Heller Blogging

Stick with Hit & Run throughout the day (and the coming days) for ongoing commentary on the Court's landmark 5-4 ruling that Americans possess "an individual right to use arms for self-defense." But if you simply must stray from reason, here are a few blogs to keep an eye on, recommended by our very own in-house SCOTUS nerd, Damon Root: Scotusblog, Volokh Conspiracy, Slate's "Supreme Court Breakfast Table," The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Law.com's How Appealing blog, and the terribly clever academic bloggers at Prawfsblawg and Balkinization.

Comments

[Ravac]

So, is it required to have multiple blog entries covering the same story, or does Reason pay by the blog post?

Because it's kinda stupid.

[Anon]

Agreed Ravac

[ed]

Thirded.

[John]

I can't wait to read the whining and knashing of teeth over at Slate. I am sure Dalia Lithwick will be in rare form talking about the evils of courts interfering with lawmakers. God, I hate that women.

[Michael Moynihan]

I'm not sure what "required to have multiple blog entries covering the same story" means, but this ruling is sort of a big deal and we are simply recommending other worthwhile blogs on the topic.

[Episiarch]

So, is it required to have multiple blog entries covering the same story, or does Reason pay by the blog post?

Because it's kinda stupid.

Don't be a douchebag. As Mike says, it's a BFD and all the staff should have their opportunity to comment on it.

[robc]

Any reason they all cant comment in the same thread?

[ed]

Kerry hasn't weighed in yet. I predict her angle will have something to do with ovaries.

[Bruce Majors]

I do not have the full text of the decision yet. Is it legal to hunt Congresscritters now, or are there specific seasons? Are Senators worth more points than House vermin?

[Ravac]

Don't be a douchebag.

I'm not a douchbag, but it's clear you can't post without being an asshole.

I know it's a pretty big story. As robc points out, is there any reason the contributing editors can't post in previous thread(s)? Or edit the previous threads to include their observations? Pointing out other blogs about this monumental decision requires it's own separate thread? Really?

[Gabe Harris]

more news on breathlyzer ignition lock devices. Can we expect Steve Chapman to continue his coverage of this important issue?

http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/

[Ravac]

I mean, ffs, Sullum has two entries 6 minutes apart.

[Colin]

If you've never seen someone eat crow live on video before, the DC mayor is about to speak on washingtonpost.com

[Matt Welch]

As robc points out, is there any reason the contributing editors can't post in previous thread(s)? Or edit the previous threads to include their observations? Pointing out other blogs about this monumental decision requires it's own separate thread? Really?

With the to-be-sure that the Customer Is Always Right, this strikes me as, um, a fairly minor irritant in the scheme of things. Putting up timely stuff often means throwing it up there as it comes across your desk. And a post full of pointers to various other blogs is quite different than a post linking to the decision itself, or another one that details various presidential candidates' reactions. And there's a further technical issue, if you really want to know -- it's just not very feasible to have a half-dozen staffers opening up the same one file and adding to it simultaneously.

[Just Sayin\']

[robc]

Matt,

The problem is having to click into 4 different threads to read the comments. As a general rule, Im more interested in that than what you all have to say. 🙂

BTW, I have written/modified a few different content management systems over the last few years, if you need some technical help to add file locking into yours, just let me know. 🙂

[what was that?]

Just Sayin' | June 26, 2008, 12:20pm | #

With the to-be-sure that the Customer Is Always Right,

To be sure, you're commenters always receive a level of service at least commensurate to what they are paying.

[TallDave]

Great news!

Now, if they would just get to work on our right to ingest whatever the hell we want.

[pulik skool education strikes]

your

[Ravac]

Matt,

I agree that it's a minor irritant. What irritates me is having the same conversation (or in my case, as I don't post much, reading the same conversation,) in several places at the same time. I can appreciate getting news to us quickly, as soon as you can, but it just seems that the last few months have been particularly 'heavy' with numerous entries about the same subject on the same day. I just find it rather messy.

Standard disclaimer about your site, your rules goes here. 😉

[Gabe Harris]

"Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale ..."

get ready for the new health care nazis to do mandanatoray mental test on ALL children so that they can classify them as mentally ill in one of the hundreds of new mental ilnness created every year.

[joe]

All five Republican justices just endorsed Barack Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment.

Individual right, common sense restrictions permissable.

[Episiarch]

Oh joe, you are funny today. To Obama, "common sense" includes the restriction that the court threw out and that of Chicago. What a friend of the 2nd amendment!

[James B.]

All five Republican justices just endorsed Barack Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment.

Individual right, common sense restrictions permissable.

Wasn't Obama's position that the DC gun ban didn't violate the 2nd amendment?

[Er?k Boston, J.D.]

From the ruling:
Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

Dear God, he went and said it out loud. The statists are going to go ballistic.

