Court says individuals have right to own guns

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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.

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.

[jon1856]

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

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Also, about pro gun rights/anti gun rights (trying to reverse your framing, obviously)

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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

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.

[KSig RC]

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:

Originally Posted by Tony Tone Toni

Giving "bear arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed...Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "he filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "he filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

<3<3<3<3

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

Fear is often legitimate, and I thus think it must play a significant role in many discussions of current political or legal issues.

I think people on here have displayed that this is a topic where many can and do discuss rationally and realistically, but perhaps you've reason to feel otherwise.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fear is often legitimate...

It usually is not.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

...but perhaps you've reason to feel otherwise

Definitely.

In this thread, starting with nate's rant about criminals looting and smuggling drugs.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It usually is not.



Definitely.

In this thread, starting with nate's rant about criminals looting and smuggling drugs.

I think it often is. Fears often don't come true in such matters, but I don't think that makes them illegitimate. When it comes to government regulation, I think there are numerous outcomes which would warrant such apprehension.

Perhaps your named exception aside, I think the discourse has been pretty rational and well-mannered.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fears often don't come true in such matters, but I don't think that makes them illegitimate.

For what we're discussing, fears that have no or minimal foundation and have a low likelihood of coming to reality are illegitimate and irrational.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Perhaps your named exception aside, I think the discourse has been pretty rational and well-mannered.

I don't care about the well-mannered part. Rational, perhaps, but that's because what can irrationally and/or emotionally be said about guns has been said in other threads.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

For what we're discussing, fears that have no or minimal foundation and have a low likelihood of coming to reality are illegitimate and irrational.

Not to beat a dead horse, but could your provide an example?

From my perspective, when we're talking about fear, I'm talking about people who fear the government knocking on doors and taking away guns when people need them the most. That may seem irrational to some, but I suspect some citizens of NOLA feel differently.