Quantcast

Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns!!!

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
:cheers:

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer


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."

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

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

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

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

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,199
4
Awesome! I'm surprised the vote was that close....damn dissenting justices :disgust1:
 
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f)
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
I hope the remove the assault rifle ban in DC so we can see good old fashion drivebys.

Maybe the Tommy Gun will come back into style...
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,814
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights...
ok, this is where the court's decision totally loses me. the right to bear arms is not black and white, and many types of firearms can be designated as illegal (fully automatics, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, etc). so... why is it the court who is able to decide what can be made illegal (automatics) and what can't be (handguns)? why isn't this a state's rights or local rights issue?
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
ok, this is where the court's decision totally loses me. the right to bear arms is not black and white, and many types of firearms can be designated as illegal (fully automatics, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, etc). so... why is it the court who is able to decide what can be made illegal (automatics) and what can't be (handguns)? why isn't this a state's rights or local rights issue?
At its most basic level, it isn't a local issue because the Supreme Court says it isn't, they don't need a reason besides "Nuh-uh".
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,438
3,354
Portland, OR
I hope the remove the assault rifle ban in DC so we can see good old fashion drivebys.

Maybe the Tommy Gun will come back into style...
I would rather just have the Auto Assault 12. It has a rate of fire of 300 rounds/minutes from a 20 round drum. 12 gauge slugs do more damage.

 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
f'in activist judges overturning the will of the people... :rant:
This isn't anything new, the courts don't claim to be democratic or care about popular opinion. Ever since the Marbury vs Madison, it has been about what the Court wants and the Court thinks.

N8 said:
wow... the court up holds a constitutional right vs a policy...

alert the media.
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.

Bolded the important part, and why there is controversy. It clearly explains WHY there is a need for a state militia, and the State National Guard serves as the militia for the state. In this day and age, according to the Constitution, there is no need for a right to bear arms as long as there is a well-regulated militia.

Now, not what I believe should be made into policy, but what I believe the Constitution strictly allows.
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
ok, this is where the court's decision totally loses me. the right to bear arms is not black and white, and many types of firearms can be designated as illegal (fully automatics, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, etc). so... why is it the court who is able to decide what can be made illegal (automatics) and what can't be (handguns)? why isn't this a state's rights or local rights issue?
Those are excellent points and from what I read this case was easy because DC is NOT A STATE. If it was a state law, I believe it would have been more difficult.

The majority of people on CNN 62% agree with the ruling, and they are not conservatives, so to say the will of the people was not represented is not only debatable, but probably totally innaccurate. I guess I'm liberal on many views, but I"m pro gun and there are many like me.

This was an excellent thread I found on guns and any arguement I would use would be stolen from some of these.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/supreme_court_gun_ban_ruling_p.html?hpid=topnews

Yes N8, i stole/reference from drudge yesterday:)
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,184
13
TN
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.

Bolded the important part, and why there is controversy. It clearly explains WHY there is a need for a state militia, and the State National Guard serves as the militia for the state. In this day and age, according to the Constitution, there is no need for a right to bear arms as long as there is a well-regulated militia.

Now, not what I believe should be made into policy, but what I believe the Constitution strictly allows.

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.

Bolded the other, equally important part. It clearly explains THAT the people, outside of the federal government, need to have a means of self defense. Since states rights (including most obviously their ability to control what their "militia" does) are all but a joke any more, the spirit of the amendment has rightfully been upheld.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
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.
for the purpose of a militia. National Guard members get guns. It was designed so the states wouldn't be completely dominated by the national government, back when we had a federalist system of government.
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
for the purpose of a militia. National Guard members get guns. It was designed so the states wouldn't be completely dominated by the national government, back when we had a federalist system of government.
Objectively that is an interpretation and not written directly in any framework. There are many quotes by other founding fathers that guns are meant to help the people overthrow their own gov't if it becomes to authoritarian. You could argue that was why they encouraged millitia. There was a reason the founding fathers wanted more local/state control and did not enphasize national power to help create a dictator. They were so much more educated and intelligent back then. And they saw wars FIRST HAND.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,184
13
TN
for the purpose of a militia. National Guard members get guns. It was designed so the states wouldn't be completely dominated by the national government, back when we had a federalist system of government.
Exactly why the courts/myself/many others believe the spirit of the amendment was designed to keep people armed, not just the federal government.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,595
4,448
Sleazattle
for the purpose of a militia. National Guard members get guns. It was designed so the states wouldn't be completely dominated by the national government, back when we had a federalist system of government.

A lot of the Bill Of Rights was written as a direct result of things that happend around the time of the Revolution. I think it is safe to say that the second ammendment was a reaction to the British seizing the the armoury in Williamsburg under the command of the royal government (old timey federal gov). The armory was the weapon depot for the local militia. They made no attempt to take the weapons of private citizens. The ammendment was probably written to keep the citizenry armed but not in the sense of gun ownership for 'personal' use.'

