U.S. Supreme Court To Cities: Drop Dead

I spoke too soon - I may be able to sneak in a couple after all; I touched in this with the Onion video earlier, but I’m doing it again here)…

The New York Times reports that The Supremes, as expected, overturned the Washington, D.C. gun ban, tossing aside volumes of existing case law in the process…

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: ''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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit ''the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.''

In dissent, 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.''

He said such evidence ''is nowhere to be found.''

Of course it isn’t. Because, as noted here…

In a series of 5-to-4 decisions, conservative justices have overturned federal laws that they said did not substantially affect interstate commerce, like laws regulating guns in schools or violence against women.

What Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas said at their confirmation hearings may have been one thing, but as far as I’m concerned, the concept of “settled law” doesn’t exist with these people on any non-ideological issue (aren’t many of them; at least Alito was a little more forthright in his disdain).

And the results will be predictable, sadly; this was written by Shirley Franklin, mayor of Atlanta (contributing to this column were: Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee; Manuel A. Diaz, mayor of Miami; Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco; Greg Nickels, mayor of Seattle; and Douglas H. Palmer, mayor of Trenton, N.J.)…

Different gun laws make sense in different areas. Community leaders are plainly in the best position to determine the policies needed to curb the crime, fear and disorder that gun violence creates in each city —- not a special interest lobby and gun industry more concerned about dollars than lives.

It's the nation's mayors who get the call from police when a shooting occurs. It's the local leaders who comfort the families of gunshot victims, who walk with police and residents on the neighborhood beat, who meet with block watch groups and who grapple with the demanding budget ramifications of violent crime. For those very reasons, policies affecting guns and community safety historically have been —- and should be —- made at the local level.

And when communities have the authority to enact regulations that respond to local needs, they're often aggressive and successful. New York City has experienced a dramatic decline in crimes involving firearms after tailoring creative local regulation to curb gun violence. The city of Oakland, Calif., prohibits firearms dealers from selling ultra-compact (and easily concealable) handguns. Washington, D.C.'s handgun restrictions have led to one of the lowest suicide rates in the nation. And Chicago, like the District, bans the possession of handguns.

And all of these bans and restrictions will now face court challenges as a result of the Supremes’ ruling.

More crime (particularly suicides), more danger for our police…more ruined lives.

And this is Judge Scalia’s message in response…

Update 6/27/08: Kudos to Jill Porter of the Philadelphia Daily News for this.

Update 7/30/08: Cause, meet effect.