Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'd also suggest too that from what I've read, the second amendment was misinterpreted yet again. Many people don't agree that it gives the right to citizens to arm themselves to the teeth just for the hell of it. It WAS written back in the late 1700's when armed militias were roaming about, as X referenced above. I'd suggest the second amendment was more about those circumstances than anything going on now, unless street gangs and other criminals are going to be equated with armed militias now. It's also a sad commentary on the resources allocated to local law enforcement.
Originally Posted By dshyates The NRA has already said that they will challenge the bans in Chicago and SF, now that the court has ruled in favor of hand gun ownership. I think Denver should be next. But I grew up in a state where they taught gun safety in Jr. High.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Hummm... yeah maybe you are right dshyates. I'll admit he hasn't exactly said, "I want to take all personal ownership of guns away." I'm in the air on him about this issue. Thanks for weighing in SPP. What then will it take if Chicago doesn't withdraw theirs? It seems like there are probably suits in the works right now beging prepared. I'm sure the NRA-ILA won't waste time finding some poor little old lady with a cold hard case to take Chicao to court on.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "What then will it take if Chicago doesn't withdraw theirs? It seems like there are probably suits in the works right now beging prepared." If they don't already have one they need to find a proper plaintiff, meaning someone with standing to challenge it. Shouldn't be too hard.
Originally Posted By hightp SPP, Justice Scalia goes into some depth in how the court defined 'militia'. They chose the meaning to be 'all able bodied men (and women), but specifically mention, also, a subset within that of a Military Militia (starting on page 22 of opinion). The definition of militia as all men has long been the argument the pro-gun crowd has used, verses the National Guard definition used by the Gun Control groups. The argument that remains now is what 'reasonable restrictions' will be defined as.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Thanks. Seems like a pretty self-serving way of defining militia, if you ask me. I like the National Guard version better.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Hmmm... Whatever you may have thought about the DC gun ban, it did come out of the democratic process there. Why aren't all the hardcore right-wingers baying at the top of their lungs about an out-of-control Supreme Court that's legislating from the bench, and denying the will of the people?
Originally Posted By ecdc Post 27, spot on. I'm not thrilled with the decision, but I respect the Supreme Court and I see how the law can be reasonably interpreted to define the ban as unconstitutional. Why aren't we all hearing about "activist judges" now?
Originally Posted By DAR I think the court properly recogonized that the majority of gun owners in this country are law abiding citizens. That with a few exceptions the majority of crimes committed with guns were obtained illegally. I would know since I have a cousin in prison for a crime committed with an illegal handgun.
Originally Posted By hightp The National Guard has only been in existance for about 100 years, so that interpretation could not have been what the Constitution refers to when it said militia. (For #26.)
Originally Posted By ecdc I don't offer much of a legal perspective, but there is a historical perspective to this. The Bill of Rights wasn't created in a vacuum; they were created with their experience with England firmly in mind. They wanted to enumerate precisely what things a government couldn't do to a people, because they'd been through it. (The whole notion of a Bill of Rights was turned on its head by the Founders. Traditionally, a "Bill of Rights" came from the king to the people; he listed what rights he was giving them. Our Bill of Rights is actually a list of a limit of government power - a very different thing. Remarkable!) A big part of the 2nd Amendment is rooted in many of the Founder's fears of standing armies. They wanted an armed citizenry so they could be called to fight if necessary rather than have an army ready to go. Furthermore, we cannot underestimate how loose the relationship between states was then. We say "the United States of America is..." they said, "the United States of America are..." It truly was a plurality of states, nothing more. There was little sense of nationalism or patriotism. A New Yorker had more in common with a Londoner than they did a Georgian. The 2nd amendment came about in part because state's demanded the right of their citizens to carry arms without federal interference.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The National Guard has only been in existance for about 100 years, so that interpretation could not have been what the Constitution refers to when it said militia. (For #26.)" Well, let's say it's a pretty good analogy, which is what the law does all the time (drawing analogies). Reading the other posts about activist judges, I'd agree. Scalia's definition of a militia is certainly, um, interesting.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I think the court properly recogonized that the majority of gun owners in this country are law abiding citizens. That with a few exceptions the majority of crimes committed with guns were obtained illegally. >>> I know that "law-abiding citizens" is a favorite NRA catch phrase. The argument you make above is an excellent one, but it's one that should be made within legislative bodies (or perhaps by the people directly in those jurisdictions with an initiative process). The Supreme Court's function in this case should not be to decide whether private ownership of guns is good or bad for the country, or even whether a particular law is going to be effective. Rather, the question at hand is whether the law in question runs contrary to the Constitution.
Originally Posted By hightp Dry, I think you hit it right on the head. The Supreme Court decided the DC ban was contrary to what the Constitution stated. DC was keeping the people from effectivly bearing arms. They could not keep a handgun in the home, and rifles and shotguns had to be disassembled or locked up. That was opposite the 'right' to keep and bear arms (or, is that arm bears...which is illegal in DC, too).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent.... >>The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today's decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. 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.<< YIKES, no right to protect yourself, especially in a crime-ridden area.... But here is what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say in his comments... >>He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest-balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." . . .. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Whatever you may have thought about the DC gun ban, it did come out of the democratic process there. Why aren't all the hardcore right-wingers baying at the top of their lungs about an out-of-control Supreme Court that's legislating from the bench, and denying the will of the people?<< LMAO! You know, I actually agree with the court's decision in this matter. The second amendment is pretty clear. But SuperDry, you knocked it out of the park with that post.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer HUH??? Never heard that the DC Gun Ban was voted on by the public. It was decided by the City Council in 1975... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._of_1975</a>
Originally Posted By woody >>Why aren't all the hardcore right-wingers baying at the top of their lungs about an out-of-control Supreme Court that's legislating from the bench, and denying the will of the people?<< Well, the decision was 5-4, which means the Supreme Court is bordering on hubris. The 2nd Amendment right is very clear that I wonder why the margin isn't better. Just amazing.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< HUH??? Never heard that the DC Gun Ban was voted on by the public. >>> Nobody said that it was. <<< It was decided by the City Council in 1975... >>> That's right. The City Council is the elected legislative body of the District of Columbia. Almost all laws passed in this country are a result of an elected legislative body. The members are elected by the people for the primary purpose of enacting laws during their terms. That's the democratic process in a representative democracy.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>denying the will of the people<< Such as overturning Proposition 187 here in California, when a large majority voted to limit the tax dollars spent on illegal aliens trying to access public/government services, or a subject matter like what the word "marriage" means in California. A large percentage clearly stated what they thought the term meant, and the court, in a 4-3 decision said they knew better than the public, even though the State came up with a system that allowed the same rights, but with a different term "union". Those type of decisions, where the "Public" has voted and let their opinion be known and then overturned is a large issue with many folks....
