This is topic D.C. Circuit Panel (and Now SCOTUS) Finds Personal Right to Bear Arms, 2-1 in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms," by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District’s authority per se to require the registration of firearms.
...
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” — indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all — e.g., “the states.” These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions....
The District points to the singular nature of the Second Amendment’s preamble as an indication that the operative clause must be restricted or conditioned in some way by the prefatory language. However, the structure of the Second Amendment turns out to be not so unusual when we examine state constitutional provisions guaranteeing rights or restricting governmental power. It was quite common for prefatory language to state a principle of good government that was narrower than the operative language used to achieve it.
We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a well-regulated militia — even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia [which the court had earlier concluded “was a large segment of the population” rather than just a government-selected National Guard-like subgroup -EV] — is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias....
[I]f the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit — and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
[ June 26, 2008, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That bit about the prefatory not being limiting is something I always wondered about the 2nd ammendment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's the possibility that the D.C. Circuit might hear this en banc, in which case they might overturn it.
It'll be interesting to see if SCOTUS even takes this up. If they do, I have no idea if they'll punt on the issue (again) or make a straight up decision. There are some very technical issues, such as standing, that would let them dispose of the action without addressing the merits.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Seems well-put to me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
in the meantime...
HARD LIQUOR AND HANDGUN NIGHT TONIGHT AT DAG'S PLACE EVERYONE
YEEEEEHAAAAW!!!!!
*please consider the balloon to be an ak-47 firing in the air... thank you*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hell, I live in Virginia. We don't have to stay in the house, we can hop in the explorer and go cruising. Passengers can have open containers and everyone can have their guns out as long as their not concealed. And if we want to conceal them, this is a must-issue state.
I tend to think this is the right judicial interpretation. I have no idea where I draw the line on acceptable regulation of firearm possession and bearing, but outright bans seems contrary to the amendment.
I so hope SCOTUS addresses this.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
My question is whether someone can use this as a precedent to keep in their homes (and register) hand-held mortar weapons or grenade launchers? Not that I think people were waiting for this to do such a thing, but does it leave that question open, legally?
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm sure someone, somewhere will make that argument.
Edit: and it's "open" legally until SCOTUS rules on it, although they have, like bold and brave sir Robin, boldly turned their tail and fled almost every time the second amendment has come up.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: My question is whether someone can use this as a precedent to keep in their homes (and register) hand-held mortar weapons or grenade launchers? Not that I think people were waiting for this to do such a thing, but does it leave that question open, legally?
Not so much. There's a long section about what sort of arms are relevant here, noting that the right is not an unbounded one, but concluding that handguns (which are at issue in this case) are clearly within its parameters.
I'm not exactly a fan of the Second Amendment, but I think the court got this one exactly right.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
What sort of judicial reasoning could be used to separate that situation from this? Assuming, of course, there is a difference.
In a way, I think that's why I prefer the "collective" argument versus "individual", even if it wasn't intended originally. I think within the framework of the collective definition, I think one can still carve out pretty liberal gun laws. The individual POV seems to me increasingly archaic as a foundation, given technological progress in the past 230 years. I think this is the right decision, but I thing the framework needs an update (which will never happen)
-Bok
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: What sort of judicial reasoning could be used to separate that situation from this?
You might, you know, read the decision? It's linked to in the first post...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What sort of judicial reasoning could be used to separate that situation from this? Assuming, of course, there is a difference.
It depends entirely on the Justice's judicial methodology. What follows is very superficial analysis meant to serve as example, not a prediction.
Thomas (an original intent justice) might examine what common militia practices were at the time the amendment was drafted. If rifles and ammunition were kept in the home, and cannon kept in a central place, then there's a significant distinction there.
Scalia (who is not an "original intent" justice but rather an "original meaning" justice) might look at how militia enabling legislation using "keep and bear arms" or "right of the people" was interpreted at the time (to demonstrate the meaning of the words used) or he might sieze on "bear arms" and point out that mortars aren't borne as weapons - they are carried to where they will be used then sent down, and can only be used as weapons at that point (wouldn't work for bazookas). Or he might sieze on the word "arms" and point to uses that indicate that they generally referred to rifles (have no clue if this is true). Or he might point out that "people" bear rifles as individuals, while cannon are crewed by more than one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't agree with an outright banning of firearms, I think that's against the amendment. But I don't have a problem with restrictions on firearm possession. If they want to restrict what kinds of firearms people can buy, what kinds of bullets, rules for use outside the home or for the ordering of an actual militia, that's all fine with me.
I'm one of those who thinks the amendment was specifically referring to a militia when it was written.
edit to add: At the time, "arms" would probably refer to muskets. Rifled guns were around but were scarce.
[ March 09, 2007, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: What sort of judicial reasoning could be used to separate that situation from this?
You might, you know, read the decision? It's linked to in the first post...
Well, I was asking the question in reverse, which I assume the opinion doesn't address. That is, if one WERE to decide to rule in favor of the District, how might one put it. The opinion is solely an attempt to support a position against the District.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bok, I thought you meant separate mortars from handguns - that's what my answer above refers to.
There is a dissenting opinion. I haven't read it yet, but in skimming it seemed to give a decent overview of the collective right theory.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Well, I was asking the question in reverse, which I assume the opinion doesn't address. That is, if one WERE to decide to rule in favor of the District, how might one put it. The opinion is solely an attempt to support a position against the District.
You assume incorrectly.
If you want the slice'n'diced precis of relevant paragraphs taken out of context, here goes:
quote:The District would have us read this passage as recognizing a limitation on the Second Amendment right based on the individual’s connection (or lack thereof) to an organized functioning militia. We disagree. As already discussed, the Miller court was examining the relationship between the weapon in question—a short-barreled shotgun—and the preservation of the militia system, which was the Amendment’s politically relevant purpose. The term “Arms” was quite indefinite, but it would have been peculiar, to say the least, if it were designed to ensure that people had an individual right to keep weapons capable of mass destruction—e.g., cannons. Thus the Miller Court limited the term “Arms”—interpreting it in a manner consistent with the Amendment’s underlying civic purpose. Only “Arms” whose “use or possession . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” id. at 177, would qualify for protection. (p. 44)
We take the outfitting requirements of the second Militia Act to list precisely those weapons that would have satisfied the two prongs of the Miller arms test. They bore a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” because they were the very arms needed for militia service. And by the terms of the Act, they were to be personally owned and “of the kind in common use at the time.”
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards. (p. 52-3)
That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.... [e.g., carrying a weapon while drunk, in a manner calculated to inspire terror, concealed weaponry, convicted felons] ...These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised. (p. 53-4)
For the very long discussion of what a "militia" consisted of in colonial time, what weapons they used, and how that would be relevant in modern times, you'll have to read the decision itself. I'll note, however, that they explicitly cite cannons as an example of something not included by the amendment.
(Edited to add that the above selection, in context, explictly does not imply that the Second Amendment was intended for militia-maintaining purposes; rather, it operates under the contention that standard weaponry among militia members can be assumed to have been covered by the definition of "arms" in the amendment.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, your response was fine. I was just explaining that I was coming at it from the other direction. I wasn't looking for what the Circuit Court thought was the difference, but how one could define the difference.
-Bok
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
One-shot muzzle-loaded blackpowder&ball smooth-bored pistols and long-barreled muskets were available at the time the 2ndAmendment was ratified. As Lyrhawn says, while rifles did exist, they were far too expensive for common use, and far too much trouble to safely load&reload for common military use. Now if'n the three-judge panel intended to say that more advanced firearms can be legally banned... If not, what would be the reasoning for banning RocketPropelledGrenades? Shoulder-fired anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles? Or a DaveyCrockett? Or an Abrams? Admittedly the Founders didn't have nuclear bombs or tanks with breech-loaded cannons back then. But they didn't have bullet cartridges either, or multi-shot rifles and pistols.
