Show Us Your Guns!
Jun 26th, 2008 at 10:35 am by Susie
WASHINGTON — 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.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
i don’t see what the problem is here, quite frankly.
This is not an important decision, really.
Firearms are a part of American history and integral to our culture, such as it is:
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-America-Portraits-Owners-Their/dp/0896895432
actually, it’s a huge decision. for the entire history of this country there has never been any gun law invalidated on the grounds of the second amendment. since the 1950s, however, the NRA has basically deceived the american public into believing that there is, in fact, an individual right to bear arms that had never been recognized by the court. meanwhile conservative groups and think tanks have been churning out articles arguing that the founders had the NRA’s view of the 2nd amendment while the bush administration has been packing the court with conservatives sympathetic to that idea.
which is why the decision doesn’t seem like a big deal. conservatives have well laid the groundwork for this decision. the popular understanding of the second amendment now pretty closely matches what the supreme court ruled today. the ruling was radical, but because so much of the public had a radical misunderstanding of the traditional view of the second amendment, this doesn’t feel like anything happened.
Yes. And now the law follows the commonest practical interpretation of the 2d Amendment. Status quo achieved. Welcome to the reign of Bush II.
FLASH: SUPREMES CALL A PIG A PIG.
NO news here.
follows the commonest practical interpretation of the 2d Amendment.
it’s only the “commonest practical interpretation” if you’ve been subjected to a half century of gun lobby propoganda (as most of us have). the decision isn’t a triumph of common sense, the text of the second amendment doesn’t make any clear unambiguous sense. as mithras said a few weeks back, this decision is a testament to the determination and influence of right-wing lawyers in changing the law in a very concrete way.
So where are all the well-regulated militias that all those gun owners belong to?
I know that according to the Virginia constitution, all citizens capable of bearing arms are automatically members of the state militia. (The current Virginia Militia under Virginia Code § 44-1 states “The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.”) Mileage in your state may vary according to the wording of its constitution.
Naked apes are dangerous. This is not Utopia.
Actually, I was pretty shocked at how limited Scalia’s opinion was and am wondering if the NRA, despite its crowing, is actually very disappointed. The basic outline of the individual right to bear arms as described by the majority is that (1) a citizen who is not legally excluded from the class of people who can reasonably be barred from gun ownership (felons, the insane, kids) (2) has an absolute right to keep a gun in his home for self-defense or hunting (3) provided that it is a type of firearm that a reasonable person would consider commonly used for that purpose. It’s still illegal to stockpile weapons, assault weapons bans appear unaffected, and you don’t have an unfettered right to carry a gun wherever you want (although Scalia does seem to imply that you do have a right to carry a gun in open areas of the public provided that it is not concealed).
I’m not happy with it, but given the makeup of the Court, it could have been a lot worse.
Smuzzy seems to think that the court’s decision was based on opinions developed (and propagandaized by the NRA) since World War 2- he is right- the “liberal” view that the 2nd amendment applies just to national guards really didn’t develop until after the war. Up to that point, the mostly rural USA considered gun ownership as a normal thing. It was only after the war that the increase in population and the expansion of the suburbs that the gun-control crowd came to power.
Also/ the ‘liberals” seem to be, as a group, anti-gun; I don’t understand- How can you support an indviual’s right to an abortion, an individual’s right to freedom of religion, an individual’s right to freedom of speech, an individual’s right to privacy, an inidivual’s right to a fair trial, yet not support an individual’s right to own a gun. The overall theme of the Bill of Rights was individual rights, so how can you make an exception for the 2nd amedment? I don’t understand… Of course, many “conservatives” are just the opposite…
Also to Alan-you are right. This does absolutely nothing to downstate Illinois. Chicago’s handgun ban is apparently unconstutional, but the FOID card is not, concealed carry is still illegal, and apparently so-called assault rifles can be banned. Illinois will still be an embarrassment to those who support 2nd amendment FREEDOMS.
Snuzy has bought the anti-gunners propoganda hook, line and sinker. The bill of rights guarantees individual rights. It does not create them, just guarantees them. The founding fathers feared an oppressive central government (like the British monarchy), and wanted to ensure that each State had the ability to fend off tyranny. As long as “the people” were armed, the State could muster a militia almost immediately. The “well regulated” phrase means controlled by civilian authorities, not what we would call today a warlord. As far as the practical solutions, statistics show clearly that the more firearms are regulated, the fewer law abiding people own or carry them, and violent crime increases. You can choose to be a victim if you want. Should you be attacked, a call to 911 will bring out the detectives to paint a pretty outline of where your body fell. Personally, I am armed almost at all times, since I live in a State where the politicians respect my rights. I do not have to ask permission (FOID) to buy a firearm. I have a safe full of very scary looking rifles, and handguns. They are fun to shoot, and all legal here, but would probably make me a felon in Ill. You should stand up for your rights, after all whats, next, a CPID (church parishoner identification), or a RID (readers identification)? I have no problem with some regulation. Felons have lost their rights to firearms (this is called due process….it is in the bill of rights as well). You should read it sometime.