Heller vs. D.C. Observations

A lot of people are talking about the Heller vs. D.C. case where the Supreme Court ruled that individuals *DO* have a limited right to own a gun. They ruled that people may own a gun, but that certain restrictions are permitted. It was a 5 to 4 vote in favor of "individuals have the (limited) right to own a gun".

Some people are hailing this as a victory for freedom. My attitude is "5 to 4!? Why wasn't it 9 to 0?!" Also, "limited restrictions on gun ownership" rapidly leads to "gun ownership is banned". In 10-20 years, when the composition of the Supreme Court is different, then this decision will probably be overturned or further restricted/clarified.

The Supreme Court does *NOT* provide a check against an increase in government power. In almost all circumstances, the Supreme Court makes the ruling that increases the power of the Federal government. The same process that corrupted Congress and the President was used to corrupt the Supreme Court.

The most famous instance was President Roosevelt's battle with the Supreme Court during the Great Depression. President Roosevelt threatened to "pack the court". Congress was going to pass a law increasing the size of the Supreme Court, allowing President Roosevelt to appoint new justices. Instead, the Supreme Court capitulated and let President Roosevelt do whatever he wanted.

I also noticed that, since I have a "history of mental illness", I'm legally barred from owning a gun (until the US government collapses). There's no way I can contest the possibility that my hospitalization was a mistake and I'm fine now. That seems inherently unfair; the arbitrary decision of an incompetent doctor means I'm now banned from owning a gun. On the other hand, I don't need a gun. I'm much more interested in economic resistance than violent resistance.

Besides, *REALLY* effective weapons, such as machine guns, are outright illegal. If you have a revolver facing police with fully automatic machine guns, you're outmatched. I wonder how hard it is to have a self-sufficient community capable of defending itself from invasion. It's practically impossible, because the bad guys would use howitzers, tear gas, and bombs. The bad guys would just surround you, bide their time, and use bombs or tear gas.

I liked these quotes from this article on Yahoo.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."

In other words, the Constitution should not be interpreted as placing any restrictions on what the Federal government may do.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

You don't have the right to defend yourself? Anyone who feels that way should be forced to live in a crime-ridden urban area.

There's another interesting bit about this case. Technically, DC isn't a state. Does a ruling applying to DC also apply to people living in states?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't just so individuals can protect themselves against crime. The 2nd amendment exists so individuals can protect themselves against their own government!