Supreme Court conclusively defines second amendment

[El Mudo]

this is GIGANTIC....wow... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns)

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.


The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.


The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

[EliSnow]

Supreme Court conclusively defines second amendment

While the decision is big, if you think this will "conclusively" define the Second Amendment, you've got some rose-colored glasses on.

Granted, I haven't read the opinion yet, but I don't see how it could conclusively do so.

[SouthSideJohnny]

It's already starting: " Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says "this opinion still allows commonsense gun control laws, restrictions to make us all safer." He expects to see more challenges to existing restrictions on gun ownership."

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

[AKA]

Any ruling affecting the District of Columbia is meaningless, imo, until half a million Americans living in DC get congressional voting rights - zero rights to vote for health care, security, no education and any other issue debated and voted on by the U.S. Congress = bullshit.

[A.J.]

Any ruling affecting the District of Columbia is meaningless, imo, until half a million Americans living in DC get congressional voting rights - zero rights to vote for health care, security, no education and any other issue debated and voted on by the U.S. Congress = bullshit.

I agree 100%. But, as a former resident of DC, this ruling came 10 years too late. Gun control in DC created more sheep and empowered the wolves. Anybody remember those nightly "City Under Siege" reports back in the late 80s and early 90s? Good times.

[K.C.]

Again, I think this is a constitutionally correct decision, like the death penalty case.

Although it's a little weird that they'd reference hunting in the decision when the actual clause they cite says.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


...I guess militia's hunt???

Either way...probably the right decision.



The thing that disturbs me is that these have been two pretty big rulings that have split 5-4, almost entirely along political lines.
The Court is SUPPOSE to be above that...so it's concerning, to say the least.

[EliSnow]

Again, I think this is a constitutionally correct decision, like the death penalty case.

Although it's a little weird that they'd reference hunting in the decision when the actual clause they cite says.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


...I guess militia's hunt???



Maybe they see a "well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be separate things. And if so, the right to do so is so they can hunt/defend themselves.

Either way...probably the right decision.



The thing that disturbs me is that these have been two pretty big rulings that have split 5-4, almost entirely along political lines.
The Court is SUPPOSE to be above that...so it's concerning, to say the least.

The split usually deal with splits between legal interpretation and theory, which generally parallel political thought. Your strict constructionists usually are also politically conservative. Your judges who believe in "living and breathing" constitution that tries to apply the values of the constitution to situations not considered by the founding fathers, often are more politically liberal.

[Thebazile78]

Maybe they see a "well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be separate things. And if so, the right to do so is so they can hunt/defend themselves.


The majority does. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

[QUOTE]HELD:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, thisof self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
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.

(Opinion linked above; PDF document. Very interesting read, BTW, and I don't usually go for Scalia.)

[IMSlacker]

Does this mean the Wizards have to change their name back to the Bullets?

[scottinnj]

While the decision is big, if you think this will "conclusively" define the Second Amendment, you've got some rose-colored glasses on.

Granted, I haven't read the opinion yet, but I don't see how it could conclusively do so.

The majority said that the right to keep and bear arms is given to individual citizens without the neccesity of having or belonging to a militia.

[DarkHippie]

Does this mean that they can still ban certain types of guns, like assault rifles?

[scottinnj]

...I guess militia's hunt???

You say that jokingly, but conservatives like myself always believed the second amendment was put after the first amendment to give teeth to the first amendment.

It is actually there to provide the right for armed insurrection of the federal government in the case that the federal government becomes tyrannical.

Either way...probably the right decision.

Agreed on this case. I disagreed with you on the death penalty case, but only on theory. Always remember I respect your point of view K.C.



The thing that disturbs me is that these have been two pretty big rulings that have split 5-4, almost entirely along political lines.
The Court is SUPPOSE to be above that...so it's concerning, to say the least.


Agreed. Again. I'm tired of split decisions. They don't work in boxing, and certainly don't work in government. Decisions like this should be placed into the amendment process, then we'd see a true "evolving" standard as cited in the death penalty case.

[HBox]

Does this mean that they can still ban certain types of guns, like assault rifles?

They allowed for reasonable restrictions or something like that.

[TheMojoPin]

It is actually there to provide the right for armed insurrection of the federal government in the case that the federal government becomes tyrannical.

Yeah, let's wish them luck with that if they think they have a chance.

[scottinnj]

Didn't you ever watch The Patriot? "Aim Small, Miss Small"

[nevnut]

Again, I think this is a constitutionally correct decision, like the death penalty case.

Although it's a little weird that they'd reference hunting in the decision when the actual clause they cite says.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


...I guess militia's hunt???

Either way...probably the right decision.



The thing that disturbs me is that these have been two pretty big rulings that have split 5-4, almost entirely along political lines.
The Court is SUPPOSE to be above that...so it's concerning, to say the least.

I believe the added the word "hunting" because if things really got bad, you would need to defend yourself from thugs and possibly go out and hunt to feed yourself and your family.

[TheMojoPin]

Didn't you ever watch The Patriot? "Aim Small, Miss Small"

That was great when everyone used single shot pistols and muskets.

Ironically, that made a liberal interpretation 2nd Ammendment seem like a great idea at the time, too.

And that's "liberal" with a lowercase "l," you heathens.

[EliSnow]

The majority said that the right to keep and bear arms is given to individual citizens without the neccesity of having or belonging to a militia.

I understand the general holding made in the opinion, but in order to understand the full import of the opinion.

You have to know what's stated as the holding and what's "dicta" (statement that really don't have the force of law, but can indicate how the court would rule on other cases).

The issue with the Supreme Court and any other court is that, under the Constitution, they cannot give advisory opinions. So they can only rule on the case based upon the facts presented to them. That means that the ruling may not be the same with different set of facts.

For instance, yes, they've established this right, but they have left the ability for states to make restrictions, but the court can't state right now what those restrictions may be. They can only decide the reasonableness of the restriction in light of the 2nd Amendment, after such a matter is brought before them.

[EliSnow]

Agreed. Again. I'm tired of split decisions. They don't work in boxing, and certainly don't work in government. Decisions like this should be placed into the amendment process, then we'd see a true "evolving" standard as cited in the death penalty case.

No offense, but then we'd see no evolution at all. The standards for amendments are very, very high, and it's pretty hard to pass such a thing. And it should be very high.

But society is changing much faster than it would take to gather the type of legislative and public support to expressly recognize rights that can be interepreted from the values set in the Constitution and Bill of Rights now.

I'm not saying that judges should recognize rights that don't exist and ignore the constitution altogether. But at the same time, the strict construction, read the constitution only as written, and require constitutional amendments for any new situations would be unworkable.

We'd still have segregation in schools and elsewhere without such a greater ability to interpret the constitution.

[Thebazile78]

Does this mean that they can still ban certain types of guns, like assault rifles?

Yes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Pages in the above quote (excerpted from the Court's synopsis) refer to the pages of the 157-page opinion (complete with the two written dissents for the 4 dissenting justices) that I linked in an earlier posting.

[Jujubees2]

First it was guns in the Atlanta Airport and now guns in National Parks. I think this ruling opened a can of worms.

Lawsuit filed over Atlanta airport barring guns (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25479434/)

Showdown over packing heat in national parks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25630796/)