Court says individuals have right to own guns

[jon1856]

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/

[KSigkid]

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.

[SigKapSweetie]

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

[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.

[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.

[Senusret I]

I don't have time to read all this.

Can I own a gun here now or what?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I don't have time to read all this.

Can I own a gun here now or what?

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

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

[Elephant Walk]

A great day for individual rights!

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

[DSTCHAOS]

I hate the way jon spaces his posts.

[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