Supremes Affirm Right To Own Guns

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

hahahahahaha

Too bad, so sad, eat shit and die liberals.

 

[sr71plt]

Kinda falling over your tongue on whether or not the Supreme Court is controlled by the liberals, aren't you? Short attention span, I guess.

 

[R. Richard]

This is the article. Read it and peep.

Supreme Court says Americans have right to 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 or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

 

[Carnevil9]

I'm surprised that only five out of nine justices can read and comprehend such a simple sentence.

 

[keeblercrumb]

I'm surprised that only five out of nine justices can read and comprehend such a simple sentence.

I am only mildly surprised they cannot..

"A well order militia being necessary....."

Remember that little caveat?

What a shock! The judiciary creating their own laws!

-KC

 

[Liar]

I'm surprised that only five out of nine justices can read and comprehend such a simple sentence.

"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."

This is not a simple sentnce. It has two noun phrases, one of them with a subservient adjective phrase (that can also be read as a third noun phrase), and finally one main verb phrase. What does the verb phrase ("shall not be") referr to? The first noun? The second? The first and the second? Or is the second noun phrase subservient to the first?

Depending on how you answer those questions, the sentence will mean different things. But yes, it coyld mean that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But only if "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means exactly the same as "a well regulated militia".

In which case I give the sentence a C- in brevity.

Although, I can't for the life of me see how that could be. "The right to keep and bear arms" might be nessecary for having a "well regulated militia". But it is not ther same thing. A lemon tree is not a lemon.

 

[oggbashan]

Is the National Guard "a well-regulated militia"? By 18th century standards that was what was meant by a militia.

If so, it could be said that the people do not need to bear arms UNLESS they are part of the National Guard.

Og

 

[keeblercrumb]

Is the National Guard "a well-regulated militia"? By 18th century standards that was what was meant by a militia.

If so, it could be said that the people do not need to bear arms UNLESS they are part of the National Guard.

Og

Could be and is, Ogg...

This insanity of arming the poplulace to the ears..... and surprise! They use them on each other..... In jealousy, in drunkeness, in kids playing with them, and more than all that combined in commiting crimes of murder and robbery.

The number of "home defense" shootings is miniscule compared to the murders committed with guns stolen from homes! What sense does that make?

-KC

 

[sr71plt]

Is the National Guard "a well-regulated militia"? By 18th century standards that was what was meant by a militia.

If so, it could be said that the people do not need to bear arms UNLESS they are part of the National Guard.

Og

Yep. Some folks haven't gotten out of the eighteenth century yet, though.

I'd be pleased if everyone wanting to own a gun was automatically signed up for the National Guard--they'd then be swiftly sent to Iraq, where they'd be set against others who like guns have have minds set in the eighteenth century.

 

[Guest]

Don't take your guns to town, son,
Leave your guns at home, Bill -
Don't take your guns to town.

 

[keeblercrumb]

"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."

This is not a simple sentnce. It has two noun phrases, one of them with a subservient adjective phrase (that can also be read as a third noun phrase), and finally one main verb phrase. What does the verb phrase ("shall not be") referr to? The first noun? The second? The first and the second? Or is the second noun phrase subservient to the first?

Depending on how you answer those questions, the sentence will mean different things. But yes, it coyld mean that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But only if "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means exactly the same as "a well regulated militia".

In which case I give the sentence a C- in brevity.

Although, I can't for the life of me see how that could be. "The right to keep and bear arms" might be nessecary for having a "well regulated militia". But it is not ther same thing. A lemon tree is not a lemon.

You are right, but then Tom and the boys had a lot of writing to do at the time... They just were not thinking about drive-by's.......

But the key to understanding the intent is easy... The phrase "A well ordered militia being necessary......" MUST mean something or it would not be there! And there is only one thing it can mean....

Sigh.....

-KC

 

[Carnevil9]

The number of "home defense" shootings is miniscule compared to the murders committed with guns stolen from homes! What sense does that make?

-KC

This is a very common but very fallacious argument. The number of home invasions THAT NEVER OCCUR because there might be a well-armed citizen inside is the important statistic. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compile.

Of course, the best argument against gun laws is that only law abiding citizens obey them. Criminals ignore them, and we're worse off than when we started.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

All I have to say is check my AV, and know that I'm glad to live there. Gun culture obsession always causes this response

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Is the National Guard "a well-regulated militia"? By 18th century standards that was what was meant by a militia.

If so, it could be said that the people do not need to bear arms UNLESS they are part of the National Guard.

Og

I doubt that today's National Guard would have been considered a "militia" as the word was understood by the Founders, because it is little more than an adjunct to the regular standing army and is controlled by the central government. I believe that these characteristics would have been determinative for the Founders.

I'm relieved the Supremes did not perform the Orwellian stunt of defining "the people" as "the state." That would have not have bode well for the other provisions in the Bill of Rights recognizing "rights of the people."

". . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . . ."

". . . right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . ."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It's clear from the construction that other rights have the same standing, even though the language varied:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . ."

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is a very common but very fallacious argument. The number of home invasions THAT NEVER OCCUR because there might be a well-armed citizen inside is the important statistic. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compile.

Of course, the best argument against gun laws is that only law abiding citizens obey them. Criminals ignore them, and we're worse off than when we started.

I read recently that "hot burglaries" - ones in which the resident is home - are rare in the U.S., but comprise the majority of UK burglaries. Coincidence?

 

[sr71plt]

I read recently that "hot burglaries" - ones in which the resident is home - are rare in the U.S., but comprise the majority of UK burglaries. Coincidence?

Naw, it means the English are more homebodies than the Americans.

 

[TxRad]

"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."

This is a sentence written in the late 1700's. Now, you are trying to reinterpret it in the 21's century. A well regulated militia is not the National Guard, which comes under federal control. A well regulated militia was local, city, and state groups. These groups could and would balance federal forces if it came down to some one in authority trying to take control of the nation by force.

The right to keep and bear arms by the people is a big part of this check and balance and shall not be infringed.

This is the military equivalent of the checks and balances of the House and Senate in the political branch of government.

It ain't that hard guys.

Read what it says and not what you want it to say.

 

[sr71plt]

"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."

This is a sentence written in the late 1700's. Now, you are trying to reinterpret it in the 21's century. A well regulated militia is not the National Guard, which comes under federal control. A well regulated militia was local, city, and state groups. These groups could and would balance federal forces if it came down to some one in authority trying to take control of the nation by force.

The right to keep and bear arms by the people is a big part of this check and balance and shall not be infringed.

This is the military equivalent of the checks and balances of the House and Senate in the political branch of government.

It ain't that hard guys.


Read what it says and not what you want it to say.

Sorry, but methinks you are the one who is blind to the "then" versus the "now." We've all seen the dandy results of someone deciding on his own that "it" doesn't apply to him, so he'll take his gun to the woods and start popping off people to assert his Constitutional "rights."

There are a whole hell of a lot of clauses in the Constitution that are no longer relevant to the current world and are quietly ignored, or have been changed. Empires start to crumble when their documentation/structure doesn't/can't adapt to the changing circumstances.

And the intent of the original drafters of the Constitution on this particular issue seem quite clear to me to--as it is clear to me that they wouldn't see the relevance of writing it into a Constitution for today's world. I possibly give them more credit for having a brain than the NRA does.

 

[TxRad]

Sorry, but methinks you are the one who is blind to the "then" versus the "now." We've all seen the dandy results of someone deciding on his own that "it" doesn't apply to him, so he'll take his gun to the woods and start popping off people to assert his Constitutional "rights."

There are a whole hell of a lot of clauses in the Constitution that are no longer relevant to the current world and are quietly ignored, or have been changed. Empires start to crumble when their documentation/structure doesn't/can't adapt to the changing circumstances.

And the intent of the original drafters of the Constitution on this particular issue seem quite clear to me to--as it is clear to me that they wouldn't see the relevance of writing it into a Constitution for today's world. I possibly give them more credit for having a brain than the NRA does.

Sorry but your first paragraph has nothing to do with this. It only gives a person the right to have a gun and says nothing in this amendment about how you use it.

Yes, I agree times change and national documents have to change with them but again this is not the case. This still applies to this day. There still has to be a check and balance on the armed forces. I know, they wouldn't stand a change in hell but the idea of a bloody takeover is still a potent weapon.

Your last paragraph makes very little sense so I'll wait for a clarification, I guess.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Soviet Era Condom

This is a very common but very fallacious argument. The number of home invasions THAT NEVER OCCUR because there might be a well-armed citizen inside is the important statistic. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compile.

Of course, the best argument against gun laws is that only law abiding citizens obey them. Criminals ignore them, and we're worse off than when we started.

On the contrary, if it were truly a deterrent, there would never be any home burglaries.... The answer is "home invasion" is a highly unusual crime.... Home burglaries, on the other hand, are quite common. Guns being a desirable incentive, not a deterrent...

But then maybe things have changed since I have been gone....Still it takes a rather fanciful imagination to come up with the home defense theory....

Do you always answer the door with a gun in your hand? Does your average home invader(sic) allow you the time to go get your gun out of the safe and unlock the trigger guard you MUST use to keep your kids from blowing away the cat or each other just so you can play wild, wild, west him?

So what is the crime rate in the self-protected gun toting, keep the criminals scared USA vs. the rest of the developed world where guns are carefully controlled(just about everywhere else)? Is this concept working or not? Easy to answer..... if you have the intellectual courage to do so.

The "best" argument is equally silly...... in my humble view.... Where do criminals get their guns to begin with??????? If they were not in the procession of honest citizens, they would not be there to steal! And then, of course, there are the "criminals" that are created from law abiding citizens BECAUSE they have access to a gun......

Ah fuck it.... go shoot it out with each other.....Let me know when you all are tired of the insanity....

 

[Liar]

You are right, but then Tom and the boys had a lot of writing to do at the time... They just were not thinking about drive-by's.......

But the key to understanding the intent is easy... The phrase "A well ordered militia being necessary......" MUST mean something or it would not be there! And there is only one thing it can mean....

Sigh.....

-KC

Sigh indeed. Yeah it means something. Never said it didn't.

It could easily mean:

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

So a well regulated militita shall not be infringed. And the right to bear arms is an effect of a well regulated militita.

Or it could mean:

A well regulated militia, ([which is] being necessary to the security of a free state,) [and therefore also] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Meanning that they are two separate things, and niether shall be infringed.


Please derive the proper intended interpretation, without a shadow of a doubt, will ya?

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry but your first paragraph has nothing to do with this. It only gives a person the right to have a gun and says nothing in this amendment about how you use it.

Which, I guess explains why you take the Neanderthal position you do. Nuff said.

I can just feel all non-Americans (and, happily, some Americas as well) shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The 'militia' the Constitution refers to is the adult males of America. The 'active militia' is/was adult males in specific locations acting as a temporary military force. The 'organized militia' is the National Guard.'

 

[Liar]

Besides, isn't the "well regulated militita" idea just a bunch of bullshit anyway?

Y'all have guns. So where's the well regulated militia?

 

[Carnevil9]

Y'all have guns. So where's the well regulated militia?

Just come bursting into my home unannounced and I'll show ya... .....Carney (with no kids and no trigger locks)