Second Amendment

[Lets_Play_Two]

Ok, I'm tired of economy and tipping threads. How about a gun thread. Today the supreme court essentially affirmed the 2nd amendment right for an individual to possess firearms in striking down Washington DC hand gun ban. The court said "...In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. They said individuals had a right to keep handguns for lawful purposes."

 

Good or bad?

 

 

[Bob Palin]

Good or bad?

 

Yes.

[smiller]

Good or bad I believe it is a correct interpretation of the Constitution as written. If we don't like that then someone can propose a change to the Bill of Rights and see if the states will ratify it.

[Matts_12GS]

I'm so pleased about it I think I may go stimulate the economy in celebration and practice my cross draw!

[Dave McReynolds]

Sometimes I wonder why any of the Justices other than Kennedy even bother to show up. Why not just ask him how he's going to vote and just leave it at that?

[Fugu]

Residents of DC are now free to keep firearms in their own homes?

 

The streets will run red with blood, I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

Residents of DC are now free to keep firearms in their own homes?

 

The streets will run red with blood, I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

That is what the mayor of DC thinks. He already has registration laws ready for the city council. Mayor Daley in Chicago says it will lead to more bloodshed. There have been something like 75,000 police responses to shots fired in Chicago WITH A GUN BAN!!! "Hatfields and McCoys" just around the corner.

[Matts_12GS]

If I was the mayor of DC, I'd be more concerned with lawsuits for civil rights violations of those who could have defended themselves were it not for the ban. I'm sure there's an ambulance chaser around there who'd take that case to settle out of court.

[ghaverkamp]

Kind of a wussy decision, based on my very quick skim.

 

States may continue to require registration, may continue to impose restrictions on gun ownership on certain people, restrict possession of guns in sensitive locales, etc. And because the Court refused to provide a level of scrutiny, they've left it up to further challenges to flesh things out, without much guidance. It strikes me to be a standard somewhat akin to intermediate scrutiny, but I imagine it's really going to come down like other individual rights, with varying scrutiny levels based on the type and manner of impingement on the right. Maybe.

 

Right now, it doesn't appear the Court has done much more than say that there is an individual right to possess firearms in the home for lawful purposes, where the principal lawful purpose appears to be self-defense. (Of course, it's a long decision, and I haven't read it all that thoroughly. I'm just on my lunch break during a sumulated "Multistate Bar Exam.")

[Marek]

In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban.

 

Let's enjoy it as I'm sure that with new administration the makeup of The Court will change soon.

 

Mark

[AnRSguy]

As this was the first serious challenge to the 2nd Amendment in something like 70 years, I doubt there will be flood of cases in the near future.

 

Mayor Fenty seems to think that keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns will reduce crime.

 

Let the people protect themselves if they so choose.

[smiller]

Right now, it doesn't appear the Court has done much more than say that there is an individual right to possess firearms in the home for lawful purposes, where the principal lawful purpose appears to be self-defense.

I don't think that is exactly trivial.

[Lets_Play_Two]

Right now, it doesn't appear the Court has done much more than say that there is an individual right to possess firearms in the home for lawful purposes, where the principal lawful purpose appears to be self-defense.

I don't think that is exactly trivial.

 

+1 Seems to me since Washington DCs contention was that ownership was limited to militia, the Supreme Court for now has affirmed that the militia clause does not restrict or modify the individual right.

[Deadboy]

And don't forget the only folk without guns in DC prior to this decision were the very ones who should be able to make that decision for themselves (law abiding non-felons)....I for one welcome the decision and hope it stands for a long time to come....clearly their is no shortage of guns in DC, just a shortage of legal owners....

[Fugu]

And don't forget the only folk without guns in DC prior to this decision were the very ones who should be able to make that decision for themselves (law abiding non-felons

 

Well, them and the criminals anyhow.

[Fugu]

+1 Seems to me since Washington DCs contention was that ownership was limited to militia, the Supreme Court for now has affirmed that the militia clause does not restrict or modify the individual right.

 

I agree. The affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, just like everything other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is HUGE.

 

Personally if I now never again hear somebody try to explain to me how one out of ten amendments meant "state" where it said "people" that will be just ducky.

 

 

 

[baggerchris]

And this month's issue of the American Rifleman has a good article on Ruger's new DA only 380. Nice light little gun. Not much knock down, but easily carried in a pocket or purse, and adequate with hollow points in a pinch.

I prefer the Para Ordnance LDA 45 or S&W Bodyguard 357 myself, but there are times especially in summer when a small DA would be just the ticket.

[StuGotz]

While you are worried about your second amendment rights, keep on eye on your first goin' away...

 

MB>

[ghaverkamp]

Personally if I now never again hear somebody try to explain to me how one out of ten amendments meant "state" where it said "people" that will be just ducky.

 

To take it that way ignores a huge part of the argument.

[ghaverkamp]

While you are worried about your second amendment rights, keep on eye on your first goin' away...

 

I'm much more worried about the Fourth than I am the First.

[Bud]

+1 Seems to me since Washington DCs contention was that ownership was limited to militia, the Supreme Court for now has affirmed that the militia clause does not restrict or modify the individual right.

 

I agree. The affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, just like everything other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is HUGE.

 

Personally if I now never again hear somebody try to explain to me how one out of ten amendments meant "state" where it said "people" that will be just ducky.

 

 

 

Am I the only one surprised that the court tacked the issue of an individual right to bear arms? I thought they would take the easy way out and toss out the DC ban without addressing the issue of individual rights.

 

Go figure.

[smiller]

Personally if I now never again hear somebody try to explain to me how one out of ten amendments meant "state" where it said "people" that will be just ducky.

 

To take it that way ignores a huge part of the argument.

That understanding seems to be at the root of the majority decision, along with historical context cited by Scalia. What other huge part of the argument did the justices miss?

[ghaverkamp]

Am I the only one surprised that the court tacked the issue of an individual right to bear arms? I thought they would take the easy way out and toss out the DC ban without addressing the issue of individual rights.

 

I think you're in a small group. It's not clear how they would decide the case without tackling that issue. Without an individual right to possess, they would have had to find some other reason to toss out DC's ban. The standard collective rights reading wouldn't fit DC, because it's not a state, but even if they had gone that way, they would have been affirming the collective rights reading over the individual rights reading.

 

The easiest way to avoid it would have been to deny cert, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[keithb]

"Good or bad?"

 

Is this really a serious question? This ruling on the right to bear arms was HUGE today.

 

"Sometimes I wonder why any of the Justices other than Kennedy even bother to show up. Why not just ask him how he's going to vote and just leave it at that?"

 

Ain't that the truth Dave. You might want to look at this ruling from another angle. What you have here is that 4 justices almost overturned one of your constitutional rights today, the right to keep and bear arms. I recommend reading the 3rd Amendment as well. It states that "no quartering of soldiers in private homes during peace time". I take this to mean the fore fathers of this nation did not want government in the lives of private citizens.

[ghaverkamp]

That understanding seems to be at the root of the majority decision, along with historical context cited by Scalia. What other huge part of the argument did the justices miss?

 

The other side's? The disagreement (at least biggest disagreement) has been over the role of the prefatory clause. If you read the prefatory clause as a scoping clause, then there's no concern over the "people," any more than there is about its use in the 10th. Decide that the prefatory clause is a justification or purpose for the existence of the right (rather than a limit) as the Court decided, and it becomes an individual right.

[smiller]

Well it would seem that acceptance of the prefatory clause as a scoping clause has been determined to be legally flawed, at least of a few hours ago. So perhaps Fugu can indeed hope to not hear it recited so often.

[Bud]

Am I the only one surprised that the court tacked the issue of an individual right to bear arms? I thought they would take the easy way out and toss out the DC ban without addressing the issue of individual rights.

 

I think you're in a small group. It's not clear how they would decide the case without tackling that issue. Without an individual right to possess, they would have had to find some other reason to toss out DC's ban. The standard collective rights reading wouldn't fit DC, because it's not a state, but even if they had gone that way, they would have been affirming the collective rights reading over the individual rights reading.

 

The easiest way to avoid it would have been to deny cert, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Just goes to show that I'm not the brightest bulb in the headlamp.

[Shaman97]

The other side's? The disagreement (at least biggest disagreement) has been over the role of the prefatory clause. If you read the prefatory clause as a scoping clause, then there's no concern over the "people," any more than there is about its use in the 10th. Decide that the prefatory clause is a justification or purpose for the existence of the right (rather than a limit) as the Court decided, and it becomes an individual right.

 

Uh...yeah. Exactly what I was thinking.

[taters]

if those 4 dissenting justices live in new orleans during katrina or lived in some of the sections of d.c. they would think a lot differently.last year australia took away everyones handguns. the result....home invasions and burgularies went up 37%....also britain has a home burglary rate 5x higher than the u.s. thank God for handguns

[Matts_12GS]

That understanding seems to be at the root of the majority decision, along with historical context cited by Scalia. What other huge part of the argument did the justices miss?

 

The other side's? The disagreement (at least biggest disagreement) has been over the role of the prefatory clause. If you read the prefatory clause as a scoping clause, then there's no concern over the "people," any more than there is about its use in the 10th. Decide that the prefatory clause is a justification or purpose for the existence of the right (rather than a limit) as the Court decided, and it becomes an individual right.

 

I understand there's a gun group in IL that has filed a similar suit against the city of Chicago in part because it has similar prohibitions than DC. What I heard in the news was that they were hoping to use this lawsuit to establish the precedent of individual rights.

[ghaverkamp]

I understand there's a gun group in IL that has filed a similar suit against the city of Chicago in part because it has similar prohibitions than DC. What I heard in the news was that they were hoping to use this lawsuit to establish the precedent of individual rights.

 

The Court settled the individual rights issue yesterday -- at least until the issue is again litigated. The next issue is incorporation. That is, does this newly declared individual right apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. It seems unlikely that it won't, if the Court retains its current structure. However, these things can take a long time to litigate.

[smiller]

I understand there's a gun group in IL that has filed a similar suit against the city of Chicago in part because it has similar prohibitions than DC.

I saw the good mayor of Chicago on television providing a rather hysterical response to the decision. He asked the rhetorical question 'Do you want your neighbor to have an Uzi?' (even though he must know very well that the decision will no effect at all on the current laws preventing that) and stated that he will vigorously defend the Chicago handgun bad (without mentioning why Chicago's outright handgun ban is somehow legal while the DC's is not.) I imagine he will be spending a lot of taxpayer money in an attempt to find the answer to that.

[AnRSguy]

I understand there's a gun group in IL that has filed a similar suit against the city of Chicago in part because it has similar prohibitions than DC. What I heard in the news was that they were hoping to use this lawsuit to establish the precedent of individual rights.

 

The Court settled the individual rights issue yesterday -- at least until the issue is again litigated. The next issue is incorporation. That is, does this newly declared individual right apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. It seems unlikely that it won't, if the Court retains its current structure. However, these things can take a long time to litigate.

 

The 14th Amendment clearly states that "No State shall make or enforece any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States". As this ruling clarifies the meaning of the 2nd Amandment to be an individual right. I suppose you could make that argument in court, but I doubt it would hold water as Heller is first a citizen of the United States and his right to own a gun was clearly infringed by the law in DC.

[Quinn]

I wonder what D.C. will try next to prevent people from having guns. There are so many ploys--extreme taxes on ammo and guns, registration of ammo buyers, required training at non-existant classes, security checks, gun-free zones, and permits requiring reems of paperwork. I'm sure it will come up with something. Think of New York suing gun manufacters even after congress passed a law to prevent it. Government has such deep pockets when it comes to lawsuits.

I find it hard to believe that we can still think of the second amendment is a "right" when there are so many restrictions placed on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

The 14th Amendment clearly states that "No State shall make or enforece any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States". As this ruling clarifies the meaning of the 2nd Amandment to be an individual right. I suppose you could make that argument in court, but I doubt it would hold water as Heller is first a citizen of the United States and his right to own a gun was clearly infringed by the law in DC.

 

The 14th's Privileges or Immunities clause doesn't bind rights defined in the Bill of Rights to the states. Not all individual rights defined in the Bill or Rights apply to the states, whether through the Privileges or Immunities clause or through the 14th Amendment Due Process clause.

 

In other words, the issue still has to be litigated. With the current makeup of the Court, it seems pretty certain that the 2nd would be incorporated -- under the 14th's Due Process clause, though not under the Privileges or Immunities clause. If the makeup of the Court changes before the issue of incorporation reaches the Court, we could see something entirely different.

[ghaverkamp]

I find it hard to believe that we can still think of the second amendment is a "right" when there are so many restrictions placed on it.

 

Do you think of any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights as rights?

 

Why do you single out the Second Amendment for special consideration?

[AnRSguy]

I find it hard to believe that we can still think of the second amendment is a "right" when there are so many restrictions placed on it.

 

Do you think of any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights as rights?

 

Why do you single out the Second Amendment for special consideration?

 

I know I do, "right(s)" is mentioned six times in the Bill of Rights.

 

Isn't the 2nd Amendment the topic of discussion here?