Frustration is getting to me. That frustration is seeing the same lies over and over again, even though they’ve been thoroughly debunked. Like this one:

From 1791 until 2008, the supreme court refused to touch gun-control laws.
[…]
All that changed in 2008 with the court’s 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v Heller. In striking down a Washington DC ban on handguns in the home, the court’s conservative majority held for the first time that the second amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

It’s particularly frustrating because that comes from “James J Grosfeld professor of law” Lawrence Douglas. Either Douglas is remarkably ill-informed for a law professor, or he’s a liar.

* 1857, Dred Scott
The Supreme Court ruled against Scott because — among other reasons — if Scott was a free man, he’d have the right to bear arms just like every other citizen. Not that he’d have the right to join a militia, but to bear arms at all.

*1876, Cruikshank
The Court found that the Bill of Rights applies to all people. The limitation was on which governments were forbidden to infringe on rights. In this case, they found that it did not apply to state governments.

* 1886, Presser
Admittedly, this was militia related, but the Court found that everyone capable of bearing arms is in the militia. Everyone; all individuals.

* 1939, Miller
This was an odd case, and not just for a dead defendant going to the Supreme Court. The final ruling held that the Second Amendment only protected those weapons suitable for military use. Since deceased Miller’s lawyers didn’t bother showing up, the Court bought the prosecution’s absurd claim that short-barrel shotguns are not military-grade and thus could be regulated under the National Firearms Act. Weapons suitable for military use cannot be regulated. Sadly, they limited that to the shotgun in question.

And that’s something to throw in victim disarmers’ faces when they shriek about “weapons of war.”

The Supreme Court long recognized the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Heller didn’t change that; the Court acknowledging a preexisting, individual right was not new. They said so in their decision, citing multiple cases. What was new was incorporation.

Up until Heller, court rulings as to the applicability of various parts of the Constitution and Amendments to state and local governments was inconsistent. Heller should have settled the matter: The Second Amendment applies to all governments, not just the federal government.

But Chicago politicians ride the short bus, so the Supreme Court revisited the subject in McDonald. The Court slapped down the claim that Heller only applied to Washington, DC, and explicitly stated that it applies to all levels of government.

Is Douglas ignorant or a liar? I think he’s a liar, because this recently-common talking point has been debunked repeatedly. But VDs keep pushing it anyway, just as the cite Kellerman.

It’s frustrating. We’re stuck with the truth. The rights-violators are free to lie at will.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]