Posted on



The long awaited “Heller” decision was released today, and although the media is largely treating it like a victory for gun owners, don’t be opening the champagne just yet.

You can download and read the entire decision here.

While the Court decided that Washington DC can no longer completely ban its residents from having guns, it flatly stated that restrictions can remain on the types of guns you may own and where and how you may possess them.

That the Court was split 5 to 4 on this basic question should be cause for more than a little concern on the part of gun owners, especially in light of the upcoming elections and the possibility of new Justices being appointed by an anti-gun president.

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.”

That’s EXACTLY the choice they made, and that a Supreme Court Justice is unaware of it is breathtaking.

In spite of the whining by the Brady Bunch, this decision was no great triumph for gun owners.

In the decision, Scalia stated nothing in Thursday’s ruling “should cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

So the Supreme Court believes that our schools should continue to be the killing zones they have become, and government employees either deserve special protections no one else gets, or no protection at all depending on your point of view.

If you think the residents of DC are now “free” take a look at the restrictions that still stand. DC is still taking the position that common handguns may not be “registered” if they are semi-automatic.

The court went so far as to state “Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home”.

The Court agrees that it is reasonable to require a person who carries a gun every day at work (as Heller has) to have a license to carry a gun IN HIS HOME.

If these restrictions are in fact Constitutional, you can rest assured that localities will continue to create absurd and onerous rules for licenses, permits and purchase.

It is, of course, absurd that a ruling of this kind was even necessary. The debate was whether the people, who created the government, have as many rights as the government they created. And four of the nine Justices concluded that we do not. They concluded that the state is sovereign over you. They agreed that all manner of intrusions on your liberty are acceptable. These are very dangerous days for gun owners and anyone who cherishes freedom.