Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

  1. Jun 26, 2008 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 26, 2008 #2
    Who ruled what? Did the conservative ones overrule the liberal ones, or was it split half and half-ish?
     
  4. Jun 26, 2008 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here's the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  5. Jun 26, 2008 #4
    Living in the DC area, it will be interesting to see how crime changes. We already have high crime rates, so I dont think this is going to give the bad guys guns they dont ALREADY have.

    But, when are they going to give us a damn VOTE? The DC plates say 'taxation without representation'.
     
  6. Jun 26, 2008 #5
    This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possess 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.
     
  7. Jun 26, 2008 #6
    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.
     
  8. Jun 26, 2008 #7
    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).
     
  9. Jun 26, 2008 #8

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    From Scalia's majority opinion. I heartily agree... it's NOT the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
     
  10. Jun 26, 2008 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  11. Jun 26, 2008 #10
    I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.
     
  12. Jun 26, 2008 #11
    Gimme a break here.
     
  13. Jun 26, 2008 #12
    http://www.nestle.ca/NR/rdonlyres/44323EE5-53D4-4D2A-92E4-05A4E89182AC/0/KK45g_May07.jpg [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  14. Jun 26, 2008 #13
    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.
     
  15. Jun 26, 2008 #14
    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.
     
  16. Jun 26, 2008 #15

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Then put that in the constitution with an amendment because it is not in there now.
     
  17. Jun 26, 2008 #16
    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".
     
  18. Jun 26, 2008 #17
  19. Jun 26, 2008 #18

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  20. Jun 26, 2008 #19
    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.
     
  21. Jun 26, 2008 #20
    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.
     
  22. Jun 26, 2008 #21
    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.
     
  23. Jun 26, 2008 #22
    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.
     
  24. Jun 26, 2008 #23
    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.
     
  25. Jun 26, 2008 #24

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  26. Jun 26, 2008 #25

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook