Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals

Now.Imperfect writes "In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns." This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle.

Comments

Sweet

[multipartmixed]

Now they can address more pressing issues. Like the right to bare chests.

Re:Sweet

[Harold Halloway]

Or the right to arm bears.

Re:Sweet

[UnknowingFool]

*Imagines the average slashdotter topless*
MY EYES! MY EYES!!

Re:Sweet

[Gewalt]

Or the right to arm bears. Man, that used to be so much funnier before reading His Dark Materials.

Re:Sweet

[UnknowingFool]

Thankfully, we don't go outside much

My point exactly: Lack of natural light = blindingly white skin. Then there are the moobs (man boobs) to deal with. :P

Re:Sweet

[roystgnr]

Lack of natural light = blindingly white skin.

We prefer the term "radiant", thank you very much.

Re:Sweet

[Sponge Bath]

I've gone all the way to translucent.

Re:Sweet

[Tetsujin]

I've gone all the way to translucent.

Hm, interesting. I'm going to have to ask you to answer this riddle...

Alive without breath,
As cold as death;
Never thirsty, ever drinking,
All in mail never clinking.

Re:Sweet

[danaris]

...so juicy sweeeet!

;-)

Dan Aris

Re:Sweet

[AKAImBatman]

Fish. Now my turn:

What's in my pocket? :-P

Re:Sweet

[alexj33]

..or the right for people to have bear arms.

Re:Sweet

[QuantumHobbit]

No! Not bears. They're godless killing machines.

Re:Sweet

[rrkap]

Fish. Now my turn:

What's in my pocket? :-P

I don't know, but can you stop playing with it for a second?

Re:Sweet

[ROMRIX]

*Imagines the average slashdotter topless*
MY EYES! MY EYES!!

Dude, I thought I was catching a disturbing visual of a pasty skinned, bloodshot eyed, black horn rimmed glasses with tape holding them together wearing, old nipple ring scar from a keyring that rusted in place he'd gotten at a hacker convention slashdotter. Then I realized what a quality reflection these new 32 inch LCDs give you in just the right light...

Re:Sweet

[computational super]

Bah - just goes to show what we get for not being specific. We meant for it to be mandatory, not just legal.

Re:Sweet

[Alsee]

Great. And the next time somebody has to make a saving throw we're going to need a from the Supreme Court analysis ruling on the meaning of the 4th edition rules.

-

Your rights online?

[sugarmotor]

This is obviously not belonging to "Your Rights Online". Stephan

Re:Who Goes to the Store for Guns?

[Broken scope]

Same here man Hi Five!

Re:Crime rate high?

[3t3rn4l]

I think that's one of the points pro-gun folks use: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
If clones are made illegal, only clones will have clones!

Re:What a moot issue

[Hatta]

American citizens are already revolting. They don't need guns for that. ;)

How Effective are Bear Arms For Home Defence?

[MrSteveSD]

I suppose the claws could cut any intruder up pretty bad, but are they practical?

Re:This is a monumental and historic decision

[dirk]

It's so nice to have a new immigrant to our country, how long have you been in the US? One week or two?

Re:f*ck yes

[olyar]

To whom would this security be against?

Our own government. I agree with you that it's not clear what the original intent of that wording was. I've always heard though that one argument for the general public having guns is that its additional check on our government over-stepping its bounds.

That didn't work out so well for the Southerners in the Civil War... but that's a whole other discussion. :)

Re:Who Goes to the Store for Guns?

[Spy der Mann]

So you mean it's like a bazaar instead of a cathedral? :P

Here come the accidental gun deaths

[mkcmkc]

...but on the lighter side, ESR might actually be able to win an argument with RMS now.

Yay

[metamatic]

I just hope they rule that I can keep my weaponized anthrax. I need it for duck hunting.

Re:It's about damn time

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Dear Sir, I came across your desire to own nuclear weapons. We provide the highest quality nuclear weapons to any one with absolutely no questions asked. Please contact:

Abdul Qadir Khan,

C/o Embassy of Pakistan

Washington DC, USA.

We accept all major credit cards. Operators are standing by. If you order in the next 10 minutes we will double your order.

What does it mean?

[4D6963]

Does it mean it's putting an end to the ban on the District of Columbia and thus an end to over three decades of "oh shit crime is on the rise ever since we banned guns, let's make even more sure that no law-abiding citizen has a gun so that only criminals can have one oh wait a second no nevermind remember guns kill people therefore let's ban guns and ignore the fact that criminals will always get as many guns as they want"-type shit?

Re:This is a monumental and historic decision

[Sponge Bath]

How is "the right to own a gun" on the same team as "ban abortions...

If fetuses could carry guns, there would be no need to outlaw abortions.

Re:This is a monumental and historic decision

[MagicM]

How can you mess up "you must be new here?" like that?

You must be new here.

Diana Ross and the Supremes?

[redstar427]

FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right. I agree, their music was good in its day. :p

Re:Oh great...

[Moofie]

Can you think of any situation in history where a military force has been successfully resisted by armed locals?

Re:Oh great...

[Karem Lore]

For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility. This is the stupidest sentance I have read all day. No protection from the police but I can't use my gun to defend myself from the police...I really don't get this!

Essentially, the idea is that a democracy puts power in the hands of the people. Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.

In short, yes, the point of all those guns is so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders. Whenever they want.

So let me get this straight...You think that by having an armed population that the whole population will unite and overthrow the Government? Dream on...What will happen will be similar to what is happening in Zimbabwe as I type this...A tyrannical leader with high friends in the military and police will give arms to their supporters to go out and create havoc. The ONLY things that maintaining public access to guns will achieve is crime, civil war and misery.

I have an ultimate solution however. Keeping with your second amendments, let the people have their guns...I actually have no issue with people owning guns...Now bullets, that's where my issue lies...Ban the Bullets...nothing in the second amendment about that huh! You have arms (not that you can use them)...Karem

Re:Lies, damned lies...

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

You read playboy for the articles too?

Re:Gun ban or no ban, you're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

You watch too much TV.