-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/06/the-supreme-court-upholds-the-second-amendment/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I identify guns with protecting family, although I really don't like them.
I don't own a gun either and never will.
The ruling upholds an interpretation of the Second Amendment at an individual right.
I do not interpret the Second Amendment that way at all. It seems very clear to me the right to keep and bear arms is tied to service in a state militia which is charged with ensuring the security of a free state.
Civilians with guns are not a necessary part of the security of a free state.
I'm not suggesting no one should own a gun. Nor am I disagreeing with rikyrah that gun control laws only protect criminals. I haven't read enough of them to know, but I'll take her at her word.
But laws that ban certain weapons under certain circumstances do not necessarily run afoul of even the most liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And make no mistake, this decision is based upon an extremely liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
In the ruling-which is gonna take forever to read-the Court did not suggest that their ruling would affect laws banning certain types of weapons.
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
While I'm for the individual right to carry a gun, I'm not for people owning certain types of guns. There's no good reason for me, as an individual, to own, say, a .50 caliber machine gun. That exceeds "self defense."
Some people may feel that owning a gun is necessary to their self-defense. I'm certain that there are a fair number of cases-not just in DC-where a crime could have been averted if the victim had a firearm to protect themselves.
I have to agree with craig. I disagree with the legal, policy and social rationales for an individual "right" to bear arms.
Ironically, this is a form of "judicial activism?" It's that thing that conservatives absolutely despise . . . judges assuming the role of the legislature. And Scalia and the gang probably jumped on this opportunity due to a DC ban that might have been overbroad to be constitutional. My guess is that they could have struck down the ban on that basis alone. But, instead, they snatched the opportunity to slip this historic, "individual right" in the process.
Make no mistake. . . .this is conservative judicial activism. . . it's making law to find an interpretation that is not expressly written in the U.S. Constitution.
2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated MILITIA, being NECESSARY to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the PEOPLE [collective] to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That is NOT an individual right. It is a reference to the collective right of the PEOPLE to form an armed defense against the government. It has nothing to do with individual rights (which is the key holding of this decision).
Here's an example of an INDIVIDUAL right. . .
14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United Sates; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The U.S. constitution makes clear distinction between the words "people" and "person." The Second Amendment references "militia" because it was made during our nation's infancy when a militia was still seen as a potentially necessary and practical issue.
And don't expect an even application of this ruling. Apparently, the court left open the possibility to make reasonable restrictions on this right. "Reasonableness" is a very low judicial standard. To me, such judicial language lays the ground work for a uneven application of this newfound individual right to bear arms (thus, your cousin "pookie" ain't gonna get the same freedoms as some salt of the earth Reagan Democrat in rural America).
I wouldn't be surprised to see that right restricted in a manner that seriously discriminates against people who just so happen to be: poor, urban and black.
Make no mistake, this decision was made with surburban (non-black/urban/threatening) families in mind.
Craig is right, this is an interpretation (and quite poor if you ask me) of the 2nd Amendment.
And the legal reasoning flies in the face of every conservative legal principle, strict-constructionist, originalist philosophy of right-wing justices like Scalia and Thomas. How convenient that they voted in favor of this individual right.
It's conservative judicial activism . . . the same type of thinking that gives conservative voters nightmares everytime they hear a court rule on gay marriage, affirmative action and abortion.
My complaint isn't against judicial activism as a method. I see the constitution as a living, breathing document. I realize that our founding fathers could not foresee automatic handguns (remember, this amendment was written during the age of muskets) anymore than they could have foreseen gay rights when we ratified the 14th Amendment. But for years we've listened as conservative activists played dumb to prevent the practical application of the constitution to current advances in technology and social relationships.
So my beef isn't with the method that they used so much as it's against the shameless hypocrisy of Republican officials who will attack "elite liberal judges" for "making laws," yet ignore a decision like this one today. Be consistent!
How do you explain that, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, most members of "the militia" most likely owned their own weapons?
"People should not fear their government, Governments should fear their people." --V for Vendetta
However, as alluded by other commenters, it is very important that we recognize this ruling for what it is--judicial activism. Next time the conservo-fascists cry foul over a ruling more pleasing to the "liberal" crowd, we should point to rulings such as that referenced here as evidence of JA from the right side of the aisle.
Dead on. There is a distinct difference between person and the people.