Not saying that owning a Warthog wouldn't be useful in preventing traffic jams. After a few strafing runs, traffic would undoubtedly lessen to a reasonable smooth-flowing level.
[ March 09, 2007, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have thought that if the "militia" is what defines the 2nd Amendment, then the government has usurped authority by creating the National Guard. It should be all volunteer and independant. Not that the government wouldn't be able to have something like the National Guard, but don't describe them as militia as a way to gut the Constitution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If not, what would be the reasoning for banning RocketPropelledGrenades? Shoulder-fired anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles?
I already outlined some possible reasonings that could be used. It's fun to say "ignoring progress in weapons means you have to allow a tank." But it's overly simplistic.
It's clear that a nuclear weapon or a tank is not an analog to a revolutionary war musket. An M-16 might be, depending on if you use capability or role as the trait to draw on. The M-16 is the standard issue infantry long arm - filling the same role as the revolutionary musket.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I just saw the mayor of D.C. lamenting the decision. He said something along the lines of, "striking down a law which has done so much to reduce gun violence..." This coming from the mayor of a city with one of the highest gun related violence rates in the country.
I guarantee if they relaxed the gun control laws even more and allowed concealed carry (like in Colorado), gun crime would plummet. Out here, there are more good guys carrying guns under their jackets than there are bad guys doing the same. And surprise surprise, everyone is real nice to each other. Denver has the lowest violent crime rate in the country for a city its size. Coincidence? Maybe. But doubtful.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A 21stCentury infantry squad could easily wipe out a RevolutionaryWar regiment in a few minutes. Heck, any half-way decent modern-day shooter with a WWI-era bolt-action hunting rifle could wipe out an 18thCentury regiment. It'd just take a bit longer to constantly change positions to keep the moving targets within view while keeping out of musket range
A nutcase with a single-shot pistol, or even a brace of single-shot pistols, can easily be overwhelmed after the first shot, or two if he has one in each hand. Be more luck than skill to even hit a moving person at more than point-blank range. A nutcase with a modern semi-automatic pistol can reload faster than an unarmed opponent beyond point-blank range can reach him.
It's disingenuous at best to claim that a modern assault rifle is equivalent to a long-barreled musket. Or that a Glock 9mm is equivalent to an 18thCentury pistol.
And the anti-Abrams argument doesn't work either. Yeah there were no one-man portable cannons back then. But there weren't rapid-fire muskets using an explosive-reaction motor to clear a fired cartridge then reload the chamber either. So what's the difference in using a different type of explosion-based motor to propel&aim a cannon instead of reloading a rifle or pistol.
[ March 09, 2007, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Given that the founders took up arms in violent rebellion against their own previous government, and the distrust of centralized government power they showed everywhere else throughout the process of founding this country, I don't buy into the "only for a militia" argument.
-o-
Resh, I'm on your side of this debate, but if you believe that crap in your last post, you live in a fantasy world. Colorado has less crime because it has less population pressure and less poverty, not because your bad guys are afraid of your guns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's disingenuous at best to claim that a modern assault rifle is equivalent to a long-barreled musket.
Good. I didn't do that. But you know that, don't you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's disingenuous at best to claim that a modern assault rifle is equivalent to a long-barreled musket. Or that a Glock 9mm is equivalent to an 18thCentury pistol.
He said they filled the same role, aspectre, not that they were equivalent. That's not disingenuous at all.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
Interestingly, the opinion actually addresses many of the arguments and ideas in this thread. I found it to be a pretty easy read. I've always thought Judge Silberman was a good writer, but this really is one of those opinions it seems was crafted for mass consumption. It's clear, it's to the point, it addresses all (ok, almost all) of the major arguments on this topic. My favorite line from the opinion:
quote: The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Given that the founders took up arms in violent rebellion against their own previous government, and the distrust of centralized government power they showed everywhere else throughout the process of founding this country, I don't buy into the "only for a militia" argument.
Read original drafts of the second amendment before its final form, and the couple other dozen right to bear arms amendments in state constitutions. Read some of the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, and some of the personal journals and writings of founding fathers at the time.
Whenever they mention the right to bear arms, it's almost always in conjunction with a militia, which they thought was both the best protection against an oppressive government, and against an armed rebellion. The thing they feared the most was a standing army, which is why a well armed, regulated citizen militia was considered the best protection agaisnt government abuses. There's no way a government can oppress you if there's an all volunteer militia that'll shoot down any order you give them that causes them to oppress their neighbors. One of them specifically said something to the effect of 'the standing army must always be a 1% of the total population of the US, so that a nation of 3 million will have an army of 30,000, against almost 3 million guns in the hands of the people.' That's the gist, I don't remember the exact quote.
A lot of it was a direct reaction to British attempts to disarm their own citizens, and Americans at the onset of the Revolutionary War. But everywhere you look when they were discussing this amendment back then, it was mated with a regulated militia, to be used in defense of the state and to protect against oppression.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: like bold and brave sir Robin, boldly turned their tail and fled
You just made my day. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:One of them specifically said something to the effect of 'the standing army must always be a 1% of the total population of the US, so that a nation of 3 million will have an army of 30,000, against almost 3 million guns in the hands of the people.'
Emphasis mine. Lest you think I'm being flippat about that, consider also that your quote assumes the vast majority of the population (and does that number include women and children?) is a part of the armed militia.
quote:A lot of it was a direct reaction to British attempts to disarm their own citizens, and Americans at the onset of the Revolutionary War. But everywhere you look when they were discussing this amendment back then, it was mated with a regulated militia, to be used in defense of the state and to protect against oppression.
More emphasis mine. This doesn't run counter to what Icarus said at all and all of your quotes really do tell a lot about what the fathers meant by a militia-- a bunch of private citizens with contemporary weapons and trained in their use... not what we now know as the national guard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Resh, I'm on your side of this debate, but if you believe that crap in your last post, you live in a fantasy world. Colorado has less crime because it has less population pressure and less poverty, not because your bad guys are afraid of your guns.
quote:If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is my basic argument for why I think the second amendment is specifically referring to an organized militia. It's not all I have, but it's all I'm really willing to spend the time to assemble for a Hatrack post. I constructed this for a different Hatrack thread, when I was specifically arguing against someone who was saying that the Second Amendment was specifically there to protect the right of the people to have weapons so they could overthrow the government whenever they felt it was necessary. But the jist of the militia argument is in there. .......... Alright, this isn’t everything, but it’s a good gist of the militia argument, with some good background docs.
I can see, by the way, how really both sides could be right. Militias were viewed at the time as the people’s way of keeping the government in check. They were against standing armies, and thought they were pathways and playthings for governments on their way to corruption and tyranny, and thought that if the power was vested in the people’s army, a militia, then the government would never be able to overcome them. So in effect, keeping the guns with the people, organized in a militia, could be considered a way for the people to ‘rebel’ if the government gets out of hand.
I reject out of hand though, that the principle of guns in the hands of all citizens is some sort of safeguard against anything. They never planned for the people to have the ability to lead an insurrection, indeed the militias the second amendment were designed to protect and create were specifically tasked to defeat any such insurrection. I think an all volunteer army, an all volunteer national guard (which is a modern militia) is a damned good defense against our government taking extreme action (to say nothing of natural democratic safeguards). Granted I don’t think home state loyalty is what it was in the 1860’s, there’s very few who would say their loyalty to Virginia is higher than that to the US, though I suppose it would have to depend on the circumstances. The militias themselves, that are mentioned in the multiple state constitutions and in the previous versions of the second amendment were there specifically for defense of the states (individually and together), against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections. They weren’t created as an instrument of insurrection, but as a prevention and defense mechanism.
Anyway, the history of the amendment can be traced back to England. The English Declaration of Rights gave Protestants (no dice for Catholics and Jews) the right to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm At the early stages of the Revolution, the British tried to take away the guns of the militias in an effort to quash the ability of the Americans to stage a real revolt, really it was an attempt to take away the option at all, since the people being deprived of guns weren’t rebelling yet. They tried to cite the above stated passage, and parts of Common Law as reason to keep their weapons, that they be allowed to have them for hunting, self defense, militia obligations, etc.
