Court says individuals have right to own guns

[DSTCHAOS]

uh huh.....

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

uh huh.....

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

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.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

[shinerbock]

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.