[Elemenope]

All five Republican justices just endorsed Barack Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment.

Individual right, common sense restrictions permissable.

Whoa there! In order to know that, we'd have to know what the justices craftily refrained from telling us, which was what standard of review by which they would test such regulations and restrictions.

Somehow I think of Obama as a "rational relation" sort of guy on this one (i.e. fucking wrong), whereas I somehow doubt the five justice majority you reference would be crazy about such a lax review.

[joe]

To Obama, "common sense" includes the restriction that the court threw out

Actually, he didn't take a position on the DC gun ban. He made a great show of not taking a position, actually.

Little help here: does the court that just endorsed Barack Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment include six Republican-appointed justices, or seven?

[Other Matt]

All five Republican justices just endorsed Barack Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment.

Individual right, common sense restrictions permissable.

Shut up, fuckwit. Obama said that what they ruled as unconstitutional was entirely under his definition of "common sense".

Oh, wait! No, that's imprecise. Actually, he first said that, then he said "I'm sorry, did I make a definitive statement? That couldn't possibly have come from me, it misrepresents my position. I don't give specifics, I'm hope, change! No detail! Hope! Change! I'm black! Feel guilty! Vote for me! Pay no attention to the taxes behind the curtain! Hope! Change! Common Sense restrictions on constitutional rights!"

Evasive bullshit resulting in running from your previous statements with weasel words.

joe.

Some things were meant for each other.

[joe]

Cue the people who spend every day telling us that Barack Obama never says anything substantive, explaining that Barack Obama has spent the last six months loudly advocating a clear, inarguable position on the specifics of the DC law.

[joe]

See?

[Ravac]

joe, regarding your comment at 1:11.

If BO made a great show of not taking a position, how then can the decision support that position?

When I read the accounts of BO being asked directly, what his position was regarding the still-pending case, he always comes off as evading a direct answer.

[joe]

Ravac,

He took a clear, or at least semi-clear, position on the principle behind the Second Amendment - that it protects an individual right, but there can be "common sense" regulation as long as it doesn't trample on that right.

He took no posiition on the particular gun law from DC that was before the court.

[Mr. X]

Volokh is fucking useless today. Their server squirrels are dead, comments are broken, and 404's abound.

[joe]

Hey, look at this:

Other Matt | April 9, 2008, 8:28pm | #

It just struck me that this was another 'oh noes Obama isn't a libertarian' post... I wonder sometimes if certain of the Reason writers aren't trying to talk themselves into McCain.

I don't know about that, it's just high irritation to me when people carry on about Obama due to his lack of substance. This is a pretty clear example of it.

At least with Hillary or McCain, you pretty much know what you are getting. With Obama, the one person is right; he might, he might not, and fill in whatever blank after that you want.

[ed]

He made a great show of not taking a position

He's been doing that all year. Obama has perfected the art of saying nothing really well.

[Elemenope]

Someone should tell BHO, if you're gonna break with your party, do it "for freedom", not, y'know, the opposite.

Democrat supporting 2nd amendment: Good.
Democrat supporting telecom immunity: Bad!

[Ravac]

joe,

From what I can find, I would have to agree with you. He claims to support the 2nd Amendment, but also favors "common sense", and I would add local, regulations, since he's mentioned not wanting to interfere with 'gun culture' in flyover country.

I guess that would make him a Federalist, (in the modern sense) no?

[joe]

A federalist, yes. At least on this issue.

Gun control is going to play a miniscule role in this election, but it's going to get some press right now. If anyone wants to try to pin Obama down on what he means by "common sense," now's the time.

[robc]

joe,

Well, considering the gun laws in Illinois and more specifically Chicago, Im going that his definition of "common sense" is "fucking stupid".

Im basing this not on any votes he may have cast (I dont want to look them up), but on the fact that he didnt propose any laws to change them to something I would consider "common sense" (Like say, the gun provision in the KY constitution).

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Anything less than that isnt common sense. I may not like the concealed carry exception, but it doesnt violate common sense.

BTW, this is enforced too. The city of Owensboro passed a law banning firearms in city parks. The state supremes overturned it - the only power to regulate firearms in the state belongs to the General Assembly, and only on the issue of concealed carry.

[Guy Montag]

Ravac,

Comment earlier today, the ever changing position of Sen. Obama vs. his campaign staff.

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

June 26, 2008 7:35 AM

. . .

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

. . .

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

More at the link.

[Guy Montag]

Another good blog on gun issues is saysuncle.com

[joe]

robc,

I think it's probably a safe bet that Barack Obama's position on what gun laws would pass constitutional muster is broader than yours. Then again, so are John McCain's and Nino Scalia's.

[robc]

joe,

I never accused McCain or Scalia of having common sense either.

I think Im closer to right on what would pass (KY) constitutional muster.

[Ravac]

Guy,

Yeah, I've seen that story. Not sure how you can call BO's position "ever changing", wrt the DC ban, since he's basically had no position on it.

B.O.: I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.

[bigbigslacker]

Joe, hasn't Obama pushed for restrictions on gun sales within 5 miles of any school, park, crack house, etc? This effectively bans gun stores everywhere but cattle country. I don't assume Obama's post-superstar comments on the second amendment are in line with his true beliefs. I take his statements from his pre-messiah days to be what he really wants. Are was he, like in attending a church that is "down with it", just playing to Chicago politics to establish cred?

google "obama gun store 5 miles"

[bbs]

Are, or, whatever

[joe]

bigbigslacker,

He voted party line on gun issues in the Illinois state legislature, from what I've read.

I'm not familiar with any initiatives he's taken at the federal level, but it's not an issue I pay much attention to.

[R C Dean]

Well, joe, Obama's "campaign" said he thought the DC gun law was Constitutional last November, a statement that wasn't disavowed until, umm, yesterday.

Now, you're not stupid. When a candidate leaves a statement by his campaign out there, unrepudiated, for six months, I think its fair to say that the candidate doesn't disagree with it.

Until its a political liability, of course.

Really, I think our choices here are that (a) Obama is hopelessly incompetent and cannot control his message on major issues or (b) Obama is trying to have it both ways, lofting a trial balloon until he figures out which way the wind is blowing.

Placed in context with his voting history and general behavior, I tend to believe (b), meaning that he is just fine with DC-style gun bans, until that position creates political exposure for him.

Someone who engages in this kind of behavior on issues of fundamental rights doesn't fill me with libertarian confidence, I tell you.

[R C Dean]

Gun control is going to play a miniscule role in this election,

I'm not so sure. That 5-4 vote is a pretty good rallying cry for Republicans trying to drum up support from gun owners. "We're one justice away from losing it all. Do you trust Obama not to appoint that justice?"

Assuming McCain isn't stupid enough to throw it away by saying something offensive on the issue.

[Elemenope]

I don't assume Obama's post-superstar comments on the second amendment are in line with his true beliefs. I take his statements from his pre-messiah days to be what he really wants. Are was he, like in attending a church that is "down with it", just playing to Chicago politics to establish cred?

Try comparing apples to apples. What a person thinks is right for the district they represent (Chicago) is not necessarily what they believe would be right the whole country over.

There is no *inherent* conflict between being responsible to and representing the people of Chicago and saying one thing, and then running to represent and be responsible toward the entire country and say another.

About the only thing you can derive from both statements is that BHO is not a *doctrinaire* 2nd Amendment booster, which is a shame but hardly the end of the world.

[robc]

joe,

He voted party line on gun issues in the Illinois state legislature, from what I've read.

Assuming what you read is right and considering what the Illinois DP position on guns is (Illinois - the dont even fucking think about your concealled carry permit being valid here state), he didnt vote the common sense position.

[joe]

Well, joe, Obama's "campaign" said he thought the DC gun law was Constitutional last November, a statement that wasn't disavowed until, umm, yesterday.

No, not really, though I can see how you could read it that way, if you really wanted to.

When a candidate leaves a statement by his campaign out there, unrepudiated, for six months He didn't. He's repeatedly said he hadn't read the details of the case, and didn't have a position on it. I guess you managed to miss that part. You're good like that.

robc,

No, he voted the party line.

[robc]

joe,

No, he voted the party line.

I think you meant "yes, he voted the party line". I think we are in agreement, unless you are going to tell me that voting the party line is "common sense". It isnt. At best, it makes him a fucking partisan hack. Considering the IDP gun views, I would put him more in line with fucking loon.

[R C Dean]

No, not really, though I can see how you could read it that way, if you really wanted to.

Ok, joe, give me a link where this former Con Law professor specifically repudiated a position that his campaign attributed to him on one of the two most important Con Law positions of the day.

Having your underlings say "this is his position" while publicly saying "I don't take a position on pending cases" doesn't count. First, its not a repudiation. Second, it's an obvious, unprincipled dodge (see, eg, "deniable trial balloon"). Third, its a stupid position to take. Why won't he take a position on pending cases? He's not a judge, for Christ's sake.

[R C Dean]

Clicked too soon.

And, finally, its all just too politically convenient. Back when he courts the Left to get the nomination, his campaign says "Yay, gun control" and he says, really nothing. And, of course, "yay, gun control" is his position from way back.

Being a smart, unprincipled, politician, he leaves himself a back door - he has a staffer "leak" his position, while he pretends to take a bogus high road ("I don't take positions on major issues of the day about which I claim particular expertise"). Then, when its time to pivot to the center, he's all "boo, gun control".

C'mon, joe. You're not that naive.