Handguns A-O-K, says SCOTUS

[Goofball]

I can't believe I'm beating you to the punch on this one CR. :beam: I can only assume your celebrations have left you indisposed and unable to post at the moment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080626.wguns0626/BNStory/International/home


U.S. top court upholds gun rights


MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
June 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defence and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defence in the home," Justice Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Mr. Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Justice Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defence.

Okay, so you guys win on guns.

How about leaving abortion alone? We'll call it a draw? (Pun fully intended)

:smash:

[Xiahou]

There was no other way to read this- the DC ban was a clear violation of the second amendment. What's scary is that the vote of just one single person reaffirmed this, when it should be clear to any objective viewer. :sweatdrop:

[Lemur]

Hmmm, I don't know if it's as cut-and-dried as all that, Xiahou. There's always that pesky first clause of the 2nd Amendment to muddy things up. What is the relationship of a "well-regulated militia" to your right to concealed carry? Or are you going to slide to the right of Scalia?


Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting...

[rory_20_uk]

Guns permissible in a Militia should be outlined. Then all guns no on the list can be outlawed. Simple :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

Hmmm, I don't know if it's as cut-and-dried as all that, Xiahou. There's always that pesky first clause of the 2nd Amendment to muddy things up. What is the relationship of a "well-regulated militia" to your right to concealed carry? Or are you going to slide to the right of Scalia?


Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting...No, it's pretty cut and dried vis-a-vis blanket bans such as the one in DC. the SCOTUS has affirmed that the second amendment is an individual right not dependent on the militia clause. What we know to be true of the first amendment and what we see here is that rights, despite their literal wording in the Constitution, are not so absolute as they appear. "Congress shall make no law.... bridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" doesn't really mean that- they can make laws limiting disruptive assemblies or dangerous speech (ie "fire!" in a crowded theater). It's probably reasonable to assume that the framers didn't intend these rights to extend to their most absurd extremes where people can shout down their legislatures when in session or drive around fully armed tanks. However, a complete ban such as was in DC, clearly crosses the line. :yes:

Imagine if Kennedy had voted the other way- the Second Amendment would've been effectively dismantled. :sweatdrop:

[Adrian II]

Imagine if Kennedy had voted the other way- the Second Amendment would've been effectively dismantled. :sweatdrop:Just imagine - you and Lemur would've had to shoot your way out.

https://img410.imageshack.us/img410/2686/butchcassidyandthesundact2.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[Lemur]

No, it's pretty cut and dried vis-a-vis blanket bans such as the one in DC.
But my understanding is that the Washington ban was on handguns, not all firearms, which makes the case a little less cut-and-dried. (In the interest of honestly, I'll admit that I agree with the court in this case, and am glad that they struck down the ban. But I find your "this case was so obvious only Trotskyistes could disagree" rhetoric offputting.)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that it is very scary when the fate of a constitution is in the hands of a single arbitrary decider.

[Haudegen]

No, it's pretty cut and dried vis-a-vis blanket bans such as the one in DC. the SCOTUS has affirmed that the second amendment is an individual right not dependent on the militia clause. What we know to be true of the first amendment and what we see here is that rights, despite their literal wording in the Constitution, are not so absolute as they appear. "Congress shall make no law.... bridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" doesn't really mean that- they can make laws limiting disruptive assemblies or dangerous speech (ie "fire!" in a crowded theater). It's probably reasonable to assume that the framers didn't intend these rights to extend to their most absurd extremes where people can shout down their legislatures when in session or drive around fully armed tanks. However, a complete ban such as was in DC, clearly crosses the line. :yes:


Smells like proportionality in action if you ask me (I know you didn´t :shame:).

[TevashSzat]

I think that it is very scary when the fate of a constitution is in the hands of a single arbitrary decider.

You know, this current system of the Supreme Court with each justice most likely picked for leaning to one side has gotten me thinking.

The whole purpose of having the position for life without a need for re-election is so that the judges won't have to cater to anyone or group in order to try to keep his or her seat. Unfortunately, judges now, although they don't need to get re-elected, are chosen on the basis that their views lean towards those of one group.

