Time Magazine have now put their spin on the Heller Supreme Court decision.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080627/us_time/thefutureofguncontrol;_ylt=AgJYDB1Y3OETP9050g9Hppqs0NUE
"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote. The gun control advocates are already jumping on that statement. Time is stating, "The ruling, which affirms a federal appeals court decree, makes clear that individual ownership rights are limited. Gun-control advocates say the ruling's focus on gun bans safeguards reasonable gun restrictions from the flurry of litigation it will undoubtedly trigger."
"The Court's decision indicated regulation of guns, as opposed to the banning of handguns, is entirely permissible," says Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions." Scalia said the Court's decision "should not be taken to cast doubt" on many existing restrictions against gun possession, including handgun possession by felons and the mentally ill, possession in schools and government buildings and rules governing commercial arms sale. Says Henigan: "I don't think that there is any federal gun control law that's likely to be struck down."
Basically, the Anti's are saying the court is opening up the wide availability of laws to restrict guns severely, rather then outright banning them. Hummm... well, if they get their wish, I can see taxes up the wazoo on guns and ammo, registration fees, annual renewal fees, etc. Since the Freedom of Speech is not completely unlimited, how about we tax people based on the number of words they utter in a day. How about we tax people for going to church, or the number of Hail Mary's they utter. Let's tax tithes, too. Come on. This is ridiculous. Common sense laws are needed.
To quote Chief Justice Roberts, "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Well what is reasonable about laws that make a "Right" so restricted that no one can avail themselves of that right?
Let's hope the next case to the Supreme Court doesn't take us another 230 years to fix this idiocy.
