A Bad Day For Hate Criminals
For all the hoopla about President Obama’s signing last year of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act (a completely unassociated rider to the Defense Authorization bill for this year, in a cynical and overtly political attempt to wrestle Republican votes that would otherwise never have occured), today is actually a monumental day for gay and lesbian rights.
For it is today that the Supreme Court has decided in the case of McDonald et al. v. City of Chicaco, Illinois, et al., that:
Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
If you want anti-hate-crimes laws, you can’t do better than allowing gays and lesbians to defend themselves with firearms. And that SCOTUS two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the Second Amendment says what the Second Amendment says, they established this common-sense approach to our Liberties.
Further, that today SCOTUS applied these rights to individuals, by incorporating them through the 14th Amendment, you couldn’t get any more equal protection for gays and lesbians.
Truly a great day for Liberty and equality today.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The scary and shocking thing was that this was a 5-4 decision, so there were four Justices that didn’t agree. That’s a pretty thin majority, and maybe not so solid a win.
Comment by Hunter — June 28, 2010 @ 11:27 am - June 28, 2010
Bravo, kudos, hallelujah, hurray, mazeltov and Bob’s your uncle America!! We need a freakin’ parade for this one!
We must use this right or we will lose this right. That does not mean go out and shoot people. No, it means owning, knowing and maintaining in a responsible and sober manner the best tool available for self-defense.
And it does also mean using this supreme tool in the act of self-defense or that of another. Once criminals know that any person they consider a target will have a weapon, they will move on to those who they think won’t have a weapon.
Every woman, every parent, every senior citizen, every able disabled citizen must arm themselves, even if it is only to put a .20 gauge pump action under the bed.
We need to stop thinking of the gun as our enemy and instead think of it as our body guard. A body guard whose simple language we need to understand. It’s easy.
It really is quite easy to master the language of your body guard. You just need to want to try.
Comment by Iig — June 28, 2010 @ 11:42 am - June 28, 2010
Join or form a chapter of Pink Pistols. It´s fun to target practice with likeminded gays and lesbians. ´For those who can´t afford a firearm their is a millionaire, Dr. Ignacio Piazza, who will make a gift of one and pay for instructions. Information is available on http://www.frontsignt.com
Comment by Roberto — June 28, 2010 @ 11:43 am - June 28, 2010
#1 – And all 4 dissenting justices wrote separate dissenting opinions.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 28, 2010 @ 12:47 pm - June 28, 2010
Speaking of SCOTUS judges/nominees – is it just me, or does Elena Kagan look like Fred Flintstone in drag?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 28, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - June 28, 2010
I was happy to read the majority opinion and its reliance upon the 14th Amendment. That’s exactly how the Olsen team is framing the Gay Marriage argument, and gives me and my partner hope.
Due process cannot be overlooked, either in the right to bear arms, or equal treatment of all citizens to decide for themselves to marry whomever they choose. If the Prop 8 issue does get to SCOTUS, it will be interesting to see whether the justices continue to affirm due process. The liberals of the court in the firearms decision showed their disdain for due process. The conservatives affirmed it.
Comment by Man — June 28, 2010 @ 1:33 pm - June 28, 2010
There is an accmpanying attitude that those who support gun rights need to promote. Which is that individuals are responsible for their actions. Blaming inanimate objects (like guns) for the decisions of human beings was what led to a lot of the zeal for gun control.
Tell liberals — even otherwise reasonable ones — that you own a gun, and their brains melt. “Guns! Aaaaagh!” And they are off on a campaign to rescue you from your guns.
I finally asked a liberal friend of mine why she wanted me to be defenseless against hate crime. That shut her up.
Would a straight white guy have been at a greater disadvantage against her hysteria? Actually not, because he never would have been expected to listen to her in the first place.
Maybe a new day is coming. A happy thought for us this morning.
Comment by Lori Heine — June 28, 2010 @ 1:36 pm - June 28, 2010
Excellent news!!!
