The Heller decision and its aftermath

| June 29, 2008

Frank J.  and Harvey (at IMAO) have all the breaking news. First the Supreme Court decision itself:

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., FLAMING HOMO, dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

Having basic reading comprehension and not having our heads shoved up our asses, we agree with the latter. Furthermore, we have determined that anyone who agrees with the D.C. law is a little preening little nancy and should be beaten or shot for being a pinko. See Findings on the Tiny Penises of Gun Haters. More specifically, everyone in D.C. should immediately be given a gun, and anyone who protests should be shot in the groin, shot in the face, and then shot in the groin once more for good measure. Then their houses should be burned down. We’ll make a weekend of it. I’ll bring beer. See video from last year’s Supreme Kegger.

And now the immediate aftermath:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court today ruled against local laws banning handguns by declaring that the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right” to firearm ownership, and not just a “right to a well-regulated militia”. Immediately after the decision, law-abiding gun-owners began using their legal guns to commit violent crimes.

“It’s like these guns are living objects, possessed by demons,” said gun-owner Mike Wazowski. “I was watching the Supreme Court ruling live on C-SPAN, and the next thing I remember, I was on the street, robbing people for crack money. Funny thing is, I don’t even know what crack LOOKS like, let alone ever smoked the stuff. It’s like the gun was forcing me to do it. These firearms are dangerous and out-of-control. I can’t believe the Supreme Court set free these weapons of malevolance incarnate on an unsuspecting nation.”

Heh.  ..bruce w..

Be Sociable, Share!

Category: 2008 Election, Humor, Legal, Main

About the Author ()

Webster is Principal and Founder at Bruce F. Webster & Associates, as well as an Adjunct Professor of Computer Science at Brigham Young University. He works with organizations to help them with troubled or failed information technology (IT) projects. He has also worked in several dozen legal cases as a consultant and as a testifying expert, both in the United States and Japan. He can be reached at bwebster@bfwa.com, or you can follow him on Twitter as @bfwebster.

Comments are closed.