Liberty Still Lives - Second Amendment

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/"]Court: A constitutional right to a gun[/url]

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

[picchick]

I think that there needs to be a restriction on gun sales and a way to stop guns being sold on a black market but I really believe that if they outlaw guns in one's home then those who are law abiding citizens will listen. People who want guns to commit gun crimes will always find them.

As far as children getting guns from homes and shooting their foot off or worse, I think there needs to be gun education for adults and children.

[kujo]

Praise God! 2 great rulings in 2 days!

[rkwright]

5-4 I wonder if they were as heated as the debate here for a while?

[rkwright]

I'm trying to find the opinion but its not up anywhere...

[Alycin]

Yay guns. woo. hoo.

[Totus Tuus]

Oops, I just posted another thread on this before seeing yours! Sorry guys!

[kujo]

For those who want to read the actual opinion...

[url="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf"]CLICK HERE[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

This is a good thing.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1583810' date='Jun 26 2008, 01:52 PM']This is a good thing. [/quote]

I agree. I am not opposed to restriction on guns and making the vetting process more difficult; however, outright banning of guns is simply unconstitutional. There's no debate about federalism here because it's in the Amendments. D.C., though well intentioned, was flat-out wrong. Good for the SC for making an informed decision.

Now if we can only get them to examine abortion with the same upfrontness....

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1583708' date='Jun 26 2008, 10:36 AM']

I think that there needs to be a restriction on gun sales and a way to stop guns being sold on a black market but I really believe that if they outlaw guns in one's home then those who are law abiding citizens will listen. People who want guns to commit gun crimes will always find them.

As far as children getting guns from homes and shooting their foot off or worse, I think there needs to be gun education for adults and children.[/quote]


You DO have to have a gun education if you have a concealed handgun license. And, like you were saying about law-abiding citizens, law-abiding citizens are also the type who educate their kids about gun safety. We've had guns in my house growing up and every single one of us knows the rules forwards and backwards about gun safety. "Accidentally" shooting ourselves, for that reason, was NEVER an issue.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1583807' date='Jun 26 2008, 11:48 AM']For those who want to read the actual opinion...

[url="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf"]CLICK HERE[/url][/quote]

Thanks Kujo.. its not on westlaw or lexis yet...

[Lil Red]

[quote name='kujo' post='1583815' date='Jun 26 2008, 10:59 AM']Now if we can only get them to examine abortion with the same upfrontness....[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
totally agreed!

[rkwright]

I'd just like to post a short criticism on one part of the opinion...

[quote]It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.[/quote]

Thoughts on this part of Scalia's opinion?

I would say he is applying his originalism so strictly that it reads out part of the amendment. He is saying on one hand people in 1780 had the same weapons as the militia required and thus we have an individual right to bear arms and then at the same time saying we don't today have a right to the weapons a militia would require today.

Secondly, no address of the Federalism issue??? I understand the facts don't permit a holding relating to Federalism, but still thats the major issue here.

Edited June 26, 2008 by rkwright

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1583879' date='Jun 26 2008, 06:55 PM']I'd just like to post a short criticism on one part of the opinion...
Thoughts on this part of Scalia's opinion?

I would say he is applying his originalism so strictly that it reads out part of the amendment. He is saying on one hand people in 1780 had the same weapons as the militia required and thus we have an individual right to bear arms and then at the same time saying we don't today have a right to the weapons a militia would require today.

Secondly, no address of the Federalism issue??? I understand the facts don't permit a holding relating to Federalism, but still thats the major issue here.[/quote]
Hmm, that is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of that, since I'm no expert on these matters.

[rkwright]

More parts from Scalia's opinion...

[quote]“Some general knowledge of firearms is important to
the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in
case of war, to organize promptly an efficient force of
volunteers unless the people had some familiarity
with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a
citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious pre­
cautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in
due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his
individual right. No doubt, a person whose residence
or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for
prudent self-defence.” B. Abbott, Judge and Jury: A
Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law
of the Land 333 (1880) (hereinafter Abbott).[/quote]

He used the above as evidence of an individuals right to bear arms. So in today's terms, where can I get my RPG?

[quote]Miller stands only for the proposition that the
Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends
only to certain types of weapons.
It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more
than what it said, because the case did not even purport to
be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.[/quote]

Miller was a case that stated sawed-off shotguns were not protected under the 2nd Amendment. If what Scalia says is true, then what types of weapons are protected? Obviously handguns after this case... but what others and why? Scalia answers...
[quote]We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi­
nary military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolu­
tionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.”[/quote]

Scalia answers this objection by looking to what is commonly available. Certainly a machine gun in 1939 was not common, but what about today? Fully Automatic weapons can easily be purchased today; the only barrier to purchasing one is the Government. Cart before the horse? Scalia is saying that we have an individual right, and the Government cannot restrict it, to whatever is commonly available; yet what is commonly available to us today is only available because the Government hasn't regulated it.

For example one can go to many third world countries and pick up 'commonly available' weapons including bombs, machine guns, RPGs... I've heard you can buy tanks in some countries!

I don't really wish to get into an individual rights discussion, for I think Scalia has provided an adequate amount of evidence and proves his point on this. But it leaves us in a practically speaking odd position. I know we had a huge discussion regarding if the 2nd amendment protects an individual right before, and I admit that I am in the dissent (my contracts professor always says 'Why cite the dissent? Who cares about them, they're the losers!), so I don't want to raise that issue again. I just want to see how this plays out.

[kujo]

I think that, generally speaking, the concept of a state militia has evolved to the point that there will be no amount of guns-- whether they be pistols, rifles, machine guns, etc.-- that would allow us to "overthrow" the government. We would have guns and they would have missiles, tanks, etc. I think we can all agree that the citizens of this country do not have the [b]right[/b] to bear cruise missiles. In my opinion, I have the right to bear the arms necessary to protect my domain. The notion that we could overthrow our government with arms is a bit silly given the current state of affairs. Thus, we should be willing to see restrictions on the types of weapons that the average citizen is allowed to possess.

That's my $0.02.

[Didymus]

hecks yes this is good. But concealed carry is definitely still something I oppose within cities such as Chicago and D.C. Bad idea.

but I am glad this came out this way.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1583915' date='Jun 26 2008, 02:31 PM']I don't really wish to get into an individual rights discussion, for I think Scalia has provided an adequate amount of evidence and proves his point on this. But it leaves us in a practically speaking odd position. I know we had a huge discussion regarding if the 2nd amendment protects an individual right before, and I admit that I am in the dissent (my contracts professor always says 'Why cite the dissent? Who cares about them, they're the losers!), so I don't want to raise that issue again. I just want to see how this plays out.[/quote]

Hee Hee Im not gonna say much. But you are one of the first ppl I thought of when I heard the news because I remembered that thread

Anyhoo I am very happy with this. The NRA has announced that they will soon be filing lawsuits in other areas where there are outright gun bans like the one in DC.

[Lounge Daddy]

All right! I see that the NRA is wasting no time in filing lawsuits.
[url="http://cbs2chicago.com/local/supreme.court.handguns.2.757471.html"]
Chicago is next: NRA Sues To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban...[/url]