Within hours of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court over District of Columbia vs. Heller, the presses and the Internet were a buzz with opinions, talk, spin, conjecture and defensive strategies knowing challenges await cities like San Francisco, Chicago and New York.

I’ve been reading and gathering reactions and comments and thought I would share those with you. What better way is there to get all the information you want without spending hours trying to find it?

Let’s start first with the trouble Barack Obama may be in over his stance on gun control. We know from his past he is staunchly opposed to handguns, gun manufacturers and has a basic dislike for any weapon and considers the Second Amendment useless. He has tap danced around District of Columbia vs. Heller since forever.

He can’t do that any longer. People want to know and as any good candidate he is flip-flopping and trying to take a middle stance in order to win votes and not anger too many gun owners. Robert D. Novak of Townhall, shares what he says has put Obama firmly into a corner.

Novak reminds readers that last April Obama revealed his true side by calling many gun owners bitter people. Now he is trying to say that the Washington, D.C. gun ban went a little bit too far.

Chicago is in scramble mode. The city is being sued to overturn its ban on guns. Within hours of the ruling, a minimum of two gun groups filed suit. Reuters reports on the efforts of the NRA to repeal Chicago’s gun ban and The Illinois State Rifle Association has also filed suit according to the Chicago Sun Times.

The Editor and Publisher reports that the Chicago Tribune is calling for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment….well, not really but really but not really but really but making this statement.

“No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon,” the editorial said. “But it should.”

And I found one resident of Chicago who is quite angry to think that the Mayor is about to spend millions of dollars fighting the lawsuit to end the gun ban. That’s in the Daily Herald.

Reuters reports on a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco to end its gun ban.

Brian Doherty’s Op-Ed that appeared in the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun says that the Brady Center is claiming the Heller decision a victory for them.

Leading gun-control advocates, such as the Brady Center, are already spinning Heller as a victory: They claim the gun-rights lobby’s strength is based on stoking the public’s slippery-slope fears that any gun regulation is a forerunner to a total ban. With that ban now impossible, gun-control advocates believe they’ll have more ability to restrict sales, possession and carrying in ways short of prohibition.

Robert J. Spitzer says that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion of the definition of the Second Amendment was “manufactured”.

As one would suspect, the New York Times disregards the ruling and continues its focus on fear mongering and stating that the question of whether the existence of guns causes more deaths, crime and murder.

Associated Content ran a poll showing Americans agree with the decision of District of Columbia vs. Heller.

David Savage of the Los Angeles Times asks this question:

Is gun ownership a “fundamental right” under the Constitution, or something less? Put simply, is a gun akin to an automobile, a legal but dangerous product that can be strictly regulated by the government? Or is a gun more like a book, both legal and largely off-limits to government regulation?

Last time I checked, there was no constitutional guarantee of a right to keep and bear automobiles.

Trevor Bothwell of Examiner.com says the Court has overstepped its bounds and has no constitutional rights to tell states what to do.

It may appear that by applying the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court is merely extending constitutional protections universally. But this is a mirage. For one thing, it has no constitutional right to do so. But more importantly, to accept this notion is to give the federal government prima facie authority over virtually all state legislation, which contradicts the entire point of limiting its jurisdiction in the first place.

David Kopel, New York Sun, takes a look at how the Heller ruling might affect New York’s strict gun control laws.

Scott Whitlock of Newsbusters says the day after the ruling of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the three network morning talk shows, dedicated 3 minutes and 33 seconds to the story. How dare they!

AlterNet.com has a piece written by Sanford Levinson who seems to be saying that both Justices Scalia and Stevens, were picking and choosing only parts of historic documents from the time of the Second Amendment writing and they should have ignored it and focused on modern historians interpretations.

Neither Scalia nor Stevens pays any real attention to a plethora of first-rate historical work written over the past decade that challenges this kind of foolish self-confidence.

Isn’t this exactly what got us into the mess we are in now? This is typical of today to disregard history and pay attention to the extremely biased writings and research of modern day “historians” with an agenda.

Philadelphia Mayor Nutter says that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion leaves open the door that Philadelphia’s gun restrictions will stick.

I tried to pick a broad sampling of the talk and actions taking place across the country concerning District of Columbia vs. Heller. I hope you have enjoyed this post and the links I’ve provided.

More on District of Columbia vs. Heller

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this article check these out:

• Intentional Ignorance On Guns
• Yankee Sportsman’s Classic
• Wildlife Alliance Of Maine Misleading Voters Already
• The Hunt For Hunting Ethics
• Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors
• Random Thoughts And Comments
• Sierra Trading Post September Coupon
• Wolf Politics Cat And Mouse
• Good Advice?
• Managing Elk Herds

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!