Breyer Whines

RE: McDonald v. Chicago decision announced today

Justice Breyer whines in dissent:

"Consider too that countless gun regulations of many shapes and sizes are in place in every State and in many local communities. Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time-of-day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the presence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting pat downs designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban? Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies? As the questions suggest, state and local gun regulation can become highly complex, and these “are only a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.” Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (ROB-ERTS, C. J., dissenting) (slip op., at 10)."

Perhaps these questions are better viewed in light of the fact that the Federal Government, State Governments, and localities are directly proscribed from infringing our right to keep and bear arms, and, as such, should never have passed these restrictions infringements to begin with.

Secondly, Justice Breyer, you continue your whine with this:

The difficulty of finding answers to these questions is exceeded only by the importance of doing so. Firearms cause well over 60,000 deaths and injuries in the United States each year. Those who live in urban areas, police officers, women, and children, all may be particularly at risk. And gun regulation may save their lives. Some experts have calculated, for example, that Chicago’s hand gun ban has saved several hundred lives, perhaps close to 1,000, since it was enacted in 1983. Other experts argue that stringent gun regulations “can help protect police officers operating on the front lines against gun violence,”have reduced homicide rates in Washington, D. C., and Baltimore, and have helped to lower New York’s crime and homicide rates.

The tool did not leap up and use itself to commit mayhem. Your willful blindness to the depredations of men in favor of restricting their implements shows a complete failure of understanding as to causation. Additionally, your failure to objectively examine the data with regard to the efficacy of firearms regulation, and of handgun bans in particular, shows a bigoted bias in favor of Statist policies which subjugate free men. Substituting the policy statements and press releases of the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and the Joyce Foundation for statistical analysis of actual facts will not make the facts any less true, nor will they bring about anything other than misery to the disarmed victims which those policies ensure.

Justice Breyer, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your intellectual vapidity is on full display here in your dissent. Our country deserves better. When do you resign?

Newbius