Of course I think this is the one ammendment that doesn't really stand the test of time. 200 years ago there weren't any weapons that could be used to mow down a crowd of people.

Muskets for everyone!!
 
Last edited:

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
A lot of the Bill Of Rights was written as a direct result of things that happend around the time of the Revolution. I think it is safe to say that the second ammendment was a reaction to the British seizing the the armoury in Williamsburg under the command of the royal government (old timey federal gov). The armory was the weapon depot for the local militia. They made no attempt to take the weapons of private citizens. The ammendment was probably written to keep the citizenry armed but not in the sense of gun ownership for 'personal' use.
i dont think any of u know what the 'intent' of the framers of the Constitution was when the 2nd Amendment was written..

however, the majority of the SCotUS has studied it long and hard and came to the conclusion that bearing arms is a RIGHT just as the Constitution said it was... unlike free health care, free college tuition, free housing, the freedom to post pr0n on RideMonkey etc..

:)
 
Last edited:

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Objectively that is an interpretation and not written directly in any framework. There are many quotes by other founding fathers that guns are meant to help the people overthrow their own gov't if it becomes to authoritarian. You could argue that was why they encouraged millitia. There was a reason the founding fathers wanted more local/state control and did not enphasize national power to help create a dictator. They were so much more educated and intelligent back then. And they saw wars FIRST HAND.
A lot of founding fathers would be outraged right now, except Hamilton. Jefferson sure wouldn't want the three branches of national government having the power it does, as well as Madison. Washington wouldn't want us to be in the UN.

The Constitution is meant to change with the times, to be mildly flexible. The ideals from the Age of Enlightenment aren't here now, except in political doublespeak. The courts don't have the power of judicial review in the Constitution, and that is wildly popular and accepted now. I'm sure most people now wouldn't want to live in societies that the founding fathers would have wanted. We have grown up in Hamilton's view, as a business empire.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
A lot of founding fathers would be outraged right now, except Hamilton. Jefferson sure wouldn't want the three branches of national government having the power it does, as well as Madison. Washington wouldn't want us to be in the UN.

The Constitution is meant to change with the times, to be mildly flexible. The ideals from the Age of Enlightenment aren't here now, except in political doublespeak. The courts don't have the power of judicial review in the Constitution, and that is wildly popular and accepted now. I'm sure most people now wouldn't want to live in societies that the founding fathers would have wanted. We have grown up in Hamilton's view, as a business empire.

your argument is not only silly but quite irrelevant now.

Awesome!
:cheers:
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
37,595
4,448
Sleazattle
i dont think any of know what the 'intent' of the framers of the Constitution was when the 2nd Amendment was written..

however, the majority of the SCotUS has studied it long and hard and came to the conclusion that bearing arms is a RIGHT just as the Constitution said it was... unlike free health care, free college tuition, free housing, the freedom to post pr0n on RideMonkey etc..

:)
The interpretatin fo the 2nd for the past 100 years has certainly been that it protects personal use and the SC should follow 'traditional' interpretations as it allows certain flexibility. But I still do not think it was something even considered by the founders, the situation we have to day was not something they would ever have considered.

You still have to agree no matter your interpretation of the 2nd that part of it was to allow the states to protect themselves from the feds. The irony of all this is that it is now used to force the states to comply with the feds.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
your argument is not only silly but quite irrelevant now.

Awesome!
:cheers:
that is basically the point that I was making, saying what the founding fathers intended is silly because we don't follow most of their ideals
 

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
A lot of founding fathers would be outraged right now, except Hamilton. Jefferson sure wouldn't want the three branches of national government having the power it does, as well as Madison. Washington wouldn't want us to be in the UN.

The Constitution is meant to change with the times, to be mildly flexible. The ideals from the Age of Enlightenment aren't here now, except in political doublespeak. The courts don't have the power of judicial review in the Constitution, and that is wildly popular and accepted now. I'm sure most people now wouldn't want to live in societies that the founding fathers would have wanted. We have grown up in Hamilton's view, as a business empire.
We have to agree to disagree, I just try for objectivity and try not to state an interpretation as fact unless it is an undeniable truth. I would also argue we have grown up on Rothchilds, rockefellor and jp morgan views.

There was a good quote on the thread I referenced. It said something like,

if an authoritarian dictator would take over, it would probably come from the right, so people on the left should want the freedom to keep guns.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
maybe the SCotUS can strike down that pesky 1st Amendment inclusion of free speech next time and up-hold Nancy Pelosi's Fairness Doctrine just for balance...

:rolleyes:
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Don't forget Morse v. Frederick
There's too many for one post, I didn't want the list to go on too long

We have to agree to disagree, I just try for objectivity and try not to state an interpretation as fact unless it is an undeniable truth. I would also argue we have grown up on Rothchilds, rockefellor and jp morgan views.

There was a good quote on the thread I referenced. It said something like,

if an authoritarian dictator would take over, it would probably come from the right, so people on the left should want the freedom to keep guns.
I'm playing devil's advocate with it more than anything
 
Last edited: