carry.
I wonder what the penalty is in DC for failure to properly register? Misdemeanor or felony?
I can’t see how it could be a felony, but ya never know.
No it des not remove this issue because many cities still insist that they will keep their bans and since 99% of them are run by Dems....This writer is dreaming.
I a way, that sleazeball John Edwards was right... there ARE two Americas. But he was wrong about their descriptions. One America trusts the Constitution backed up with citizens’ right to carry arms, the OTHER America abhors the Constitution and wants to disarm the citizens. In one America we are citizens, in the other we are subjects.
That’s the new American divide, and the two opposing camps can NOT coexist. Red and blue America are headed for a reckoning.
How much “regulation”? The liberals are still open to attack, the ruling hasn’t changed much. Daley is already moving to deflect any changes and Bloomberg will be spouting his crap just like he was yesterday.
Actually, the First Amendment (prior to incorporation) went in the direction you suggest -- CONGRESS shall make no law ... If your local state wants to restrict your speech or religion, the founders implied that it could. But, with incorporation, it's clear that this has been extended beyond a restriction on Congress.
But the Second Amendment has always been broader. It just says the right cannot be infringed. By anyone. Again, I say that there are no local battles that need to be fought. It should be open season -- go stock up on weaponry. But I realize that the local authorities will still try to infringe where the courts will allow it.
Let me see if I get the logic of this...
People will vote democrat because the supremes rejected one of the dems’ pet policy and instead sided with the people.
I despise the rats who write for politico!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.