This will probably never happen, but I saw someone should seriously try to overhaul the whole nominating process for the Supreme Court and try to find a way to get judges on there who don't come in already with a bias.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yay for upholding the freaking constitution. ~:rolleyes:

This is a victory for common sense of course, but it shouldn't have even come up. And 5-4? These people's jobs are to uphold the constitution, not just the bits that they favor. If they don't like the Second Amendment, they are free to support amending it in the way in which it the Fathers intended.

Oh well, today is a time to be happy. :2thumbsup::hmg::2thumbsup:

[English assassin]

I think that it is very scary when the fate of a constitution is in the hands of a single arbitrary decider.

Surely you meant to say "in the hands of nine very eminent American jurists"?

Yes, I thought so.

Still, can we all spare a thought for the "activist judges sux" thread which SCOTUS has so cruelly aborted as result of this decision? Hypothetical threads have rights too you know.

As for the decision, well, on the basis that SCOTUS by definition know more about the American constitution than I do... :juggle2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Surely you meant to say "in the hands of nine very eminent American jurists"?

Yes, I thought so.

Still, can we all spare a thought for the "activist judges sux" thread which SCOTUS has so cruelly aborted as result of this decision? Hypothetical threads have rights too you know.

As for the decision, well, on the basis that SCOTUS by definition know more about the American constitution than I do... :juggle2:

No - I mean that the single decider tends to be Kennedy. The 4 liberal justices are busy writing our laws while the 4 conservative justices are busy protecting the actual constitution, bill of rights and the amendments. Kennedy is the single decider who seems to have no judicial philosophy - he just shoots from the hip and cites European concepts and tradition (such as proportionality) in his understanding of the U.S. constitution.

He's the one (along with the 4 liberal justices) who decided that privately owned malls who will provide jobs for the society have a legal avenue to take away your home using eminent domain clauses. He does make the right decision sometimes, but I don't know why.

I'm sorry, I should have automatically ceded the point about my own Supreme
Court and Constitution to you, English. God knows that Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Kennedy already have.

[Adrian II]

I think that it is very scary when the fate of a constitution is in the hands of a single arbitrary decider.Arbitrary?

Justices are appointed by the executive and legislative powers of the land.

What I find funny is the ease with which Americans dismiss their entire political system as soon as it doesn't support or implement their very own personal views. All politicians are corrupt, all justices are idiots, all government officials are crooks - unless they do what I want, in which case they're da bomb.

[Tribesman]

There was no other way to read this- the DC ban was a clear violation of the second amendment. What's scary is that the vote of just one single person reaffirmed this, when it should be clear to any objective viewer.
Bollox if it was clear then they woudn't have had to have panels of linguists trawling through the archives to try and determine what the hell the second means .
When the consensus they reach states that the second is badly written unclear and open to many interpretations it cannot mean that it is clear to any objective viewer .
If you want state and city laws to be clear then you are going to have to amend the amedment so that it clearly says what they want it to say .


If they don't like the Second Amendment, they are free to support amending it in the way in which it the Fathers intended.
Well bugger me sideways paint me pink and call be shirley , I find myself in agreement with panzer .



What I find funny is the ease with which Americans dismiss their entire political system as soon as it doesn't support or implement their very own personal views. All politicians are corrupt, all justices are idiots, all government officials are crooks - unless they do what I want, in which case they're da bomb.
Come on Adrian, be fair , thats a worldwide phenomenum not just an American trend .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Arbitrary?

Justices are appointed by the executive and legislative powers of the land.

What I find funny is the ease with which Americans dismiss their entire political system as soon as it doesn't support or implement their very own personal views. All politicians are corrupt, all justices are idiots, all government officials are crooks - unless they do what I want, in which case they're da bomb.

I condemn the way in which the courts act with regards to our foundational documents. I am criticizing their decisions NOW, after a verdict in my favor.

I believe that the Supreme court has a very important purpose. I think that we should all refresh ourselves on what that purpose is and be truer to it. I don't believe in using the court as a bludgeoning device. If it is going to erase laws or create new ones it has to be in the interest of the constitution and its addendum. If people tried to make abortion illegal because it infringed on the life of a human being by using the supreme court I would be happy, but I wouldn't support the decision. Even the issue of slavery had to be decided by an amendment to give blacks basic human rights. The unborn would require the same type of amendments. Abortion laws before roe and doe were not unconstitutional so I believe the court had no business striking them down.

If everybody listened to Scalia (for example) you might fall in love with his judicial philosophy.

Here you go - I've heard him be more eloquent before, but this gets to the just of it. Read his writings on originalism and original meaning. I believe that, while it is "conservative" it is the best philosophy because it is less biased in the long run and takes enumerated powers more seriously.

link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abJKFISUjPQ&feature=user)

[Kralizec]

Arbitrary?

Justices are appointed by the executive and legislative powers of the land.

What I find funny is the ease with which Americans dismiss their entire political system as soon as it doesn't support or implement their very own personal views. All politicians are corrupt, all justices are idiots, all government officials are crooks - unless they do what I want, in which case they're da bomb.

I kind of agree as far as the judges are concerned. Between deciding about abortion and gun rights, they do actual work, too. I guess it's mostly due to the constitution itself. If the legislature had stepped up to their responsibility, they'd have made the constitution so or amended it thus that the decisions about individual gun rights or abortion weren't left up to the judiciary.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This verdict makes a complete mockery of traditional American civic rights and duties!! :soapbox:

The right to keep and bear arms is meant to serve the interest of a well regulated militia, itself necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, as is so often the case, this civil right is tied to a civic duty, which the amendment so clearly states. Hence, only those citizens who at least have some intent and purpose to actually perform this civic duty ought to enjoy this special right.

This well described well-regulated militia has two aspects: well-regulated, and a militia.
'Well-regulated' means, that there are clear, precise descriptions of the kind of arms to bear, the state these arms need to be kept in, regulation regarding training, and whatever else is necessary for a well-regulated militia.
'Militia' means firstly, performing military duty, and secondly, without salary.

Don't want to perform voluntary military service? Then don't come crying for your right to bear arms. To be a free and armed American means to perform one's duty to protect and uphold America.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. One can't evade taxes and then claim welfare. One can't claim a right and then spit on the accompanying duty.

The Founding Fathers intented America as the land of the free, not the land of free riders.

:drama2:

[Geoffrey S]

No - I mean that the single decider tends to be Kennedy. The 4 liberal justices are busy writing our laws while the 4 conservative justices are busy protecting the actual constitution, bill of rights and the amendments. Kennedy is the single decider who seems to have no judicial philosophy - he just shoots from the hip and cites European concepts and tradition (such as proportionality) in his understanding of the U.S. constitution.
So they disagree on the meaning of the constitution. Big deal. If it were as clear cut as you make it out ('...while the 4 conservative justices are busy protecting the actual constitution...' :laugh4:) there wouldn't be any need for a Supreme Court in the first place, and you may as well be living in the eighteenth century.

Thankfully the founding fathers were smart enough to leave room for change and different interpretations, recognizing that their's was a specific moment in history, that the status quo would be broken and broken again and again. It's a shame that people like yourself seem incapable of looking beyond the damn near holy view of your own constitution, not seeing the forest through the trees.

[Tribesman]

OK Adrian apologies are in order , I just read another topic and I see what you mean
4-5 yay woohoo:2thumbsup:
4-5 boo hiss :thumbsdown:

[Xiahou]

Arbitrary?

Justices are appointed by the executive and legislative powers of the land.

What I find funny is the ease with which Americans dismiss their entire political system as soon as it doesn't support or implement their very own personal views. All politicians are corrupt, all justices are idiots, all government officials are crooks - unless they do what I want, in which case they're da bomb.
Who said that?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thankfully the founding fathers were smart enough to leave room for change and different interpretations, recognizing that their's was a specific moment in history, that the status quo would be broken and broken again and again. It's a shame that people like yourself seem incapable of looking beyond the damn near holy view of your own constitution, not seeing the forest through the trees.

The Constitution should stay simple. A simple constitution that sticks to basic rights allows for maximum change in law over the years with basic rights protected. Either way, the supreme court is not the branch of government responsible for adding rights to or removing rights from the Constitution.

