Gun shops in towns around Washington, D.C., reported a rush of customers looking to buy handguns now that the Supreme Court has thrown out a local gun ban. The divided justices ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep a gun at home, but store owners said they were waiting for local officials to come up with new regulations on what kinds of guns would remain illegal, and how newly purchased firearms would have to be registered. (The Washington Post)
What the commentators said
Now that the Supreme Court has tossed out Washington's gun ban, said The Washington Post in an editorial, the next step is for local politicians to come up with new regulations “that can provide for rational management of gun ownership” without thwarting the court’s intent.
Gun bans in big cities haven’t stopped gun violence, said The Sacramento Bee in an editorial, because it’s easy to sneak weapons across city and state lines. But Congress has “the power to stem the tide” by passing laws to curb gun trafficking.
You’re not paying attention, said Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. Gun control doesn’t work, and letting people have guns for self-defense has no ill effects. The Supreme Court has settled the argument once and for all by giving the right to keep and bear arms “its rightful place with our other fundamental liberties.”
The justices did leave room for laws regulating guns in schools and government buildings, said Timothy Wheeler in National Review Online, and for restricting “dangerous and unusual weapons.” But “these exceptions should be considered just that—exceptions”—because the right to keep a loaded gun in the home for self-defense can no longer be challenged.