Their real fear was a standing army. Standing armies were to them the ultimate tool that a president (or king) could use to revoke the civil rights and liberties of the people. Jefferson, writing to John Adams while they were in Europe (Paris and London respectively) said of the Presidency: “He may be reelected from four years to for years for life…Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union…he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him.” That’s from The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson & Abigail & John Adams[/b] edited by Lester J. Cappon. At the start of the United States of America (post Articles of Confederation), there were less than a 1,000 men in the Federal Army, from [i]John Adams by David McCullough. They believed that militias were the best form of defense against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections, such as the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion, though it’s also true that Shay’s Rebellion is a probably the best represenatation of why the looser Articles of Confederation weren’t strong enough to deal with threats to the nation.
On the subject of militias vs. a standing army, James Madison had this to say (From Federalist No. 46).
quote: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
The ongoing French Revolution scared the hell out of a lot of people too. John Adams, while remarking on the debate around the second amendment had this to say:
quote: The State is in critical Circumstances, and have been brought into them by the Heat and Impatience of the People. If nothing will bring them to consideration, I fear they will suffer
His fear was that if the people were armed, and disastified with their government, they’d take up arms and let mob rule supplant the government, to the ruin of all. Something along the lines of the decline that followed in Russia after the Revolution killed off the Romanoffs. Given what was happening in France at the time, I don’t think anyone could really brush off his fears.
Alexander Hamilton, speaking on the subject of militias in Federalist No. 29 had this to say:
quote: The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy … This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
What he and the others are saying, is similar to what others on this board were saying, that an armed populace is the an ultimate defense against a tyrannical government, but that isn’t the same thing as saying the second amendment was forged for the purpose of the people retaining the right to insurrection at will. On the contrary, it was designed so that standing armies, being the most obvious threat to liberty and civil rights at the time, would be rendered unnecessary except in times of war, and that militias would always outnumber them and could always overpower them at any given time, for the defense of liberty, and of the state, against domestic insurrection and foreign invasion. I think there is an emphasis on the collective rights of people to keep and bear arms, as a militia, rather than the individual right of a person to.
If you look at earlier versions of the second amendment, the material being played with had entirely to do with military service to a militia:
quote: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The words “necessary to” were added before the final version, “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.” was submitted to the states for approval. I think it should be especially noted, that a measure was put forth in the Senate and the House to add the words “for the common defense” after “bear arms” but was defeated narrowly. Much of this had to do with compromise, but clearly the thought of the time was that the defense of the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic was best held in the hands of a regulated militia. h t t p://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=74&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj001133))%230010075&linkText=1 (I had to break up the link, as Hatrack doesn't allow urls with ( ) in them.)
Forty-Four states have a right to bear arms in their state Constitutions, around 28 of those states specifically include the provision that the right to bear arms is for the common defense of the state, or similar language. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#T11
quote: Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence … Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) … Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Several states sent requests for a Bill of Rights, and that they include the following amendments:
quote: New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion. … Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. … New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power. … North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms." … Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
The North Carolina Declaration of Rights (12/18/1776) states:
quote:“The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Another interesting conversation to be had, as an aside from this one would be the Militia Act of 1903. It was the act that turned what had once been citizen militias into what is today the National Guard, which functions as a highly trained offshoot of the regular army. That did away with citizen militias, which theoretically I think anyway, is a violation of the spirit of the second amendmenta and the Constitution, but apparently doesn’t violate the letter of the law. I’m more a fan of something akin to the Swiss system, which is I think what the framers intended us to have, a well regulated, trained force of citizens who could be called up to defend the state with a medium amount of training, which would also serve as a bulwark against a standing army’s threat to personal liberty.
Early American common usage of “to bear arms” had a decidedly military bent to it.
quote:“The Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other."
There’s still a lot more to look at. But this post is already monstrous, considering I assembled it more as a term paper for a history class than a typical post (and spent more time than I’ve EVER spent crafting a post before). In closing, I submit the following site again, even though I already cited it once, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2 for further reading. It has a wealth of knowledge on the subject, from other state constitutions to a lot of supreme court decisions and opinions on the subject as well as Constitutional commentaries and analysis from notable scholars of different times. ..........
The quote that I paraphrased before is up there, and I apologize for badly, BADLY mangling it, my memory apparently didn't do it justice, though I think it captured the main point of the statement about militia versus a small standing army.
And though I say above that the National Guard is basically a present day militia, I don't agree with that now. Even if the National Guard is made up of "citizen-soldiers" the emphasis there should be on soldier. They get part time training, but they are still soldiers, subject to the same sorts of rules and training that the regular army is, and they are used just like regular army units these days as well. Militias should be citizens first, and act with force only when necessary to protect their homes.
And I see a lot of emphasis both from the court, and in this thread on the words "citizen" and "the people." I don't think that in any way rules out militias. Militias are made up of citizens and people, as a whole, and is totally different from the standing army. Militia could really be used interchangeably with "armed citizenry" or "armed people." I think for the purposes of the framers intent, "the people" in the second amendment refers to the militia.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Lyrhawn, those were two very interesting posts, thank you. However, I don't feel that they really contradicted me. They certainly did flesh out my background understanding, though.
By the way, are you familiar with tinyurl? It's great for those long urls that Hatrack and other boards can't parse, and it also keeps them from stretching the page to be wider than a browser window. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did I break the thread? it looks fine to me but if it's messed up on your window let me know and I'll fix the links.
And I've seen tinyurl used before, but I'll admit, I wasn't really sure how it worked. Thanks Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Did I break the thread? it looks fine to me but if it's messed up on your window let me know and I'll fix the links.
And I've seen tinyurl used before, but I'll admit, I wasn't really sure how it worked. Thanks
Those of us running a resolution 1024 pixels or narrower have to side-scroll.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep, it's broke.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The D.C. Circuit declined to review the panel decision en banc, so D.C. has decided to petition for cert. They have asked to extend the deadline to September 5, which means it's unlikely the case will be decided next term if the Supreme Court grants cert.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This sounds like its only a handgun ban, why do people NEED handguns for self defense? There are other weapons available to them that they can't conceal outside their homes very well.
Also why do we appeal to the original drafters interpretation of the right to bear arms? Did they consider bans on flintlock side arms? Weapons today although they accomplish the same function as all weapons are still radically different then weapons used in the 1780s, why isn't the right to bear arms then considered in terms of what we need now? I know its not agreed upon but then again the right to bear arms was not agreed on when the nation was formed. Its not as if the founding fathers had the power of truth and knew everything this country needed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Its not as if the founding fathers had the power of truth and knew everything this country needed.
It's not a question of the founders having "truth," but rather abiding by the core framework of our government, which includes within it the prescribed methods for changing it.
quote:Weapons today although they accomplish the same function as all weapons are still radically different then weapons used in the 1780s, why isn't the right to bear arms then considered in terms of what we need now?
Because arms can be viewed either by their capability or by their role in combat/defense. Should the First Amendment not apply to the Internet because the Internet wasn't around when Madison drafted the Bill of Rights?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't mean throw the ammendments out. I mean evaluate them in terms of how thing exist now. I understand the judicial branch has to work with the constitution we HAVE not the one we SHOULD have.
But legislators get squemish when it comes to the bill of rights, and I am not sure that's a good thing entirely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you'll pardon a little bit of premature discussion of the potential consequences...
DC banned handguns, and the claim made by the city in the filing is that banning handguns is, essentially, in the best interests of the "state." That by banning handguns (but allowing citizens to own other arms) the citizenry is protected.
The ban was overturned on the grounds that the right to bear arms is an individual right. (Hadn't noticed this until reading dagonee's link, but apparently the 5th district court has upheld a gun ban while declaring gun ownership an individual right).