[Tribesman]

Who said that?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:read the other current SCOTUS topic



Either way, the supreme court is not the branch of government responsible for adding rights to or removing rights from the Constitution.

Oh dear , if the supreme court isn't then what is that body called that is the supreme arbiter of your constitution ?

[Geoffrey S]

Oh dear , if the supreme court isn't then what is that body called that is the supreme arbiter of your constitution ?
No no no, the constitution is simple and should be self-evident to every decent conservative Justice. D'oh.

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:read the other current SCOTUS topic



Oh dear , if the supreme court isn't then what is that body called that is the supreme arbiter of your constitution ?

You guys don't seem to understand. They are responsible for interpreting law based on the Constitution. Do you really think that their job is to add rights and remove them? That is the job of the legislative branch. Recently the courts have started relying more on stare decisis than the Constitution itself and it is scary.

You want gay marriage? Make a law. Abortion rights? Make a law.

You want to be guaranteed abortion rights according to the constitution? Amend the Constitution.. Habeus Corpus for people who are not U.S. citizens in foreign lands in open rebellion against the United States? Amend the Constitution. Remove the right to bear arms?
Amend the Constitution.

It is not conservatives who are tired of the government as it is supposed to operate. It is those who seek shortcuts and illegitimate brow beaters to champion their case. Convince the American people.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I was at work, Goofball. :shrug:

A day of great joy, even if the ruling is narrow. TSMG - I don't share your admiration for Scalia.

Some of my first thoughts - how could those four scumbags liberal jurists unite against this? Good grief. They've got no respect for the constitution.

Really, the issue is clear at day. Banning handguns while allowing other arms is as unconstitutional as barring printing books but allowing newspapers.

Also, Thanks be to God George Bush was reelected. If Kerry had won, this case would have resulted in upholding the gun ban. Whatever W's numerous failings, he at least got conservative judges on the bench.

All the more reason to keep Obama from the presidency.

Louis- surely you jest?

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was at work, Goofball. :shrug:

A day of great joy, even if the ruling is narrow. TSMG - I don't share your admiration for Scalia.

Some of my first thoughts - how could those four scumbags liberal jurists unite against this? Good grief. They've got no respect for the constitution.

Really, the issue is clear at day. Banning handguns while allowing other arms is as unconstitutional as barring printing books but allowing newspapers.

Also, Thanks be to God George Bush was reelected. If Kerry had won, this case would have resulted in upholding the gun ban. Whatever W's numerous failings, he at least got conservative judges on the bench.

All the more reason to keep Obama from the presidency.

Louis- surely you jest?

CR

You don't admire Scalia? Why?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Too much deference to prior opinion and traditional laws when ruling on the constitution, which should be purely originalist.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis- surely you jest?Why, no. Partake in your militia duty or hand over your arms. :smash:

Criminals are not allowed to bear arms. Terrorists are not allowed to bear arms. Why? Because bearing arms is not considered some sort of inaliable human right by the American constitution. It is, on the contrary, a right by and for dutiful American citizens. This is the historical interpretation.

The modern reading of the constitution: 'Rights - yes please! Duties? Kiss my ***' is a travesty of American values.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:dizzy2:

Louis, Louis. The 2nd says nothing about people having to join militias. Read the SCOTUS opinion, but your logic is simply wrong.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why, no. Partake in your militia duty or hand over your arms. :smash:

Criminals are not allowed to bear arms. Terrorists are not allowed to bear arms. Why? Because bearing arms is not considered some sort of inaliable human right by the American constitution. It is, on the contrary, a right by and for dutiful American citizens. This is the historical interpretation.

The modern reading of the constitution: 'Rights - yes please! Duties? Kiss my ***' is a travesty of American values.

With due process all rights can be abridged. If you are a felon then due process may have removed you from the gun owning populace.

[ICantSpellDawg]

CR - the differences between Thomas and Scalia seem to be largely philosophical. They are tightly related in their dissents and concurrences. Thomas hates Stare Decisis, Scalia sees merit to it occasionally in the interest of judicial continuity and stability, though he obviously doesn't go by it on a regular basis.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The 2nd says nothing about people having to join militias. It is a fair exegesis. And exegesis is what reading the constitution is all about. Mine is one of many interpretations of the 2nd that have been argued over the years. Another is the current Supreme Court's version.

