AP Breaking: Supremes’ Ruling ‘Casts Doubt’ on Chicago Handgun Ban (BizzyBlog Update: The ‘Extended’ Lie)
Lord have mercy, even when it hits him in the face, the Associated Press’s Mark Sherman won’t concede the obvious:
“Cast doubt”? Is that what court ruling do now?
A USA Today item has it right:
Other sources describing the ruling accurately include these:
- CNN — “Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban”
- Fox News — “High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights.” From text: “Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.”
- Reuters, as carried at the New York Times — “Supreme Court Rules Chicago Gun Ban Unconstitutional”
As with the Washington, DC Heller case in 2008, the real outrage is that the ruling was 5-4.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
BizzyBlog-only Update: The last paragraph of the ruling (large PDF) –
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
The Seventh District Court of Appeals had upheld the City of Chicago’s handgun ban. The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses the Seventh District. It is accurate to say that the handgun ban as written by the City of Chicago has been declared unconstitutional. It is not accurate to say that the ruling “casts doubt” on it.
BizzyBlog-only Update 2: The press meme as embodied in the AP’s headline above and frequently seen elsewhere is that the Court “extended” gun rights — as if the ruling broke some kind of new ground.
What an insult to readers’ intelligence. The ruling recognizes the obvious: that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to the entire Bill of Rights, not just the parts of it that liberals like.
Has anyone ever tried to make the argument that Ted Strickland and the Ohio Legislature can shut down the Cleveland Plain Dealer because they don’t like its editorials, and that it’s okay because the states have that perogative After all, following the illogic, the Bill of Rights was only meant to protect citizens against the federal government, not state or local ones. Of course not.
Has anyone ever argued that the states can decide to house soldiers in citizens’ homes, that their law enforcement can dispense with the need for Miranda warnings, or that it can establish Catholicism as a state’s official religion? Well, why not? According to the Court’s deranged minority, states can gut the Second Amendment. Why not the others?
Twice in two years, the Court’s minority has outed itself as fundamentally hostile to the Constitution and its Natural Law foundations (in this case, the human right of self-defense, and, when required, to right to defend others against hostile force). The Heller ruling of 2008 was one of so many warnings received before November 2008′s fateful election that so many of the freedoms we hold so dear are hanging by a one-vote thread in the Supreme Court and are at the mercy of the whims of authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats the current Court all too often supports.