If the gun ban is overturned by the SC on the grounds that gun ownership is an individual right, and therefore cannot be abridged in this way, even if there is a compelling state interest in doing so, (unlikely a decision would come down this way, but I find this interesting), then all sorts of SC decisions that rest upon a compelling state interest that over-rides Bill of Rights protections would be dramatically undermined.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is interesting to think about how they would work this into the existing framework of rights. I agree it's unlikely they will not allow restricting it at all, even in the face of a compelling state interest.
When a right is subject to strict scrutiny, there's a three part test toward restrictions that implicate that right:
1) The restriction must serve a compelling state interest. 2) The restriction must be narrowly tailored - essentially, the restriction must not be over-inclusive (affecting exercises of the rights that do not implicate the compelling state interest) or under-inclusive (leaves essential aspects of the compelling state interest out). 3) The restriction must be the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling state interest.
Based on memory (I read the briefs and decisions months ago), I believe that the interest of reducing firearm deaths has been conceded to be compelling. It is other two factors that are at issue in this case.
If the DC opinion is upheld in substantially the same form, DC will have little guidance in what types of regulations it can impose on handguns - look for years and years of litigation in the circuits.
It's very possible that if SCOTUS finds an individual right to bear arms, the right will be deemed to be one subject to a lesser standard of scrutiny - possibly based on the words "well-regulated." One possibility would be finding the right subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires a finding that the regulation is closely related to an important government interest. In essence, this eases the first two prongs of the strict scrutiny test and eliminates the third.
(Let me know if I need to unpack that more - I know it's a broad summary.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Now that the DC Court has decided that restrictions are unconstitutional, some squad weapons to consider for purchase. My, what exciting tales we'll have to tell of our vacations. Not to mention how much more FUN our Senators and Representatives will have traveling between home and the RonaldReaganWashingtonNationalAirport.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now that the DC Court has decided that restrictions are unconstitutional
The DC Circuit decided no such thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is very facinating stuff. I'm sure my Poly/Law class will be discussing this next Monday, probably Wednesday as well.
I'm glad SCOTUS is taking this up, it's an issue that needs looking into.
Tough to imagine how they will decide on this issue.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't think it's that tough... I expect a 5-4, maybe 6-3, decision, with a couple of different dissents, and at least one concurring opinion, on top of the ruling opinion.
My only caveat is that they try their darnedest to get as close to an unanimous decision as possible, to avoid complications that might arise from the above, politically. Still might be an 8-1 in that case too.
I don't know how I feel about it, but that's my expectation.
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am all for allowing the constitutionally guaranteed right for all individuals to own any weapon they wish.
Ammunition, however, should be outlawed.
After all, the Constitution says you have the right to "Keep and bear arms." It doesn't say a thing about the right to load or fire them.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
The Bill of Rights in general established a Fourth Branch of Government -- The People.
In the system of checks and balances, the People must have real power in order to implement those checks and balances.
As such, the government in an effort to re-enforce its own power and to limit the power of the people, is forbidden from restricting the right of freedom of the press, free expression, free assembly, and it further prevented from restricting the ability of the people to be sufficiently armed that should the need arise, they are capable of forming Constitutional Militias.
I say 'Constitutional' militias, because in the USA, we, the people, have the right of subversion and armed revolution, but only for the single purpose of defending and enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We do not have the right of general subversion or general revolution.
"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 read as, 'the ability to form 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 People, as a branch of government, have the legal right to have arms of all types, and by extension, the ability to form militias in order to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
That's why our country works, because the people have very real and threatening power over the government. As soon as the people relinquish that power, there is nothing to restrain the government. And unrestrained government combined with powerless people is the first step to tyranny.
Believe it or not.
Steve/BlueWizard
[ November 20, 2007, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
BlueWizard: At the risk of just rehashing previously made gun arguments, can you see the flaw in simply allowing citizens to have arms of all kinds without any sort of controls? Or even if we allow public formed militia's, do we allow militia's to train with air force jets? What about army tanks?
But let's limit this to JUST hand guns, let's say the government became hostile towards the people and tried to use it's military might to beat us into submission.
What good would a handgun be? It would not be effective against a standard army grunt with Kevlar and an assault rifle, much less a mortar, much less a Humvee, much less an artillery placement, much less a helicopter, much less a predator, much less a jet, much less a bomber armed with a nuclear warhead.
To me handguns are good for two things. Keeping the fact I am armed concealed, and having an advantage over an unarmed opponent in a conflict situation where my opposition is at close to medium range. If I need to defend myself I can have a rifle or a shotgun at home. If I need to go hunting handguns are hardly as good as rifle. If I insist on the handicap of a handgun I could rent a handgun, use it and return it.
The vast majority of gun crime involves a handgun. Since handguns neither protect us against the government, nor are they the only means of protecting somebody in the home, it is reasonable the handguns be banned from use until further notice.
Would you be willing to discuss with me the drawbacks to eliminating JUST handguns from the general populace?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
In Theory, I believe that the citizens have the right to be as armed as the government is. So, yes, bazookas, rocket launchers, machine guns, tanks, etc....
On the other hand, I can see the social draw backs to allowing such extreme weapons. Who is to say various factions of the mafia or drug gangs can't form their own armies to fight one another with the citizens caught in the cross fire?
In my mind the type of gun is irrelevant, and by that I mean I see no need to absolutely restrict citizens from having handguns. Other more powerful guns are a bit trickier, but I do defend that absolute right of some citizens to have heavy arms.
So, I admit that we walk a fine line regarding personal guns in a lawful society. At what point does owning a gun contribute to a lawful society, and at what point does in become the impetus for a lawless society.
I think the balancing point always tip in the favor of citizens. Citizens must always be sufficiently arm or able to be armed that they are a constant and real threat to anyone seeking to take over the government and the country by subverting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
George Bush has come close to this. He has passed laws that I clearly feel are an unnecessary infringement on the Bill of Rights and on the standard checks and balances of the Constitution. However, his actions haven't quite gone so far as to demand citizen armed rebellion. We have to give the system time to work these things out, but we must also be on guard to assure that the System is truly trying to work out the Constitutionality of various governmental actions.
When it become clear that all branches of government are ignoring the Constitution in favor of some self-serving political agenda, then the citizens must us all other forms of countermeasure to bring this to a halt. Truly the citizens are the last bastion of freedom. When they relent, freedom is lost. While they resist by whatever means necessary, the hope for Liberty remains.
At some point, when elections, and protest, and rallies have failed, the last and final resort is armed rebellion against a corrupt government.
Keep in mind that when I talk of arm rebellion, I am speaking of one and only one valid context, and that is to preserve, defend, and enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Arm Rebellion for any other reason is treason, and must be resisted by all necessary force by the citizens.
Ultimately, it is not the government that we must depend on to insure continued freedom; it is the will and the force of a free people who will accept nothing less. Complacency of the people, is the gateway to tyranny.
As to the definition of 'Arms', Arms, which is short for Armaments, does NOT mean muskets or rifles, it mean weapons. Further it means weapons of the day; not that day, but THIS day; modern weapons.
If the citizens of the Colonies had not already been sufficiently armed, they would not have been able to resist the armies of the King. Note that the citizens of the Colonies had arms roughly equivalent to the army they were opposing.
That applies to modern times, citizen must have access to arms roughly equivalent to the force they are opposing.
This is about forming citizen armies, and armies in modern times are not equipped with muskets.
The Second Amendment is not about forming Militias, it is about the right of the individual to be sufficiently armed that should the need arise, they can form the necessary militias.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I think the balancing point always tip in the favor of citizens. Citizens must always be sufficiently arm or able to be armed that they are a constant and real threat to anyone seeking to take over the government and the country by subverting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
OK but we can do that without handguns, I've already said they do little to nothing to level the playing field for this sort of conflict. Can we really not say what citizens can own in this instance without tipping the balance of power in favor of the government? Look at what the Iraqis are using against our government, they are not using handguns, they are using rifles, IEDs, RPGs.