Comment by John — June 28, 2010 @ 1:37 pm - June 28, 2010
They’ll be going after ammo now.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 28, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - June 28, 2010
For the $1,500 required for his “gift”, I could buy a couple of my own choosing.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - June 28, 2010
I think people’s aversion to guns is the fact they are quite lethal and it only takes one person acting in an violent way to do everlasting damage to someone or someone’s family. I don’t have any problem with people owning or using guns but I don’t think others are crazy for wanting rules and regulations apply, just like with all the other freedoms we have.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 28, 2010 @ 3:22 pm - June 28, 2010
“…people’s aversion to guns is the fact they are quite lethal and it only takes one person acting in an violent way to do everlasting damage to someone or someone’s family.”
That’s quite true. It also takes only one person with a gun to STOP them, threby saving their potential targets from all that grief.
All the police are really there to do is clean up the mess after the crime has been committed. Those who think the cops are sufficient to protect them from al evil are living in a dream world.
Comment by Lori Heine — June 28, 2010 @ 3:44 pm - June 28, 2010
@Lori Heine, agree with both your comments, well said.
Comment by Iig — June 28, 2010 @ 4:06 pm - June 28, 2010
Hate crime laws never protected anyone against ignorant, evil thoughts and words. But use sticks and stones against me, be careful as I may be packing heat.
Glad this passed before Kagan gets appointed.
Comment by The other Peter H — June 28, 2010 @ 4:08 pm - June 28, 2010
What a great day for all Americans, gay and straight.
I have come to the conclusion that a concealed handgun, taser, pepper spray, bullet-proof vest, and some martial arts can protect someone in shady places.
I agree with Lori Heine, depending on the situation, a police officer(s) can not always defend you from violence. I would call police just to clean up the mess after any crime was committed. But police officers shouldn’t be put out of business, no! Communities need to cooperate with them.
Comment by Totakikay — June 28, 2010 @ 4:44 pm - June 28, 2010
YAY!
Comment by American Elephant — June 28, 2010 @ 5:41 pm - June 28, 2010
YAY! A post about a “gay rights” issue that actually IS a right for once! Kudos to you CP.
Comment by American Elephant — June 28, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - June 28, 2010
Oops, I shouldn’t have said “post” that makes it sounds as though I’m criticizing the bloggers at GP, when it’s a criticism of the lefty commenters. I don’t believe any bloggers at GP believe any of the items on the so-called “gay agenda” are rights.
Comment by American Elephant — June 28, 2010 @ 5:50 pm - June 28, 2010
#5 OMG Peter…..I was thinking she was a saturday nite skit gone wrong….talk about dopey. This is the best we have?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 28, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - June 28, 2010
I do not always agree with the posts here, but this is a post with which I can agree. Though a lifelong democrat, I hold a concealed handgun permit, have had several hours of instruction from an NRA certified handgun instructor, and often carry a concealed .38 when I am outside of the house. It seems silly to assume that the second amendment can be superseded by the actions of a state or city; what good is a right enshrined by the constitution if it can be overturned at the local level? The knee-jerk fear of firearms exhibited by those who have never handled them has always perplexed me. I recall trying to get my brother-in-law to do no more than pick up my revolver. I released the cylinder, emptied the 5 cartridges, pointed it away, dry-fired it ten times, opened the cylinder again, and he still recoiled from it, as if it were some sort of evil, magical device. A gun is a machine. Any evil that it ever perpetrates is always the result of human desire or error.
Comment by Phil Holmes — June 28, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - June 28, 2010
Remember when they called Sotomayer a right winger on guns during her confirmation. haha WRONG! She doesn’t even believe in the right to maintain a weapon in ones own home!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 28, 2010 @ 8:25 pm - June 28, 2010
#5 — I don’t know about that, but it does appear that she already has the same hair dresser as Barnie Frank and Sotomayor…
Comment by The other Peter H — June 28, 2010 @ 11:53 pm - June 28, 2010
Interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/24yebcx
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2010 @ 1:06 am - June 29, 2010
Just wondering……….
I am mildly curious about how the Supreme Court would go about disarming the citizens of the United States. Naturally, they would start in the safe neighborhoods. Illegal aliens, the poor and the criminally inclined need to have guns for their protection, so they would not be bothered by the cops. Actually, removing guns from ghetto denizens would be profiling and overt racism.
But would the people who have guns for their home protection stand up to the government? The news media would be howling about redneck vigilantes and Neanderthal conservatives.
In my heart of hearts, I think most Americans who pay their taxes and play by the rules would surrender their guns, if told to do so.
Comment by heliotrope — June 29, 2010 @ 8:41 am - June 29, 2010
Why don’t more gay men go hunting? I enjoy hunting, though I don’t get to do it very often. I’m hoping to do more of it this year–the guy across the street is taking me out shooting with him. He’s a nice, older, married guy who hasn’t asked me why I’m not married, so I’m hoping it doesn’t come up. But I notice that I’ve never met anyone who’s into guns and hunting who’s gay. Or even suspiciously unmarried. Guns are neat. And, let’s face it, it’s hard not to get a masculine rush when you’re shooting an AR-15. Why aren’t more gays into guns?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2010 @ 9:44 am - June 29, 2010
“‘…people’s aversion to guns is the fact they are quite lethal and it only takes one person acting in an violent way to do everlasting damage to someone or someone’s family.'”
Same for automobiles (can wipe out entire families in one swoop), knives, fertilizer, grill propane tanks, stairs…
Comment by Az Mo — June 29, 2010 @ 11:52 am - June 29, 2010
“Why aren’t more gays into guns?”
That’s because most gays are liberals and belive that guns are bad and the police and state are the only ones who should protect you and shooting guns as sport and/or collecting them as a hobby is what crazy rednecks who hate homos do and they’ve never even SEEN a gun in real life unless a policeman is carrying one let alone actually fired one or learned anything about them except what the loony libs say about them on TV…
and Dick Cheney shoots and we all know how bad Dick Cheney is
Comment by Az Mo — June 29, 2010 @ 11:56 am - June 29, 2010
While not gay, Kari Byron has spoke on the addictive properties of firearms once they’re used.
Her words were in essence that she is a ‘hippy dippy vegitarian, who never thought to pick up a gun’ until she started with Mythbusters.
I still prefer swords. If I’m going to have to kill you, I want it to be personal.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 29, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - June 29, 2010
I have a bayonet for my 1853 Enfeild. Does that count?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2010 @ 2:26 pm - June 29, 2010
A great ruling, and I’m happy to see it.
One comment tho:
Further, that today SCOTUS applied these rights to individuals, by incorporating them through the 14th Amendment, you couldn’t get any more equal protection for gays and lesbians.
A shame that not everyone thinks the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians.
Comment by torrentprime — June 29, 2010 @ 3:33 pm - June 29, 2010
Due process cannot be overlooked, either in the right to bear arms, or equal treatment of all citizens to decide for themselves to marry whomever they choose.
So you then support pedophiles marrying children, bestialists marrying animals, incest practitioners marrying their relatives, and polygamists marrying multiple people?
After all, the Fourteenth Amendment says “all persons”, with no differentiation whatsoever, and you are saying, “WHOMEVER they choose”.
The difference is basic and simple. The right for all Americans to bear arms is clearly established in the Constitution by the Second Amendment, and is affirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Marriage? A privilege, mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, which is and should be subject to the determination of the voters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 1:08 am - June 30, 2010
One thing that does irritate me about the 14th ammendment justification.
INAL, but why can’t the court look at the ninth “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And say that the second ammendment is ‘reserved to the people’.
I mean, many states had ‘official religions’ in the 1700’s-1800’s and the first ammendment clearly says ‘congress shall not’ it seems to me that the founders made it clear which ammendments protected the rights of ‘the people’ from the states.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 7:11 am - June 30, 2010
Agreed, Livewire. The Second Amendment is in the Federal Constitution, which theoretically trumps the states’ rights in that particular area.
The funny part is that the gay-sex marriage movement is now trying to use this decision to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment requires overturning Proposition 8.
My comeback: “Show me where marriage is given the same status as the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and we’ll consider it.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - June 30, 2010