NPR and the Heller Decision

I did a lot of driving today, to and from the Area 1 match, and I spent most of that time listening to the car radio.

Wouldn't you know it; the only station that came in clear over the entire course of travel was National Public Radio (NPR).

There were a couple of 'panel discussion' venues presented, relating to Current Events. One subject which was never omitted was the Supreme Court's decision on Heller vs DC.

Invariably, and probably because the 'panels' were loaded with comedians (and at least one 'sex columnist'), the comments were at best dismissive of the value of the court decision vis a vis the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; at worst, they were deprecatory.

Also quoting from my imperfect memory, the NPR station quoted a (blogger or columnist ... I'm unable to find the internet reference ... does it exist?) to the effect that "Now that I can have a gun in the District of Columbia, I'll be sure to send a shoulder of Venison to Dick Cheney as soon as a deer attacks me on the Capital Mall". I'm certain that this quote is inaccurate in the details, but I am equally sure that the quote is true to the impression it tries to make.

That is, the only legitimate use for firearms is for hunting, and that use is not applicable to the Urban venue of the District of Columbia. The implication is that the entire question of Heller vs DC, and the SCOTUS decision that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is without practical value.

This is only acceptable if you accept the basic premise: that the Second Amendment only applies to the use of firearms for hunting, and has no applicability to self-defense, or the acknowledgment that the Second Amendment was originally acknowledged to provide the citizenry with the means to overthrow a tyrannical Federal Government.

Well, NPR represents a Kinder, Gentler Nation, and it is loath to consider that a Federal government might be inimical to the Rights of Man.

Essentially, during my several hours of listening to NPR (which I do not exercise as a general practice), I discovered that this Publically Funded venue was unable to find a spokesman who was willing to venture that the SCOTUS decision had some value to the average honest citizen, let alone to the besieged and beleaguered D.C. Resident.


Okay, you don't listen to NPR on a regular basis. Why should you care?

You should care, because this is typical of the entire Liberal/Socialist/Gun-Control though process.

Here is the reportage from a D.C. radio station (WTOP) website:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court may have struck down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns, but that doesn't mean you can go out and buy one today.

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles says D.C. will start issuing permits to own a gun in 21 days, once the Supreme Court hands their decision down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.

"This is not open season with handguns," Nickles says. "We are going to strictly regulate the registration of handguns. There will be no authorization of automatic or semi-automatics."

[emphasis added

There will be no authorization of automatic or semi-automatics."

Note the attempt to equate "automatic" and "semi-automatic[s]" firearms here.

There we see a transparent attempt to confuse the public by listing "Automatic Weapons" (which are regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act) with "Semi-Automatic weapons" ... they are not the same, but this statement is entirely misleading to the average uninformed reader.

To continue:

The city may also require that trigger locks be kept on guns, Nickles says. The law will restrict people who are mentally ill and who are criminals from owning guns.

One of the issues of Heller VS DC was that the District required firearms owners to store their pistols and rifles in a non-usable condition; either locked with a "triger lock", or disassembled. This is one of the points which Heller addressed, although SCOTUS did not specifically address the issue of 'handguns' being stored with trigger-locks ... because handguns were banned, the question was moot. Now, DC will make it an issue.l

As for the question of "people who are mentally ill and who are criminals ...", these people are already barred from possessing firearms by Federal law. The inclusion here is mer showmanship; smoke and mirrors; obfuscation; bullshit.

Nickles says he expects to allow gun stores to open in the District. There are currently two people who are licensed to sell guns in the District, but there are no gun stores.

Here's another way in which Municipalities may attempt to avoid Constitutional Law. The District of Columbia is in an unique position, because they are not a State and, arguably, they are not a City. However, they can pick whatever argument suits their purpose, which is to deny access to firearms to honest citizens (who are the only residents who don't have 'em!)

They can allow ownership of firearms, but they can deny applications to those who would sell firearms. And they can deny the importation of firearms from outside the municipality.

This is the same legislative "Double-Whammy" which they have previously used, , in that they (a) disallowed the ownership if unregistered firearms, and simultaneously (b) disallowed the registration of all firearms.

It worked for them then, and they are willing to bet that it will work for them again. It took 20 years for the Supreme Court to address their egregious Gun Laws; they're willing to bet that they can throw up enough smoke and mirrors to make SCOTUS weary of addressing all of their petty local laws.

I thing they're right.

I think that D.C., Chicago, NYC and all other governmental entitites can nickle=and=dime SCOTUS to death.

And I have absolutely no doubt whatever that this is the tactic which they will implement, until it doesn't work any more (if that ever happens).


Then they'll try something else equally petty, and do it again and again, and they will tie up the Supreme Court once again, until they wear down the Supremes because, after all, they have more important issues to consider.

The comments (relying on my imperfect memory) included:

"Back when the 2nd amendment was written, did they have concealable muskets?"

"Well, they had voluminous panteloons."

"I bet they didn't have a lot of quick-draws, did they? And you know, it took them over a minute to reload."

The implications here are clearly that the technological circumstances which prevailed in 1791 are not pertinent to today's technology. This is a heavily beaten path to the argument that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate concealable handguns and semi-automatic weapons, so the Constitutional amendment should not apply to modern firearms.

D.C. doesn't get it. NPR doesn't get it. Well, NPR might be excused because their show is obviously 'entertainment', as is evidenced by a panel composed of Comedians and Sex Columnists.

The thing is, we're paying for NPR. It's the National Public Radio, for crying out loud. It's supported by our taxes. But it doesn't represent us. Instead, it represents snooty Liberal Elitists, Comedians and Sex Columnists.

No wonder Al Queda considers us a nation of Godless degenerates.

They probably listen to NPR every day, just to keep the troops filled with righteous indignation.