Court says individuals have right to own guns
 

Court says individuals have right to own guns

Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact. .....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

I just posted this in the other thread that PhiGam had opened on the recent decisions:

Tom Goldstein makes an interesting point on the SCOTUS blog that this ruling, at least on its surface, implies that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states. So, this ruling would apply to state regulation as well. See http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ .

For analysis of the decisions, SCOTUS blog is really the best place to go, in my opinion.

Yee-haw! I shall go to the shooting range in celebration of this momentous decision! :)

uh huh.....

"the right to bear arms" is a surface level right that doesn't account for the depth of the issue

uh huh.....

And I think the opinion of the Court gets at some of that by talking about situations where the government can step in and prohibit possession by certain groups of citizens, like felons or the mentally ill, and can regulate through certain means. It also doesn't say whether the trigger lock requirement would have been ok with a self-defense exception.

The decision broadens things, but it isn't saying that everyone can own a handgun. I've only read pieces of the opinon thus far, but it seems like it takes the depth of the issue into account, at least as much as possible. Plus, it was a Scalia opinion, and whether you like him or dislike him as a justice, or agree/disagree with his opinions, they're always carefully thought-out.

The decision doesn't take the full depth of gun access and carrying into account and I don't expect it to.

I just need for all the people who are "excited" over this decision to remember that it's always deeper than "the right to bear arms" and whatever the Court decides. Always.

Have you read it? I would agree that I would not expect it to -- the Court's role is to determine what the Constitution means, not broader societal or policy issues.

Like you, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but as I understand it, the opinion, following earlier opinions, also limits the right to own guns to weapons such as were "in common use at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted, which the court describes these as weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens." This allows the continued limitation on ownership of more military-style weapons.

Exactly and people need to be reminded of the bolded because that's what really matters.

I would say they both matter, especially where the Constitution establishes boundries that must be acknowledged and observed when considering solutions to the broader societal or policy issues.

I've just glanced over the first part of the opinion (it's Scalia, and it's 64 pages, so I'll save the in-depth reading for tonight), but your understanding seems correct.

I'm really interested in Stevens' dissent as well; from what I've picked up in media reports and message boards, it seems like the dissent was in effect arguing for an extremely limited (close to non-existent) right to "bear arms." I kind of expected the majority to go as it did, but I really wouldn't have expected the dissent to go that way.

We both know what the point of the Constitution and the Supreme Court are.

Without splitting hairs and going in circles to say the same thing in different ways:

My point is that the larger social and policy implications are what complicate the issue and what should be focused on by citizens, beyond the exceptions that the Supreme Court outlined. It isn't the Constitution and SC's jobs to cover the depth of such issues, however citizens need to be aware of the depth. Yet many citizens pretend to be clueless.

I get that the Bill of Rights is viewed as sacrosanct by most people, but this whole thing would be so much easier if we would simply amend the Second Amendment to remove the ablative absolute.

This is relatively off-topic, I guess, although the gist of the decision as I've read it seems to take a step in that direction in terms of review.

We're excited because the individual's right to gun ownership was upheld. One need only look at the margin to see how crucial this decision is.

This won't end the debate, and it won't end restrictions on gun ownership. But it does limit the reach of government by clearly establishing that absurdly interventionist regulations like D.C.'s are subject to some level of scrutiny.

The argument will continue, but it is nonetheless a great day for individual rights.

I tend to think most citizens are clueless on Court decisions as well, in that they tend to read them too broadly. I often wonder why media outlets (especially newspapers) don't have an attorney correspondent (or someone else knowledgeable on the law) who can parse through these opinions and write a piece that lays out the essential elements, in a sort of "What does it mean for the future" way. From the abortion decisions in Roe and Casey to cases like Heller, it might not be a bad idea.

I'm guessing you're going to see anti-gun activitists on TV, yelling in all sorts of ways about how terrible the decision is, without looking at the exceptions carved out by the Court.

I just wonder why media outlets don't have a more effective way to take these opinions and communicate them to their viewers/readers/listeners in a way that provides insight.

ETA: There was actually a professor, I believe at George Mason, who brought up that exact point last year when the case was starting to garner attention. Here is the link: http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...r_on_const.php

I don't have time to read all this.

Can I own a gun here now or what?

The media's job isn't to educate.

Every news source today has said "the Supreme Court upholds the right to bear arms" and gave a quick shpill. Then they went on to discuss the vote and how this is "good news for gun rights advocates."

For people who don't require more info than that, they won't read the decision (not even a little bit) and all they will know is that the right to bear arms was upheld.

You could've if you hadn't caught that felony last year.

:(

I agree that most people won't read the decision, either because they don't care that much about it, or they think they're getting the whole story from the media reports.