This to me is not a question of erring on the side of the citizenry, it's a question of trading what seriously exacerbates violent crime for something that does us no real good anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What good would a handgun be? It would not be effective against a standard army grunt with Kevlar and an assault rifle, much less a mortar, much less a Humvee, much less an artillery placement, much less a helicopter, much less a predator, much less a jet, much less a bomber armed with a nuclear warhead.
If there is anything we learned from Hong Kong films, one handgun would be no good. You would need *two handguns* to take on any of those up to the jet. For that, you would need Kung Fu...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What good would a handgun be? It would not be effective against a standard army grunt with Kevlar and an assault rifle, much less a mortar, much less a Humvee, much less an artillery placement, much less a helicopter, much less a predator, much less a jet, much less a bomber armed with a nuclear warhead.
If there is anything we learned from Hong Kong films, one handgun would be no good. You would need *two handguns* to take on any of those up to the jet. For that, you would need Kung Fu...
Nah John McLain in Live Free or Die Hard took out a jet without any of those things.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, but you're no John McLain and I'm not Jackie Chan who could take out a jet and provide family-friendly entertainment at the same time without breaking a sweat.
Clearly, the two handguns and slow-motion juice would be more reliable for mere mortals like us Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The Second Amendment is not about forming Militias, it is about the right of the individual to be sufficiently armed that should the need arise, they can form the necessary militias.
I couldn't disagree more. See my megapost on the previous page for why. Frankly I think the Militia Act that was passed in the early 20th century, I don't remember when exactly, but it turned Militias into National Guard units, was unconstitutional, and we should have something closer to what Switzerland has. We should all have weapons if we want them, and we should be trained, ordered, and organized into local militias.
I'd be okay with amending the second amendment to make it more clear and more relevent to the 21st century, but this country would NEVER be able to agree on what it should say.
BB -
McLain didn't take out a jet, the jet took out itself by stupidly flying under falling debris. At best, McLain is really, really good at dodging. I'd be curious to see what Legolas could have done with a Glock though.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Another use for hand guns - When hiking in the high mountains in Grizzly country a 44 or 45 is much nicer to carry around than a 7mm mag or .358 rifle.
As far as the militia argument, we have no militia and the national guard may as well be a standing army at this point as much as they are activated. I know they/we are supposedly under state control but who holds the purse strings? The federal government. And each state is only given certain units that would hardly constitute a complete force. For instance, my unit has a system that is carried on a C-130 to operate. But guess what? Our state doesn't have any C-130s so we have to have the cooperation of other states to do our mission. And to get that you have to go to the National Guard Bureau in DC to coordinate. I would venture to say that without federal government cooperation the national guard couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper sack. And I say that in the nicest way.
Sergeant
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
First and foremost, the National Guard is in no way, shape, or form a 'citizen militia'. In times of peace the Guard takes it's orders from the State GOVERNMENT, and it times of war or conflict, they take their orders from the Federal GOVERNMENT. How can you call them the bastion of free citizens when they are under the command of the very government that is likely the source of the oppression they should be fighting against.
Further, an Organized Militia is irrelevant if the citizens do not have the capability to organize said militia. The problem with an Organized Militia is that they probably keep all their arms in a single location, like the National Guard. That makes them very easy to neutralize in times of national conflict. Only when arms are kept individually can this flaw be overcome.
The only way to be able to form an Organized Militia, is if each citizen has the right to have the arms necessary to for that militia. Otherwise the whole concept of militia is nothing but a token concept to placate the masses. The right to form an Organized Militia is meaningless if you are not also granted the means to form that militia.
Further, standing militias are generally not necessary. But the ability of the citizens to form a militia on a moments notice is VERY VERY necessary. Without the ability to form, the concept is meaningless.
That is like saying, you have the right to drive a car, but you don't have the right to beg, borrow, own, posses, or use said car. The right is nothing, if the same law that grants the right circumvents the ability to carry out that right.
There are true citizen militias, most often found in Montana and Idaho. There politics are usually a little more radical than mine, but they exist under a solemn and immutable right.
Personally, I think there should be more militia, I think every county in the USA should have its own militia hell bend on defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against all enemies foreign and more importantly domestic.
Again, I say that any insurrection, and rebellion is limited in scope by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can NOT exist and can NOT act to promote any agenda, (social, religious, or political) other that a fair and reasonable interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
When citizens fear government, the door is open to Tyranny. When government fears its citizens, the door is open to liberty.
In conclusion, the ability the HAVE a militia is irrelevant if we are not also granted the means to form the militia.
As to the subject of specifically handguns. I see not reason to eliminate them. We are talking here in the context of Militia, handguns are fair and valid weapons, and therefore must not be restricted.
If they are restricted, then neither the government or the citizens should be allowed to have them. Let the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, and the police carry rifles and shotguns.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying there shouldn't be some limitations on handguns. Way too many people see a few movie and suddenly think they are experts on guns. Most of those people will be dying very soon I can assure you, though how many they will take with them I can't be sure.
Guns are dangerous, we don't let children play with them. Neither should we let idiot adults totally lacking in common sense play with them. So, I'm not necessarily for anyone and everyone owning a handgun, but I see nothing to warrant an absolute restriction on them.
Further, those who do support an absolute ban on handgun are ignoring reality. These people are usually people who have no experience with shooting sports at all, and have no idea or concept of the very large segment of the population, old and young, who enjoy harmless recreation shooting sports.
Australia has so severely restricted guns, that Olympic Shooting Sports athletes have to leave the country to train. That in my view is nothing but political correctness run amok.
An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, and if you look at rounds fire rather than guns, many many many more round are fired in non-crime related activities than are used in crime. Why should millions of law abiding citizens be punished, for the crimes of a very very few? That makes no sense to me.
Once again, and no offense, but those who advocate the elimination or restriction on handguns have little or no real awareness of handgun in our society. Usually, they are uninformed politically correct fanatics trying to institute a knee-jerk restriction on things they know nothing about. Not all, but most.
And that's the way it is.
Steve/bboyminn
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ... Way too many people see a few movie and suddenly think they are experts on guns. Most of those people will be dying very soon I can assure you, though how many they will take with them I can't be sure.
Most? Elaborate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:McLain didn't take out a jet, the jet took out itself by stupidly flying under falling debris. At best, McLain is really, really good at dodging. I'd be curious to see what Legolas could have done with a Glock though.
He fell on the jet and distracted the pilot who let the debris fall into his engine. But point taken.
Blue Wizard:
quote:Guns are dangerous, we don't let children play with them. Neither should we let idiot adults totally lacking in common sense play with them. So, I'm not necessarily for anyone and everyone owning a handgun, but I see nothing to warrant an absolute restriction on them.
Who is arguing this? I said for hunting purposes people could rent them, I would still be in favor of people being able to own them and go to a gun range and fire them, but they would not have them at an arm's reach.
quote:Australia has so severely restricted guns, that Olympic Shooting Sports athletes have to leave the country to train. That in my view is nothing but political correctness run amok.
OK so maybe the correct path is a step in the other direction? Hong Kong does not allow its' citizens to own guns of any kind, but the police have them, and their instance of violent crime is one of the lowest in the world. Now of course there are other cultural considerations to take into account when looking at Japan and Hong Kong's low instances of violent crime, but a lack of handguns is DEFINATELY a part of the equation. The UK allows people to own rifles and shotguns and keep them at home but they are not allowed to own handguns or take their guns out in public. Their crime rate is also lower then ours by a significant degree, and most of their policeman are not even armed.
quote:An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, and if you look at rounds fire rather than guns, many many many more round are fired in non-crime related activities than are used in crime. Why should millions of law abiding citizens be punished, for the crimes of a very very few? That makes no sense to me.