I guess my point is, that in my opinion, the Supreme Court has with this verdict not re-affirmed an ancient constitutional right, but has chosen an interpretation of the amendment out of political persuasion. At least, and perhaps better: out of legal persuasion.


As an aside, my favourite interpretation of the 2nd is that it establishes/affirms a constitutional right of the American people to rise up against any form of tyranny, and creates a means of doing so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As an aside, my favourite interpretation of the 2nd is that it establishes/affirms a constitutional right of the American people to rise up against any form of tyranny, and creates a means of doing so.

It clearly establishes that right however vaguely.:clown:

[Proletariat]

I guess my point is, that in my opinion, the Supreme Court has with this verdict not re-affirmed an ancient constitutional right, but has chosen an interpretation of the amendment out of political persuasion. At least, and perhaps better: out of legal persuasion.


But what interpretation of this amendment wouldn't be out of political or legal persuasion?



As an aside, my favourite interpretation of the 2nd is that it establishes/affirms a constitutional right of the American people to rise up against any form of tyranny, and creates a means of doing so.

That's my favorite interpretation of it too. If George Bush wants to use the Patriot Act to arrest me or if someone breaks into my house, they better learn how to duck. We Americans are the children of the gun!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with Prole's sentiments -- and trust her aim.



As to the 4 "liberal" jurists.

First off, they're not liberals in the "liberal arts" sense of the term.

They favor central government as the means of solving problems. From that perspective, private gun ownership is a means of countering the power of a benevolent government that has already established a some and stable social order, and preventing that government from eradicating the tools of the violence it seeks to prevent. In the case of the 2nd, they view the militia clause as being a clear indicator of the intent of the framers -- i.e. that the role of firearms was community protection in an era wherein law enforcement was non-existent. As our well regulated militia -- the Guard and the various police forces -- have established effective community protection to a level wherein personal membership in a common militia is no longer required, then neither are the firearms. Continued use and possession of such weapons, particularly handguns which serve no hunting purpose, is to provide untrustworthy individuals with a person-killing tool that can only serve to aid crime and worsen the results of interpersonal disputes without promoting community protection.
From that perspective, how can you NOT oppose guns.

The Chicago and DC bans are really simple. The local cops would prefer to be the only ones armed -- as a pistol is a great tool in a knife fight.



I'm glad of the decision, and respectfully disagree with the "liberal" position and interpretation. Perhaps I shall celebrate by going out and obtaining a handgun so that I may follow Washington's sage advice.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This ruling has some good parts, in that it protects guns "in common use" - hopefully the end of the assault weapon bans in various states, and says no to trigger lock laws.

CR

[Tribesman]

hopefully the end of the assault weapon bans in various states
Until the court decides that dumb rednecks shouldn't have machine guns and rules that states can legislate for banning certain guns which puts the whole issue back where it started.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, but the assault weapon bans have been misnamed - they don't deal with machine guns, but semi-auto rifles for the most part.

Using a 'common use' test and seeing that such rifles are in common use where they are not banned, I think it would be easy to overturn such bans.

Machine guns are most strictly controlled by one amendment from a 1986 law forbidding the registry of new machine guns with the ATF (or something) and thus cutting off supply while demand is steady, resulting in a skyrocketing of prices for the machine guns that were registered. So while such a prevention of registering would seem to be nearly the same as the DC ban on registering handguns, the judges (Kennedy) might get cold feet about opening up the market for machine guns again.

One thing I don't like is how the court said licenses and registration are fine, for now. Will onerous licensing schemes be allowed?

CR

[Vladimir]

This verdict makes a complete mockery of traditional American civic rights and duties!! :soapbox:

The right to keep and bear arms is meant to serve the interest of a well regulated militia, itself necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, as is so often the case, this civil right is tied to a civic duty, which the amendment so clearly states. Hence, only those citizens who at least have some intent and purpose to actually perform this civic duty ought to enjoy this special right.

This well described well-regulated militia has two aspects: well-regulated, and a militia.
'Well-regulated' means, that there are clear, precise descriptions of the kind of arms to bear, the state these arms need to be kept in, regulation regarding training, and whatever else is necessary for a well-regulated militia.
'Militia' means firstly, performing military duty, and secondly, without salary.

Don't want to perform voluntary military service? Then don't come crying for your right to bear arms. To be a free and armed American means to perform one's duty to protect and uphold America.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. One can't evade taxes and then claim welfare. One can't claim a right and then spit on the accompanying duty.

The Founding Fathers intented America as the land of the free, not the land of free riders.

:drama2:

While perhaps not constitutional, my views are the same. I have no problem with a broad view of civic duty, other than simply paying taxes and obeying the law, determining firearm ownership.

[Lemur]

As far as the "well-regulated militia" goes, it's worth asking why the founders would put a collective right in a series of individual ones. And why give it pride of place, second, just after the biggie, freedom of speech, assembly and religion? No, I think the founders were clearly fond of the gun and what it gives to the individual citizen.

On a more practical level, an oldie but a goodie (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199403/gun-control) from the Atlantic:


Gun-control laws don’t work. What is worse, they act perversely. While legitimate users of firearms encounter intense regulation, scrutiny, and bureaucratic control, illicit markets easily adapt to whatever difficulties a free society throws in their way. Also, efforts to curtail the supply of firearms inflict collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have long been considered central to American public life. Thanks to the seemingly never-ending war on drugs and long experience attempting to suppress prostitution and pornography, we know a great deal about how illicit markets function and how costly to the public attempts to control them can be. It is essential that we make use of this experience in coming to grips with gun control.

[Ice]

As far as the "well-regulated militia" goes, it's worth asking why the founders would put a collective right in a series of individual ones. And why give it pride of place, second, just after the biggie, freedom of speech, assembly and religion? No, I think the founders were clearly fond of the gun and what it gives to the individual citizen.


I've never though about it that way, Lemur. That's interesting.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've been trying to understand Stephen Breyer's judicial philosophy for the past week. I've finally realized that his philosophy imagines a role for justices in the Supreme Court that was not enumerated at the time of the writing of the Constitution. He believes that precedent and perceptions of consequence carry more important weight than the original text or meaning of the text when it was written. He believes that it is the responsibility of the courts to expand significantly upon the rights in the Constitution - to give new rights.

While I believe an intelligent human being can't help but weigh consequence and precedent, I believe that both are tertiary to the basic text. Consequence should be weighed more officially by the legislature while hundreds of people are in months of deliberation regarding the laws. It is presumptuous to suggest that so few have a better understanding of consequence than so many in a Democratic Republic.

I understand arguments against using infrared imaging to detect marijuana without a warrant because that, even though it couldn't have been foreseen at the time of the drafting, is in clear violation of rights of privacy and warranted search and seizure laws found in the Constitution.

All i'm saying is that their master is the Constitution - they should abide by that and let the legislature do their jobs.

[drone]

From a practical standpoint, the overall effect of this ruling in DC will be minimal (at least from the start). The district will still be allowed to force owner registration (no big deal), but the key is with the firearms dealers. To purchase a firearm, generally one must be a resident of the state the purchase is made. My understanding is that purchasing and transferring firearms across the Maryland or Virginia borders into DC is illegal. So there will need to be gun stores in the DC proper. The paperwork and hoop-jumping necessary to open a gun store in DC will be mind-boggling complex and expensive, I guarantee it.

In other cities like Chicago, there will be more availability and thus more impact, if the ruling is applied across similar bans. Since DC is both a city and a "state", more control is in place.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

As far as the "well-regulated militia" goes, it's worth asking why the founders would put a collective right in a series of individual ones. And why give it pride of place, second, just after the biggie, freedom of speech, assembly and religion? No, I think the founders were clearly fond of the gun and what it gives to the individual citizen.
That's eerily similar to an opinion piece I read in the local paper. Now, did you read it too, or did you write it? ;)

I agree 100%, and was going to see if anyone beat me to posting it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Amazing ... idiot child Fenty (mayor of DC) thinks the city can keep right on banning semi-auto handguns:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf

There's 'progressive' "thinking" for you.