As to the media's job; I disagree that educating isn't part of it. In reporting on the news, and giving that information to the public, it is educating the public as to recent events. It's routinely taught in journalism school that, as members of the media, part of your role is to educate members of the public on issues that they wouldn't normally see or hear about.

I couldn't agree more here.

I think anyone with a solid grasp of English grammar and without an agenda likely reads the amendment language in the same fashion, and this is why I feel "gun control" activists should focus on just that: control, in the form of effective regulation rather than elimination.

A great day for individual rights!

Now perhaps getting the PATRIOT Act overturned? Among other things...

Difference in interpretation of what "educating" means.

I don't call what the news media (the type of news media that the average American accesses) does "educating."

Of course, journalism school would say that it is.

This is a huge win, with common law, the liberals are going to have a tough road to hoe as the NRA now has a lot of steam.

Leave it to everyone on the board to spin this into a we shouldn't look at this too broadly. I did, in fact, read everything in the entirety, but one phrase highlights everything "the right of an individual owning a gun shall not be infringed upon"

Why should those of us using our guns lawfully and upright citizens be punished for the crimes of the ignorant.

I mean, even if they did ban guns, only the citizens who already abide by the law are going to follow that, so what do they expect to gain out of a gun ban? I mean, there would be more looting as criminals would know that people aren't going to be armed, and they will illegally smuggle weapons and such into the country much like cocaine or other illegal substances. I've yet to find compelling evidence that shows gun bans would do anything for our country with the exceptions of robbing s law-abiding citizens of our weekend hobbies.

The gun control debate shouldn't operate on extremes.

Generally speaking, those who are pro-gun control aren't advocating law abiding citizens having zero access to guns. And those who are anti-gun control aren't really anti-gun control.

Other than that there is no evidence to support your claims of looting and drug smuggling. It's actually kind of funny because it appeals to people's assumptions and fear. Claims without evidence are based on exaggerated hypotheticals. They are a bad idea on both sides of the discussion.

Actually, the NRA didn't really give a shit about this case - in fact, they didn't push it at all, because they felt that the legal tide had turned in their favor either way, and that this wasn't a good battle to fight (and the 5-4 decision backs that up - who knows where Kennedy could have wound up?).

Instead, this was backed by a wealthy Libertarian with a piqued interest.

Now, I agree with the common law repercussions, but that's merely a result of the Court actually ruling on this topic in this way for really the first time ever, rather than any head of steam for the NRA - this should lead to similar laws in Chicago, NYC and etc. being repealed, but it actually seems to reaffirm other forms of gun control (in fact, Scalia strongly supports many forms of control in the decision), so I'm not sure this will lead to any change, just an end to this specific form of banning.

Nate;
You may wish to compare gun violent and gun related deaths between the USA and the rest of the modern world/G-8.
Nate, BTB, I was taught my gun safety and shooting skills by a former US Army Major in a NRA class.
I was a member of the NRA and I know its' history. Today it has strayed a long way from its founding.
I have no problems with guns per se. It is with people who own and operate them.
There should be a reason to have one. Owner should know all about it, how to operate it safely, how to
use it safely, and how to keep it safe. However, I do not see any kind of reason for any civilian to own or have in
their possession any kind of "military" weapon. One does not hunt with a fully auto, 30 mag, AK-47.
Nor does one need a .50 cal snipers rifle.
Yet, the NRA says one does. One of the reasons I am no longer a member. And I support gun regulations.
It is, after all, very much like risk management. "Crimes of the ignorant" can cover many sins.

I hate the way jon spaces his posts.

Agree.
And I changed my spacing just for you:p;):D

What does common law have to do with it?

And yet the Court then went on to describe how infringement upon that right is not absolute and can, at times, be constitutional.

Should the social debate on gun control operate on extremes? No, I agree. Should the legal argument? I think this is a bit more involved. Practicality and compromise certainly has its place in the law. But it is also a tool used by those interested in abrogating individual rights. Thus, many times the legal focus is on extremes, especially with regard to enumerated rights.

Also, about pro gun rights/anti gun rights (trying to reverse your framing, obviously), I think your statements about what people "generally" care about are generally legitimate, but it may be closer than you imply. I think a substantial portion of people who oppose gun rights see no usefulness in the individual right to own firearms. I argue this subject a fair amount, and I've had numerous opponents mention that the police remove the need for self-defense, and that our modern culture removes the necessity for hunting. Now, this is obviously anecdotal evidence and I think the latter argument is probably a relatively rare one, but I strongly believe that a substantial portion of the anti crowd believes that gun ownership should be limited to recreation. On the flip side, I think a substantial portion of those who oppose gun control measures may be more opposed to "sensible" regulation than you recognize. This isn't true for the people who respond "Yes" to a "should individuals have gun rights" poll, but I think it is accurate with regard to those who are really involved in this issue.

Jon, do you really believe that gun violence in America is because of guns, and not because of violent attitudes in this country?