I don't know how you think guns a rarely involved in crime. I said violent crime. Obviously guns are not involved in things like, embezzlement, fraud, laundering, perjury, arson, lewd conduct. They are not always involved in things like, larceny, assault, battery, even murder. But it's flat out wrong to say that hand guns are not involved in MOST of all cases of violent crime. The following is from the department of justice,
"In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm."
Now the VAST majority of firearms used are handguns. Yes people occasionally use shotguns, and rifles in crime, but not NEARLY as often as handguns.
As for millions of law abiding citizens being punished, who said that? Since when was a law restricting the owning of a handgun a punishment? Are they going to shoot you with your own gun when you hand it in? When the government says only people 16 and older can drive a car is that a punishment to everyone younger?
Handguns protect hardly anybody, the instances where a private citizen with a gun have helped prevent crime is laughably low. The requirements to own a gun are ridiculously easy. Even most people who are familiar with guns don't know how to properly use them in a criminal situation. How many people do you know have successfully prevented a crime by using their handgun properly?
No offense intended to you but most arguments that we should not band handguns hinge on the language of the constitution, which is stupid as we are supposed to modify it as our needs see fit. It's ridiculous to me that vague wording crafted over 200 years ago is to be adhered to more then our common sense of today. A handgun does not protect the citizenry from it's government, the 2nd amendment protects the citizens by allowing them to form private militias that can be summoned should the government turn against the people, or a foreign country invade our shores.
Again if either of those things happen you will NOT see handguns playing much of a role in the conflict, ask the Iraqi's who are fighting us right now.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
The whole militia argument is only going to be valid if the Court takes a collective rights view on things. In my view, if they take the collective rights view they essentially are saying there is no second amendment as there are no militias and not likely to be any militias. Though if they do take that view and we try to organize a DC militia will they be able to then stop us?
Black Blade - I don't think that is the kind of punishment that was implied. He is talking about being deprived of their property and right to own said property.
As for the statistic in the UK, you conviently left one out. The instances of "hot" burglaries (when the residents are home during the burglary) is much higher in those countries where gun ownership is severly restricted.
Sergeant
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:As for the statistic in the UK, you conviently left one out. The instances of "hot" burglaries (when the residents are home during the burglary) is much higher in those countries where gun ownership is severly restricted.
Not so much convenient as constrained by time, my wife said she will be back in an hour and she said she expected the dishes done by the time she gets back, which will be in about 20 minutes so I need to get to it.
I don't see how that follows, do you by any chance know any explanation WHY in the UK people choose to rob people while they are at home when gun registration is limited?
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
The implication to be made is there is less risk. I don't think that they intentionally plan to rob them when they are home, simply that it isn't as big a factor in their casing of homes as it would be say in Texas or Wyoming where no burglar in his right mind would enter a home which he knows is occupied.
Sergeant
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: The implication to be made is there is less risk. I don't think that they intentionally plan to rob them when they are home, simply that it isn't as big a factor in their casing of homes as it would be say in Texas or Wyoming where no burglar in his right mind would enter a home which he knows is occupied.
Sergeant
I don't quite follow. In the UK they can still own shotguns and rifles and keep them at home. They are also authorized to use them in self defense, so I am not sure why there is a greater risk of being robbed while at home. Or is it because most people choose not to have guns and so robbers are emboldened?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BlueWizard -
I think you agree with me, but you seem to either disagree with yourself, or not understand how historically militias work. Forming them AFTER you need them puts you at an extreme disadvantage from the group you are trying to fight. The major point of wanting independent citizen militias back then was that they needed to be organized and so that the locals could elect their own officers and not have them chosen for them.
Guns weren't stored at central armories, they were stored in homes, and people generally grew up knowing how to use firearms and they sometimes would get together, maybe once a month or so, for general training and every now and then to elect officers. Forming a militia AFTER you need it means you have no idea what the hell is going on, especially in today's day and age, and you have no training, no ordering, no idea of who knows what, and while you figure all that out, you're being attacked. You need to be able to form and assemble BEFORE the threat gets to you, not while you're being attacked.
I don't think you get how militias traditionally work, but I agree with you wholeheartedly that the National Guard is not a militia. But again, I think you're sort of wrong about adherence to the government. State militias were still under the control of the local state government, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was that way again if the Fed ever attacked their own citizens. If the state ends up being the enemy, then they'll probably stop listening, but you seem to not be allowing for real life circumstances rather than what it says on paper.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
BlackBlade said:
I said for hunting purposes people could rent them,...
I'm sorry but this is irrational, if you really think the American people would agree to 'renting' their guns on an as-needed basis, you are somewhat delusional. But on the other hand, I can go to a local combination gun shop/range and rent to-use various guns. I'm not saying 'renting' is a problem, but I am absolutely saying the denial of ownership is a huge problem.
So, I don't so much object to the concept of renting, I object to the idea that the American people will accept this as their only access to guns.
... I would still be in favor of people being able to own them and go to a gun range and fire them, but they would not have them at an arm's reach.
What is the point of owning something if you don't have control of it? Perhaps, your car should be stored in a central government garage, and you have to travel to the garage everyday to pick up your car to go to work. I doubt that you see it, but this is roughly the same as the logic you are proposing.
By the way, do YOU have any experience with guns or various shooting sports??
...Hong Kong does not allow its' citizens to own guns of any kind...
Oh please tell me you are not going to hold Hong Kong up as an ideal society. The Chinese government is unbelievably oppressive and tyrannical. The day the USA models itself after China is the day I join the militia.
BlueWizard said (that's me):
An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, ...
To which BlackBlade replied:
I don't know how you think guns a rarely involved in crime. I said violent crime. Obviously guns are not involved in things like, embezzlement, fraud, laundering, perjury, ...
Your response was so far off as to make no sense at all. Obviously you didn't read what I said.
There are many many many handguns in the USA, but only a very very very small portion of them are ever involved in crime. That's true. A vast majority of guns are owned by safe responsible people who never even consider committing a crime. You want to punish them, and deprive them of their rights to give yourself a false sense of security. But I am here to tell you, that if you give up your rights, you will have neither safety nor security.
Crimes like parking tickets and fraud are completely irrelevant to the discussion as they do not represent 'gun' crimes. The point is that millions of guns exist, but only a few dozen of them are involved in crimes(as a point of illustration). It is an attempt to put gun crimes in perspective for someone who has no knowledge of the extent of existing guns in our society.
Also, keep in mind that a substantial percent of those guns involved in crime, were NOT purchase legally. So, laws restricting them would have no effect on their existence in the hands of criminals.
As far as Britain, have you read the news from Britain lately?? I think not. How about a 11 year old boy who was walking home from soccer practice who was gunned down in the street for no reason. The kid who did it, with a handgun by the way, rode off on a bicycle. Restricting handgun in England didn't save his life.
How about the girls we were seen brandishing a gun in a Shopping Mall, who were caught on video tape. Store security did nothing, the police took their time getting there, and they still haven't been caught despite crystal clear video images of them.
The same thing happened in a train station, two boys were playing with a gun in the station, and were caught on video, but again, security did nothing and the police took their time getting there, and again, despite clear video tape no news of them being caught.
Yeah, that gun control thing is really working out nicely for them.
And by the way, Canada probably has more guns than anyone except the USA, and they have a very secure society and very little gun crime. It's not the presence of guns that causes death, it's idiots who believe that crime is a glamours and profitable pursuit. Idiots who buy into the whole gansta mentality.
BlackBlade also said'
It's ridiculous to me that vague wording crafted over 200 years ago is to be adhered to more then our common sense of today.
That document set up a system of checks and balances that insure that government stays in the hands of the people. The Constitutional Founders thought long and hard for many years before they added the Bill of Rights.
They had already set up a government that had a system of checks and balances built in. But they knew that wasn't enough. They knew that the only way to protect citizens from government was to give citizens immutable power, and from that idea they created the Bill of Rights. A set of rights that enumerates every way that government has historically and traditionally oppressed it's citizens, and denied government the ability to engage in those oppressive actions.
