Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

[WheelsRCool]

Just for those who may be unaware, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. What's interesting is it was 5-4 ruling.

 

[WarPhalange]

Who ruled what? Did the conservative ones overrule the liberal ones, or was it split half and half-ish?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Not sure which way which leans.

I can't say I'm surprised about the comment on the 2nd amendment, and they did say that the right (like every right) is not absolute, but I was a little disappointed in where they drew the line. In any case, this is going to open the door to a flurry of new cases to determine exactly where they think the line should be drawn.

 

[Cyrus]

Living in the DC area, it will be interesting to see how crime changes. We already have high crime rates, so I don't think this is going to give the bad guys guns they don't ALREADY have.

But, when are they going to give us a damn VOTE? The DC plates say 'taxation without representation'.

 

[drankin]

This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possesses a handgun in your home anywhere in the US. It goes without saying IMO, but it needed to be ruled definatively by the Supreme Court. A very important "do not cross" line for gun control advocates has been drawn.

 

[quadraphonics]

Not sure which way which leans.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are reliable conservatives; their reliability on issues near and dear to the Republican party is what got them on the Court. Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens are reliably liberal (particularly the first two). Kennedy is the swing vote, and so is the one to watch in today's SCOTUS. The other eight you can almost always predict the votes of even before arguments begin.

 

[WheelsRCool]

During the next Presidential term, two seats should open up on the Supreme Court, so that adds to the importance of this election (McCain will likely appoint conservative justices, Obama liberal).

 

[chemisttree]

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.

From Scalia's majority opinion. I heartily agree... it's NOT the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am extremely happy about this and the ruling on the death penalty.

Never take my guns, and never give the State the legal right to kill its citizens, for any reason.

 

[WarPhalange]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

 

[Cyrus]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

Gimme a break here.

 

[WarPhalange]

http://www.nestle.ca/NR/rdonlyres/44323EE5-53D4-4D2A-92E4-05A4E89182AC/0/KK45g_May07.jpg

 

[drankin]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

That was not ignored AT ALL. Read the opening arguments, they go into it extensively. You should do some research before making such comments.

In order to be able to form a militia of citizens the citizens need to actually have guns and be familiar with there operation.

 

[WarPhalange]

Sure, but then they should actually have a militia. Ergo people who want to own guns should be required to sign up for the local militia.

 

[mheslep]

I am extremely happy about this and the ruling on the death penalty.

... and never give the State the legal right to kill its citizens, for any reason.

Then put that in the constitution with an amendment because it is not in there now.

 

[drankin]

Sure, but then they should actually have a militia. Ergo people who want to own guns should be required to sign up for the local militia.

No they shouldn't. There is no such requirement in the Constitution. It's "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be infringed, after you sign up for the local militia".

 

[Cyrus]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

 

[D H]

The phrase well-regulated in the 2nd amendment does not mean "well-regulated by Congress". The framer's very begrudgingly gave Congress the ability to maintain a standing army. The 2nd amendment added a check on this ability. The framers wanted to give the people the means to rebel against the government they had just created. The 2nd amendment gives the people two rights: The right to bear arms and the right to use those arms against the government in a well-regulated (but private) militia. Even Scalia acknowledged that these might be outdated ideas. If you think that this amendment is outdated, fine. Change the Constitution.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The founders passed gun control regulations all the time. What the heck are you talking about? If you look at how the added amendments came about, you can see that the second amendment was a comprimise. Blacks for example could never even own guns, because they were not technically citizens.

This is just more of that kooky, conservative reaction to man's problems: that they have to be handled with violence.

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

 

[OrbitalPower]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

lol. I watched their whole episode on gun control. They never quote the numerous historians out there that explain the context of the second amendment.

These are the same guys who claimed second hand smoke does no damage despite the thousands of pages of medical evidence to the contrary that has been around for years.

 

[WarPhalange]

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.

 

[OrbitalPower]

This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possesses a handgun in your home anywhere in the US. It goes without saying IMO, but it needed to be ruled definatively by the Supreme Court. A very important "do not cross" line for gun control advocates has been drawn.

Another ahistorical opinion.

Courts go back and forth all the time, such as on the issue of free-speech. It has actually been through judicial decisions that we've gotten more free-speech, at times, there were less.

Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.

 

[OrbitalPower]

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.

Yes.

I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.

This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.

 

[mheslep]

... If you think that this amendment is outdated, fine. Change the Constitution.

Exactly. The last proposed amendment was thirty years ago in '78 (DC Voting - rejected). Even though society is larger and changing faster than ever before, the amendment process has been nearly forgotten , a consequence of jurists who hold a 'living document' philosophy.

 

[mheslep]

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.

Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg

 

[mheslep]

...Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

Quick, somebody get the straight jackets out to descendent's of the US Civil war, German and Japanese tyrants caused by WWII, etc.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Your history is confused. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union together. It's been proven numerous times. The conditions improved for many slaves but the economic conditions were also tyrannical.

World War II wasn't to "stop tyranny," either, and the countries that fought the Nazis, the allies, esp. the US and Russia, went on to kill millions of people in Indochina and in the case of Russia in their own country, obviously, far more than the Nazis killed.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg

Gun nuts talk about rebellion against the government to stop a vicious tyranny. Those countries did not end tyranny at all.

Show a case where the citizens stood up to their government and tyranny reduced and thus democide reduced.

World War II is incorrect because democide actually increased. And the American revolution was really governments fighting. The people were never represented in the US, a majority, and actually had to be drafted into fighting as well.

 

[mheslep]

Your history is confused. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union together. It's been proven numerous times.

I don't say otherwise, as the free / slave state issue plainly caused the disunion. It is clear that the civil war stopped the confederate tyranny of slavery and it was "overthrown with guns".

World War II wasn't to "stop tyranny," either,

If that is true then the phrase means nothing and no war to 'stop tyranny' has ever taken place. You are temporizing.

 

[WarPhalange]

Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg

Vietnam got firebombed and Iraq is a total crap hole. What's your point? That these people live in defiance, because they don't even have a roof over their head?

But hell, Jesse Ventura said it best: "Give me 9 snipers and I'll paralyze the nation"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7uJNjRkbAtg at 6:50

The point being that people with guns aren't willing to use them, meaning that they are completely pointless. These people touting guns as freedom are useless.

 

[Cyrus]

Bla bla bla, waa waa waa. Tax paying citizens have their right to own a gun, like anyone else in any other state.

 

[Cyrus]

Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.

The right to own a gun isn't to "solve any problems", you miss the point ENTIRELY.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes.

I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.

This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread. What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

Lets make this stupidly simple:

q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS can't have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?


You don't like guns, we all get that. Then you have to change the constitution for EVERYONE, not just states and the district here and there.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

How can you say this? Did you even read the decision? Out of ~157 pages, approximately 156 was devoted to the relationship between the first half of the sentence and the second.

Personally, I found the Breyer dissent most troubling - he argues that enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and that the government is justified in regulating them into irrelevance if it serves a compelling state interest. I think that's a very slippery slope Mr. Justice Breyer is standing on.

 

[OrbitalPower]

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread.

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.

It was in completely in context with the line of discussion in the thread.

What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

It clearly had to do with what I was replying to.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

It isn't "nonsense" -- I'm very wary of people who advocate guns as a prerequisite for freedom and then advocate absolute tyranny -- and it had everything to do with the comment I was replying to.

q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS can't have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns. The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns, and declared they had the "right" to take people's guns away from them in given scenarios (such as being "disaffected with the revolution"). So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.