Supremes nix D.C. gun ban, but don't get too excited

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a big case today: D.C. v. Heller. In this landmark ruling, the Big Nine struck down Washington, D.C.'s longtime handgun ban. Bush's so-called Justice Department had submitted a brief supporting the gun ban, so this seems to be a setback for the ruling regime.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said the ruling was long overdue to reaffirm Second Amendment precedent.

But don't get too worked up. The Supremes aren't applying this affirmation of the right to bear arms to the actions of states (or their respective local governments). In other words, they didn't say the states couldn't ban guns. They said the ruling applies only in D.C. because D.C. just happens to be the only place that ain't in a state.

Man, they really stepped in it. Although the court finally said the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership, they failed to reaffirm that the Bill of Rights applies to the actions of state governments. Now that's a bad precedent if there ever was one - and it puts decades upon decades of law at risk. The framers of the Bill of Rights did of course feel that these safeguards should protect the people from state abuses, not just federal abuses.

The Supremes also failed to resolve important due process issues that are just hankerin' to be abused again. So the due process matters are going to get worse before they get better.

I bet there's going to have to be a whole new case to decide the constitutionality of the even tougher gun laws in some Chicago suburbs. In Wilmette, Illinois, a victim of a home invasion used a handgun to shoot the invader who threatened him. The invader didn't serve more than a few months after recovering from his wound, but the system threw the book at the victim for having a handgun.

The Bush regime apparently thinks that's fair. But the Bushists are the crew that brings a whole new meaning to "crime pays", so what do you expect?