We see these forms of oppression and denial of rights going on in the world today. The first thing that happens in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, and many many other countries is to deny freedom of the press, to deny freedom of speech and assembly, and to deny citizens the means to protect and defend themselves.
If you can look at the world today and not see the oppression caused by the absents of the Bill of Rights, if you can't see that today as much or more than ever, the need for the complete and full Bill of Rights empowering citizens, then I am sorry to say that you are living in a fairytale land.
Oppression and tyranny are not vague visions from a distant past, they exist in the world today, and they exist in places that have denied their citizens the very rights we are so eager to throw away.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
If you have a US firearms license is there some obligation for you to join a militia should one be formed? How is/would this be controlled?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Oh please tell me you are not going to hold Hong Kong up as an ideal society. The Chinese government is unbelievably oppressive and tyrannical. The day the USA models itself after China is the day I join the militia.
Thats a bizarre piece of logic. Hong Kong's gun control laws were instituted *before* the 1997 handover by the British government, not after.
Additionally, if anything integration with the rest of China increased crime related activities due to increased arms smuggling with *more lax* controls on arms smuggling. http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/08/05/crim.php
quote: The crime wave has also raised concerns that closer integration with the mainland before Hong Kong's return to China in 1997 is leading to a rapid increase in lawlessness.
What most disturbs the authorities, politicians and, apparently, the public about the robberies is the increasing use of guns and hand grenades, which the police report are coming across the border from mainland China. ... Hong Kong has strict gun control laws, and until recently the number of criminals using firearms was small. But as economic ties between the colony and neighboring Guangdong Province have grown in recent years, weapons have begun to come across the border.
This is in 1991, *before* the handover.
Or is your logic that any ideas that while being foreign in origin, automatically become evil after the Chinese take it over. If that is true, you'd better not use gasoline-powered cars or electricity either, I hear the Chinese government uses those too.
quote: And by the way, Canada probably has more guns than anyone except the USA, and they have a very secure society and very little gun crime. It's not the presence of guns that causes death, it's idiots who believe that crime is a glamours and profitable pursuit. Idiots who buy into the whole gansta mentality.
As a proud Canadian, I'd like to say thank you for such a glowing review. However, the reality is quite a bit different. Canada is not safer because of an unprovable lower level of "ganstas".
A) Canada does not have more guns than anyone but the US, we are actually quite average in that regard, thanks
quote: In a study of gun ownership in selected western nations, Canada's level of gun ownership (21.8%) was similar to France's (23.8%) and Sweden's (16.6%). Of the eight countries compared, firearm ownership was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in the Netherlands (2%).
If you're going to hold up Canada's gun policies as a model, maybe you should consider that you're proposing halving the United State's level of gun ownership to below that of *France.* I'm not sure thats exactly what you intended
B) The vast majority of guns in Canada are actually long guns (households with long guns 95.1%) rather than the handguns (households with handguns at 12%). Thus Canada is not a great example to point at to refute BlackBlade's assertion that a society should ban handguns rather than long guns. Compared to the US Canada has very few handguns *already*
Please, argue all you want about gun ownership in the context of the Unites States. However, please take a bit more care before dragging the rest of us in with false portrayals in order to back up your case.
[ November 22, 2007, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blue Wizard:
quote:I'm sorry but this is irrational, if you really think the American people would agree to 'renting' their guns on an as-needed basis, you are somewhat delusional. But on the other hand, I can go to a local combination gun shop/range and rent to-use various guns. I'm not saying 'renting' is a problem, but I am absolutely saying the denial of ownership is a huge problem.
Look you keep saying GUNS when *I* am saying handguns. It sounds like you are trying to pigeonhole me into some sort of, "ALL GUNS = BAD" group.
quote:By the way, do YOU have any experience with guns or various shooting sports??
I've handled rifles and fired them, but beyond that no. Could you elucidate why that matters? Do you have any experience with firing a handgun at a person? Have you had to defend your home from an attacker armed with a gun? If neither are experiences you have had then your question is irrelevant to both of us.
quote:Your response was so far off as to make no sense at all. Obviously you didn't read what I said.
You said that guns are not involved in a majority if crimes, and I was saying, "Well duh if we use ALL crime instead of just VIOLENT crime of course that's true." Non violent crime does not get people killed, people not getting killed is what I am going for.
quote:Also, keep in mind that a substantial percent of those guns involved in crime, were NOT purchase legally. So, laws restricting them would have no effect on their existence in the hands of criminals.
This just isn't true, it would definitely be VERY hard and take ALOT of time to get each and every handgun out of the hands of Americans. There would be alot of opposition, but I am not debating on how we would do it, only that it's a good idea in the first place. The only reason it would be hard to remove handguns from the picture is that gun owners would refuse to observe the law and retain them, that is THEIR fault not the legislation's.
quote:As far as Britain, have you read the news from Britain lately?? I think not. How about a 11 year old boy who was walking home from soccer practice who was gunned down in the street for no reason. The kid who did it, with a handgun by the way, rode off on a bicycle. Restricting handgun in England didn't save his life.
How about the girls we were seen brandishing a gun in a Shopping Mall, who were caught on video tape. Store security did nothing, the police took their time getting there, and they still haven't been caught despite crystal clear video images of them.
Yes yes your two stories totally disprove the idea that banning handguns lowers violent crime at all.
quote:And by the way, Canada probably has more guns than anyone except the USA, and they have a very secure society and very little gun crime. It's not the presence of guns that causes death, it's idiots who believe that crime is a glamours and profitable pursuit. Idiots who buy into the whole gansta mentality.
As Mucus already said they have long arms at home and very few handguns which would be a situation I would like to aim for.
And you seem to have edited out your statements about Hong Kong which Mucus in large degree already addressed. I grew up in Hong Kong, and crime is VERY low there, not because the government is oppressive either. A murder in Hong Kong was so big it was often front page news and a feature of the evening news. It would be a sound byte here in Utah.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
BlackBlade replied:
You said that guns are not involved in a majority if crimes, and I was saying, "Well duh if we use ALL crime instead of just VIOLENT crime of course that's true." Non violent crime does not get people killed, people not getting killed is what I am going for.
No, that's not what I said, YOU are talking about crime, though I can see no reason to bring in non-gun crimes into a discussion of guns and crime. I, on the other hand, am talking about GUNS.
YOU are saying handguns are not involved in a majority of crimes.
I AM SAYING, a majority of handguns are not involved in crime.
Surely you must be able to see the difference?
It's about the percentage of available guns that are involved in crime, of all the gun/handguns that exist in the USA, only a small portion of them are involved in crime and an even smaller percentage of ammunition is involved in crime.
With excessively regulating handguns, you are denying the rights of many many safe law-abiding people, in hopes of controlling a very small percent of the population who are hell bend on not obeying the law. If they are hell bent on not obeying the law, what makes you think they will obey the restriction or ban on handguns?
It is absolutely essence of the classic phrase, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
That was the point of my British examples, here we have a country the bans handguns, yet we see KIDS in the street WITH Handguns. So, again, just how well is that ban working? Not so well I think.
As to the British and Hong Kong, they were an occupying force, they didn't want a citizenry that they couldn't control or one that could oppose them. They were acting in the oppressive and tyrannical way that the Bill of Rights is determine to prevent. If the citizens could have rebelled, if they had the means, they likely would have. It is unprecedented for one country to occupy another for as long as Britain controlled Hong Kong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:No, that's not what I said, YOU are talking about crime, though I can see no reason to bring in non-gun crimes into a discussion of guns and crime. I, on the other hand, am talking about GUNS.
