Court says individuals have right to own guns

[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]

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:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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 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.

[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.