CR

[Ironside]

As far as the "well-regulated militia" goes, it's worth asking why the founders would put a collective right in a series of individual ones. And why give it pride of place, second, just after the biggie, freedom of speech, assembly and religion? No, I think the founders were clearly fond of the gun and what it gives to the individual citizen.


The second ammendment is wierd compared to the rest of the rest of the ammendments. The first sentence is a statement and the question becomes how it's related to the second sentence.

The simplest interpretation imo is that the induvidual right is done to ensure that there's enough manpower to a "well-regulated militia" when the need arises. Then the question becomes wich part is the most important one and then you end up with this mess.

As for guns and America, the issue is that the criminals also end up as children of the gun.

[PanzerJaeger]

Machine guns are most strictly controlled by one amendment from a 1986 law forbidding the registry of new machine guns with the ATF (or something) and thus cutting off supply while demand is steady, resulting in a skyrocketing of prices for the machine guns that were registered. So while such a prevention of registering would seem to be nearly the same as the DC ban on registering handguns, the judges (Kennedy) might get cold feet about opening up the market for machine guns again.


CR


:thumbsdown:

MP40s are around 15,000 and **** if you can find an STG44 with matching serials for less than 20,000. Thats after the class 3 license. :shame:

Some of that's historical rarity, but its mostly that stupid MG law.

[English assassin]

While I believe an intelligent human being can't help but weigh consequence and precedent, I believe that both are tertiary to the basic text.



But what interpretation of this amendment wouldn't be out of political or legal persuasion?

Between them, these comments sum up why I really must try to stop having a view on SCOTUS.

The first, because I really have no idea how SCOTUS does or should approach the intepretation of a document that is some hundreds of years old in the modern day. I have every sympathy with Louis's argument, but the fact that it doid not win the day in the court shows that, by definition and for a reason i do not understand, it can't be right. TSMcG's approach wouldn't get off first base in a UK court, but the American rules may well be different.

And the second quote encapsulates the fundamental problem, which is that SCOTUS is a political not a legal body. There's no legal philosophy that says citizens should be allowed to own handguns in Washington DC in 2008, any more than there is that says a woman should be entitled to ask for an abortion. These are policy questions. And at a policy level it really does seem ridiculous to be deciding modern firearms policy on the basis of the presumed intent of 200 years ago. It might be right that the citizens of DC should be allowed to own handguns, but it seems to me it can't be right because of the 2nd amendment.

Shouldn't these issues be in the hands of accountable politicans and not unaccountable judges? Separation of powers cuts both ways.

[Adrian II]

And at a policy level it really does seem ridiculous to be deciding modern firearms policy on the basis of the presumed intent of 200 years ago.Even if a law (or amendment) is a mere two days old, its intent is subject to interpretation. And even if a law is 2000 years old, it can still be meaningful.

If Congress were to adopt a brand spanking new gun amendment to the Constitution tomorrow, it would be subject to litigation the day after.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If Congress were to adopt a brand spanking new gun amendment to the Constitution tomorrow, it would be subject to litigation the day after.

Yes, it would be taken to court.

HOWEVER, were the ammendment defining gun ownership, usage, etc. to be passed by Congress, signed by the President, and confirmed by the States, then it would replace the existing 2nd and redefine everything.

Our prohibition ammendment was stupid....but for years it was the law of the land and confirmed so by court.

[Adrian II]

[..] then it would replace the existing 2nd and redefine everything.And it would still be subject to rulings by SCROTUM, as always.

[Proletariat]

As for guns and America, the issue is that the criminals also end up as children of the gun.

I never trust that this really is the issue. There never seems to be any evidence one way or the other that gun control reduces or increases crime. It'd be nice if there was because it'd be a much simpler matter

[ICantSpellDawg]

English Assassin, our national law is based on Civil Law and the conservative justices support the defense of that. The liberal justices believe in common law. I suspect that this is the reason the liberal justices are so widely supported in the UK - because your laws are primarily based on common law.

In civil law, a law remains in effect until it is changed or amended. In common law, it seems as though precedent trumps the text. I think that because we have a constitution the way in which the law should be interpreted is more obvious and constant here.

Remember - our law is BASED on English law, but we wanted to guarantee rights, rights that have never really been guaranteed in English courts - so we opted for a codified text and a process within it on changing that text (closer to civil law).

I understand the difficulty some people, particularly the British, have with our document and court.

Please remember that we are different for a reason. You guys didn't believe that we had a right to representation in parliament when taxed at exorbitant rates.

[English assassin]

I suspect that this is the reason the liberal justices are so widely supported in the UK

Sorry, but they aren't. There really isn't a huge public movement over here secretly hoping that liberal supreme court judges will take away your guns and make you believe in evolution.


I understand the difficulty some people, particularly the British, have with our document and court.

Maybe I am being a bit touchy, but just to be clear, I don't have a "difficulty" with either your document or your court. Your country, your rules. That's only polite. I may well have a difficulty understanding the system, of course.


Please remember that we are different for a reason. You guys didn't believe that we had a right to representation in parliament when taxed at exorbitant rates.

Pah. We've done a lot worse than that. We didn't even make you play cricket.


Even if a law (or amendment) is a mere two days old, its intent is subject to interpretation. And even if a law is 2000 years old, it can still be meaningful.

I don't entirely agree with the second part. Legislation has to be applied at the time of the case. 2000 year old words have to have a meaning, until amended or repealed, yes. But the exercise of deducing that meaning takes place today, not 2000 years ago. In UK legal jargon the rule is "the Act is always speaking", ie you apply the Act updated for modern times.

Small example: one element of rape used to be defined as "unlawful" sexual intercourse. Unlawful was understood to mean "outside marriage", so a man could not rape his wide. In a fairly recent case (last 20 years or so) the HoL simply changed the rule, thereby ignoring one clear word in a statute, and thereby also ensuring that men who rape their wives are treated as what they are, ie rapists and so bringing the law more into line with what modern society expects.

Maybe this is verboten judicial activism in civil law. So be it. But if you don't update though the cases, how will Palriament/congress ever find the time to keep the nuances of all Acts up to date?

[Geoffrey S]

Gah, postmodernism..

Impression I get is that the Constitution isn't necessary the basis of US law - it's the justification in hindsight. It's open enough to interpretation that it can be made to justify a whole scale of causes. Politicians decide policy, justices work out a way to allow it (or the opposite) through interpretations of the Constitution.

The confusion this causes among us Europeans is hardly surprising. Attempts to make us one didn't go down too well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gah, postmodernism..

Impression I get is that the Constitution isn't necessary the basis of US law - it's the justification in hindsight. It's open enough to interpretation that it can be made to justify a whole scale of causes. Politicians decide policy, justices work out a way to allow it (or the opposite) through interpretations of the Constitution.

The confusion this causes among us Europeans is hardly surprising. Attempts to make us one didn't go down too well.

Think of it like the border of a massive area. You can fill it with all of the laws that you'd like indefinitely; but the moment a law breaches the border it is struck down. (ideally)

[Geoffrey S]

With the Supreme Court shifting the border as it suits them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

With the Supreme Court shifting the border as it suits them.

There is a little give here and there.

[Redleg]

Gah, postmodernism..

Impression I get is that the Constitution isn't necessary the basis of US law - it's the justification in hindsight. It's open enough to interpretation that it can be made to justify a whole scale of causes. Politicians decide policy, justices work out a way to allow it (or the opposite) through interpretations of the Constitution.

The confusion this causes among us Europeans is hardly surprising. Attempts to make us one didn't go down too well.

The constitution's main intent was to develop a system of checks and balances to prevent any single branch from gaining more authority and power over the other's. It was initially a document that the founding fathers hoped would force compremise to happen between all three branches - to benefit the people of the nation.

Unfortunetly for the United States the old adage of Power corrupts holds true even for a system that was designed to try to limit that corruption.

[Geoffrey S]

Doubly so if said institutions are dominated by bipartisan power politics. Don't think that was part of the original intentions.