Also, it is generally pretty difficult and expensive to attain and possess "military" weapons. For the sake of others, lets be clear that I'm talking about actual AK-47's or actual fully automatic AR 15's. Those are assault rifles. I am NOT talking about AK-47 or AR 15 modeled semi-automatic rifles with similar magazine capacity. People who oppose gun rights consistently and purposefully deceive the public on this distinction.

How many criminals are going to shell out a few thousand dollars for a MP5 and go through the hassle of owning it legally? Not many. It simply isn't that big of an issue.

Further, I have a problem when people begin to tell me what I "need." I don't need a 6000 sq ft. home, and I don't need a BMW 7 series. I don't think this these things should be taken out of my grasp, however. I don't need an enormous SUV that consumes a lot of energy and poses a "danger" to other people because of it's size and nature of operation, but I don't think they should be banned. At some point, you may have to get additional licensing for such a large vehicle. Additional licensing...that sounds familiar.

Yesterday there were several comments on/about the role of the meda.
In my morning mail, I found the following of which I have not had the time to review all. However I do believe that they would be more detailed than some of the news web sites:
Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership

5-4 Ruling Finds 1976 Law Incompatible With Second Amendment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062600615.html

Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/wa...2qGRxYrmL6Ij3A
In a First, High Court
Affirms Gun Rights

By JESS BRAVIN and SUSAN DAVIS
June 27, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep handguns in the home, ending a debate about the Second Amendment's 18th-century language while opening new battles over the politically charged issues of guns, crime and violence
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...ys_us_page_one

Supreme Court affirms gun rights

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects Americans' right to own guns for self-defense -- resolving one of the Constitution's oldest disputes and reviving the debate over gun rights, crime and violence.

The landmark decision struck down a District of Columbia ordinance, the strictest in the nation, that barred homeowners from keeping handguns. The ruling brought immediate court challenges to similar laws in Chicago and San Francisco.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,7648354.story

Landmark ruling ignites challenges to firearms laws
The Supreme Court says individuals have a right to guns, but many questions remain
By Joan Biskupic and Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's historic decision Thursday carving out an individual right to gun ownership immediately cast doubt on gun restrictions nationwide, as firearms-rights advocates prepared to file a new round of lawsuits testing the scope of the ruling.
Hours after the 5-4 ruling that struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., gun rights supporters signaled they will challenge gun restrictions in cities and suburbs across the nation.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, established for the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution's Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns at home for self-defense. Yet Scalia noted that a person's right to gun ownership is not unlimited. He said it would not likely override bans on concealed weapons; laws that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms; or those that ban firearms in government buildings and schools.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...27_dom.art.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...0627/index.htm

News Analysis
Coming Next, Court Fights on Guns in Cities
WASHINGTON — The individual right to bear arms identified by the Supreme Court on Thursday will have little practical impact in most of the country, legal experts said, though Washington’s comprehensive ban on handguns used for self-defense in the home will have to be revised, and similar laws in several cities are also vulnerable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/wa...ef=todayspaper

Judicial activism by conservatives




[COLOR=#333333! important]The high court's 2nd Amendment opinion makes the majority's agenda clear.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#999999! important]By Erwin Chemerinsky
June 27, 2008 [/COLOR]
The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6464156.story

The D.C. Handgun Ruling

Originalism Goes Out the Window

In knocking down the District's 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.
The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062603655.html

The debate itself is often framed under "gun control" instead of "gun rights." The main point is that pro and anti gun rights for most people doesn't mean that they want 100% on either side of the coin.

It's because of a lot of issues. Violent attitudes, lack of family attachment, etc and etc and gun access is a facilitating factor.

So this thread is going where every other thread on this topic has gone.

By the way, if you don't love Antonin Scalia on at least some visceral level (regardless of your politics or Constitutional stance), then I revoke my promise to buy any GCer a beer at any given time. Look at this beauty:

<3<3<3<3

That's the great thing about Scalia, he's (in my opinion) the best writer on the court - you can absolutely disagree with his position in cases, but you still come away impressed.

And often entertained. He does have a way with words.

Yet I understand the fear, on both sides, of what some infringement (or a decision rejecting such infringement) means as precedent. I think a lot of people have such fear, and thus while they may not personally object to reasonable restrictions (or lack thereof) they get uncomfortable traveling down that path. As a result, a lot of people I've encountered won't move much on this issue, despite their sincere opinion that some alteration would be reasonable.

The "Grotesque" lines are legendary. Within an hour of reading the opinion, I'd cross emailed several of my friends, and everyone was pointing that shot at Stevens' reasoning.

Fear is a powerful thing and it shouldn't be used to fuel the gun access discussion. But it will be and that's why I stay away from such discussions unless people are able to more objectively and realistically discuss the issue.