"Most people" probably owned a lot of things. That doesn't mean they had an individual, constitutional "right" to do so. They are two separate issues.
Why even mention the word "Militia" unless the intent of the 2nd amendment was meant to specifically apply to the formation of said militia?
The word, "militia" is a very specific reference. Pursuant to the language of the 2nd Amendment, the "right" to bear arms is directly tied to the purpose and maintenance of a militia. They would not have mentioned the word, "militia" if they did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to apply to "militias." Just the same, one can argue that the writing would have made specific reference to the individual "person" (as it did with the 14th amendment) if the true intent of the 2nd amendment was to grant individual rights.
Again, my beef is with the hypocrisy of someone like a Scalia (a self-proclaimed originalist) who rants about strict construction in every case, but ignores the judicial activism inherent in this decision today.
Is the U.S. constution a rigid set of rules? Or is it a breathing document wherein the Judiciary is vested with the power to interpret its meaning as it should apply to present-day life?
The former (a position normally taken by conservative justices) does NOT allow for the ruling that the 2nd Amendment grants individual rights. The latter (a LIBERAL disposition), conversely, does allow room for such a finding . . .but such method flies in the face of every conservative principle of jurisprudence (originalism, strict constructionism) that the right has been beating the left over the head with for decades.
Scalia can't defend judicial activism when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, yet deny its usefulness when it comes to issues like gay marriage, affirmative action and abortion. His decision today was made within the perceived spirit with which the 2nd Amendment was made. A sin no greater than when liberal justices do the same for their causes.
Originalism is the same type of conservative judicial philosophy that doesn't even accept a guaranteed right to privacy because it is not expressly written in the constitution.
Yet, today, that same conservative philosophy is willing to imagine an individual right to carry arms when the language of the 2nd amendment makes absolutely no reference to individuals (as contrasted to Amendments like the 14th that clearly mention the individual "person").
I'm just holding people like Scalia and Thomas to the same standards they've used to challenge liberal decisions over the past couple of decades.
Go figure.
You're the lawyer, so-to an extent-I will defer to your knowledge.
And this may sound stupid, but isn't a "person" part of the larger collective known as "the people?" If so, how can you say that the right isn't individual?
He need not be.
He should stand his ground and simply argue that he is not opposed to people owning firearms, but that some limits are required for the safety of civil society and that is why has has supported the kinds of "common sense" laws that ban the types of weapons including in this Court's decision.
People can disagree on the interpreting the Constitution. The decision ws 5-4, not unanimous.
If Barack were a Justice, he might have voted with the minority.
He ought to stand his ground on this, explain his interpretation of the Second Amendment, and not fear losing votes.
Even for those who disagree with the majority in Heller, there is one bright spot in the decision that the Second Amendment contains a private right to bear arms: we won’t have to do battle with the gun enthusiasts who would have immediately begun a campaign to amend the constitution if the dissent had prevailed.
One can only wonder how that would've played out with a dhimmicrat-controlled Congress.
It's interpretation by a very narrow majority, diverged from the accepted interpretation of over seven decades and will spur a wave of litigation as the courts and political leaders try to figure out the parameters.
The "right" to keep and bear arms may seem like a no brainer to some, but it is one which most developed nations must find a way to keep in check. It obviously is a double edged sword. Before cheering this decision one should put in a lot of thought on just how we can keep our kids and selves safe in an affluent society where gun availability is barely checked. There is something about testosterone filled little boys with Tec 9's in their waistbands that does not fill me with joy.
I think-and B will correct me if I'm wrong-that the existing restrictions on buying/selling weapons, and what types can be owned were not changed by this ruling.
I don't think you have to worry about kids with Tecs.
I do wonder, however, what effect this will have on crime in the District.
just an fyi. . . I have my JD, but I'm not a certified "lawyer" until I pass the bar (which will be later in the year).
You'll pass.
Hell, I'm still working on my bachelor's.
You're qualified.
Thanks. And good luck with your bachelor's.
NO SHOCK, JUST HORROR AT TRIGGER-HAPPY USA
Brian Reade 19/04/2007
THE redneck response to the Virginia Tech massacre could not have been more haunting had it been hollered to the accompaniment of duelling banjos.
Thirty-two deaths would never have happened, argued countless websites, activists and politicians, if the kids had utilised their right to bear arms, taken guns to class and shot back.
So the gun-worshippers' solution to America's serial school-slayings is clear. Arm the kids. I can just picture the scene in kitchens across the land each morning:
Advertisement
Mom: Waddaya want in your lunch-box with your pastrami-onrye, honey? A Glock 19 semiautomatic or a Colt AR-15?
Junior: Whatever.
Naturally Tony Blair was off the blocks quicker than Carl Lewis to tell America of our "deep shock". But I've yet to meet anyone remotely shocked by this, the USA's 19th gun rampage in 10 years.
Why should we be? When an Indian train crash kills 1,000 we shrug shoulders, deride them for not sorting out a recurrent problem, and give it five seconds on the tea-time news.
What do you recall of the methane blast at a Siberian coal mine last month that killed 110 men? Anything? Of course you don't. Those Russkies don't give a hoot about factory safety, so why should you? Yet when there's another US college shooting, we wipe out entire TV schedules, and indulge in a frenzy of fraternal soul-searching. Even though most of us feel contempt for a government which allows 200 million guns in private ownership, killing 30,000 people every year.
If we'd had 18 more Dunblanes after Dunblane, would we expect our allies to send messages of shock and sorrow, or hard advice on the need to address our uniquely horrific problem?
Why don't our leaders reflect the communal derision towards a people who twist their own constitution? (The Second Amendment originally applied to organised militias, not individuals, fending off outside armies like the British).
Why not protest at the political puppets who do the bidding of the powerful billion-dollar gun industry? Puppets like George W Bush, who allowed Bill Clinton's ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles to lapse. The same little rich boy, put in power simply to do rich men's bidding, who viewed his War On Terror as a game of cowboys and injuns.
This is a country in thrall to gratuitous violence. It's why it elected the Terminator as Governor of California.
It's why they whoop like billy-oh when Charlton Heston says gun law reformers will have to take his rifle from his "cold, dead hands."
Virginia Tech is the latest copycat mass murder, performed by loners who feel ostracised from the most aspirational, paranoid, dysfunctional and de-sensitised nation on Earth.
These are serial cullings of young innocents, which America is prepared to take in its stride to preserve its citizens' right to kill by bullet.
It's why, when the funerals of these 32 victims are done, and all the tear-stained flags folded away, normal service will be resumed.
And in a few months, a screwed-up inadequate who was hypnotised by the pictures from Blacksburg, will throw his credit card down in a gun shop in another town we've never heard of, and be handed the means to blow away his insignificance.
When it does, Prime Minister, tell them not of my deep sorrow but my deep disgust.
_____________
so, isn't the second amendment a totally moot point nowadays?
i, for one, do think so.
The residents of Washington D.C. have the right to bear arms but not to have a voting representative in Congress.
Is it a coincidence that guns are going to be allowed in D.C. because a Democrat will probably be President? I'm just saying....
If the residents of D.C. can own and carry a gun they deserve to have voting rights too. I'm just saying.
God Bless America?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that has the potential for misuse... just like I can run over you in my car.
And if anyone needs any further proof - look to Kennesaw Georgia. In 1983 (or sometime close to that), they made a law requiring citizens to own at least one firearm in the household. Crime dropped DRAMATICALLY the year the ordinance went into effect, which makes sense.
Get serious. Let me tell you about this magical place called Black Market.... anything you want that the government banned you can get here!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that has the potential for misuse... just like I can run over you in my car.
::
Now that's an original response.
Neither one of us has argued otherwise. Neither of us is calling for a ban on guns. Neither of us talked crime rates.
If you disagree with us, then you might want to talk about Constitutional interpretation in general, Second Amendment interpretation in particular, individual rights vs. the rights of the state, and judicial activism vs. judicial restraint.
That's where we're coming from.
Don't get it twisted.
Scalia writes for the majority:
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
----
The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of thefounding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
------
Game. Set. Match.
And that's why they got the ruling right. All the people who are arguing against this have not taken context into consideration. What do I mean by context? The political (and linguistic) environment at the time the Constitution was written.
Politicians flip flop to win elections.
Next.
______________________________________
Acting out of pure political expedience is not something most voters admire in a presidential candidate. Does Obama hold any core principles that are not subject to change?
Quinnipiac is now reporting that majorities in four battleground states want troops in Iraq until it’s stable.
Will Obama change his tune on Iraq as well?