YOU said in a previous post, "An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, and if you look at rounds fire rather than guns, many many many more round are fired in non-crime related activities than are used in crime. Why should millions of law abiding citizens be punished, for the crimes of a very very few? That makes no sense to me," I am making the distinction between crime and violent crime because earlier it seemed you were saying that guns are not involved in much crime in GENERAL. If you are not saying that fine, we don't need to beat this horse.
quote: YOU are saying handguns are not involved in a majority of crimes.
I AM SAYING, a majority of handguns are not involved in crime.
Look the only points I am making are that handguns enable far too many people to commit violent crime while preventing virtually NONE in the hands of the citizenry.
I said earlier, "In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." Even safe law abiding citizens commit crimes of passion, it's not as if once a safe law abiding citizen ALWAYS a safe law abiding citizen. I'm not controlling ANYONE I'm controlling an ITEM. Of course it would take alot of time to remove the handguns from the general populace, but it would happen eventually. People in possession of a handgun could be punished stiffly until all but the fringe of society have complied. That situation in of itself would CERTAINLY decrease a good chunk of violent crime and make us a safer society. Even if outlaws are the only ones with handguns, people are still armed in their homes and their businesses. It's not as if criminals will suddenly have the advantage.
quote:That was the point of my British examples, here we have a country the bans handguns, yet we see KIDS in the street WITH Handguns. So, again, just how well is that ban working? Not so well I think.
You provided anecdotal evidence claiming it by itself proves that the ban on handguns in the UK does not work. How many other shootings have been prevented because it's still difficult to get a handgun and a person just did not have one on their shelf?
quote:As to the British and Hong Kong, they were an occupying force, they didn't want a citizenry that they couldn't control or one that could oppose them. They were acting in the oppressive and tyrannical way that the Bill of Rights is determine to prevent. If the citizens could have rebelled, if they had the means, they likely would have. It is unprecedented for one country to occupy another for as long as Britain controlled Hong Kong.
Oh please, Hong Kong tolerated British control because they were granted ALOT of autonomy they had not previously enjoyed AND because under British rule their economy grew by leaps and bounds. People from Hong Kong do not have the frontier experience that so many Americans cling to, and hence do not feel the need to own guns. Standards of living continually increase, and there is a culture of non violence, and all these things come together to create a safe environment.
I'm not saying, "Hey get rid of the handguns, and all crime will disappear too!" But I do see handguns as an exacerbating influence that we can't use to protect us from our government, and that we don't need to be safe in our homes or at work. I am fine with allowing citizenry with having long arms at home and at private businesses. I am also in support of the states individual deciding whether they want to ban guns rather then the federal government just doing it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Last I checked, the British aren't under martial law, and they've had a general handgun ban for many years. Also, they have almost zero handgun deaths.
I'm not saying banning handguns in our cities will save us from murders, but I do think it cuts down on gun deaths, if by no other means than cutting down on deaths from stray bullets.
The uncharitable side of me wonders cynically if some of those who hate this sort of ban feel that way because they'd like to see more handgun deaths in poor black neighborhoods. I'm not accusing anyone here of such a motivation, but I would, if I didn't know you all better.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As to the British and Hong Kong, they were an occupying force, they didn't want a citizenry that they couldn't control or one that could oppose them. They were acting in the oppressive and tyrannical way that the Bill of Rights is determine to prevent. If the citizens could have rebelled, if they had the means, they likely would have. It is unprecedented for one country to occupy another for as long as Britain controlled Hong Kong.
See, I have less interest in the gun control issue by itself, but your continuing over-simplification of history in black and white to suit your arguments is quite jarring. This paragraph is just another example.
A) Talk about moving the goalposts, were you not ranting against the "oppressive and tyrannical" Chinese government? Why are you referring to the British now B) "unprecedented" This word does not mean what you think it means.
Hong Kong was controlled for 157 years. Just in Hong Kong's backyard, Hong Kong was conquered from the Manchu Dynasty. The Manchurians controlled China for over 250 years. Just next door, Macau was under the de facto control of the Portugese for even longer. Heck, Britain itself was under control by the Roman empire for hundreds of years.
C) Whether Hong Kong's residents would have even wanted to rebel against the British is heavily dependent on what time period we are talking about.
Keep in mind that for much of Hong Kong's modern history, it has been viewed as a safe haven for many from the warlord period after the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty, a safe haven from the Chinese Civil War between the Communists and Nationalists, for a short time a haven from the Imperial Japanese, and a safe haven from the Communist land reforms and Cultural Revolution. This is true to the extent that the British actually had to severely curtail immigration from China and many Cantonese families have stories of immigration from China to Hong Kong, including my own.
So would people in Hong Kong wanted to rebel against the British, even given guns, especially in the modern period in which BlackBlade grew up in and is referring to? Almost certainly not, the British were usually the only thing standing between them and the PRC, or the Japanese, or even the Nationalists at any particular point.
This is not to say that life under the British was great, corruption was often a problem, and having a foreign ruler is often troublesome.
However, for the majority of citizens the British government was much better than the alternative to the extent that many Hong Kong residents left before the 1997 handover and only went back after it was apparent that China would keep its word to not make massive changes to the laws and institutions that the British had setup.
"if they had the means, they likely would have"? Give me a break. Guns, especially handguns, are a tiny factor in whether residents in Hong Kong would have rebelled when compared to the larger external forces at work.
Stick to the US where you're (presumably) familiar with the situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
9 democratic senators and 68 democratic representatives joined, yet the opening paragraph of the article uses the term "bipartisan majority." To me, the phrase suggests majorities in both parties, not a majority that includes a few members from another party. Do others interpret the phrase as I do, or as the AP used it?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I read it the same as the AP - "a majority that is bipartisan." It's kind of fuzzy though. I can understand holding out for a bit more equity; it might sound fishy if they only had a couple of dems on board.
Maybe at this point we should take whatever bipartisanship we can get. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think I saw it closer to the way Dag did. Bipartisan majority seems to imply some sort of equality of bipartisanship. A largely Republican bill with a could Democratic hangers on isn't that bipartisan.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Somehow "I heard a noise, grabbed my gun, waved it around while yelling at the dark, and scared the boogyman away" fails to impress.
But whether or not guns save lives has little-to-nothing to do the purpose with my posting. It was meant as a commentary on the SCotUS-petition Congressmen themselves against the backdrop of those politicians in yesterday's news links.
[ February 08, 2008, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Somehow "I heard a noise, grabbed my gun, waved it around while yelling at the dark, and scared the boogyman away" fails to impress.
True. If that were the only one, I wouldn't be impressed either. Of course, the explicit accounts of threatened rape - one with a knife - are a little different than the summary you gave.
quote:It was meant as a commentary on the SCotUS-petition Congressmen themselves against the backdrop of those politicians in yesterday's news links.
I'm sure that incident did not change their mind.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Which is where the gallows humor lies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Quick! Its an anecdote-off! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag: The phrase reads to me as a majority of the representatives in congress comprised of supporters from both parties.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My off the cuff prediction based solely on secondhand accounts of the oral argument (which means it's likely wrong): the court will find there is an individual right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation. An outright ban will be held unreasonable. The contours that will need to be filled in, probably by later cases, include which arms are covered by the right and what makes a regulation reasonable.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Dagonee- It seems Roberts has tried to gather strong majorities for the SC decisions since he has assumed the role of chief justice. Do you see that playing into this decision at all? That is, will a decision be handed down that gets to 7-2 or stronger, but might not answer very much, or will we see a strong decision but with a weak majority?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think it's hard to predict the numbers - there could be as many as 8 or as few as 5 who think the right is individual, and 3 of those 8 might uphold the ban even in the face of such a right.
Regardless of the numbers, I think the decision will leave much unanswered. The only firm points will be the right is individual and a total ban violates that right.
Of course, this is rank speculation.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I always try to make sure my speculation wears deodorant...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Old Spice, not Sure.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C.
This doesn't change my earlier guess: a majority will find an individual right to bear arms subject to reasonable regulation; a possibly smaller majority will find the DC ban unreasonable.
We should get this opinion soon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)