Slashdot Mirror
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.
Scalia and co, make this very point in their decision (found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html -- a wonderful site for Supreme Court decisions. The site, really.): Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
It's dead on.
On a related note, why don't new sites ever link to the actual decision? It makes no sense.
--sabre86
The average /.r is male, and we are already allowed to bare chests. Thankfully, we don't go outside much, so other /.rs dont have to see our bare chests all that much. We are also sociophobic, so we don't have enough friends to take pics of us and put them online too.
How about a link to a real newspaper?
here ;)
As someone who tries to avoid RTFAs, I was annoyed that the summary dodn't even HINT at what the actual decision was, obviously to drive traffic to the submitter's site.here
here
here (oops, my bad
here
here
here
or how about one from a city that is directly impacted by the decision, like here?
I'm disappointed in you, timothy. I'm sure there were a lot more submissions than this one. Since this is Thursday, I hereby nominate you as "Aurthur Dent" (Monday is my Dent Day).
Why do I have to <p> on my paragraphs when I've selected "plain old text"??
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Well, he's right - the May '86 law still stands....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
DEALERS at Gun Shows and flea markets have to do the standard background checks, but you don't have to be a dealer to sell a gun. There's a hazy grey area on the volume you need to be moving before you're considered to be "engaging in the business of selling firearms" and hence in need of a dealer's license.
Not saying that I have a problem with any of this (uncheck private sales are fine by me), just saying that not "every" sale at a gun show needs a NICS check.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Actually, the right of a mother to not have the government's nose in her medical records and decisions was upheld 7-2. But don't let facts in the way of your argument.
Quote: 'India didn't gain their independence through guns.' Yeah, but they also died by the thousands.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Don't forget the Battle of Athens, Tenn. While there were racial elements in the root cause, it was not a white vs. black thing.
(Voting issues in Tenn. in 1946...)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
It just isn't really supported by the numbers [statemaster.com].
Thing is, the statistics you linked to are for gun deaths overall, which includes things like suicides (which account for ~50% of all gun deaths) and people shot by the police. The statistics look quite different if you only look at homicides.
And the militia is everybody. More specifically, able-bodied free male citizens between 18 and 45.
The *organized* militia aka "National Guard" is not the Militia to be well regulated, as you are probably thinking.
Since there was no organized militia when the 2nd Amendment was passed, how could it possibly refer to anything except the unorganized militia, that is, everybody?
No, the May '86 law still stands, that is where new tax stamps for Form 4 transferrable full auto goodies for us civilians were cut off. Police & military can still request dealer samples, but they must supply a formal request on letter head for the Class 3 dealer to order one. And, then, that item can only be transferred to police, military, or another class 3 dealer that has a sample request letter.
FWIW you can still get the tax stamps for short barrel rifles (less than 16" barrel), short barrel shotguns (18" barrel), Destructive Devices (hand grenades, etc), silencers, and "any other weapons" (such as the cylinder fed 12 ga "street sweeper" shotguns). Actual process involves finding the item, affording it, buying it, and working with a class 3 dealer. You may need the local sherrif to sign off (or form a living trust to bypass this step), but you definately need fingerprint cards, passport photos, and some time. Recently (past year) the wait times on form 4 approvals have dropped dramatically, so a 4-6 week wait is now typical for paperwork processing.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I don't know what part of America you live in, but in Canada it is legal for a woman to be topfree anywhere it is legal for a man to be.
Here's a page that discusses Nudity and the Law in Austin TX.
If you are curious about whether women and men enjoy equal rights regarding being topfree in public where you live, you might find this link helpful.
I read Scalia's majority opinion when I should have been working (haven't read the dissents). ;)
My initial impressions:
1. The Court held that the Second Amendment ("2A") protects an individual right, one not dependent upon membership in an organized militia. The right exists for otherwise lawful purposes, specifically noting that self defense is one of the bases for the right. The Court recognized the pre-existing nature of the right, as well.
2. Some restrictions of the RKBA are permissible. E.g., licensing is not forbidden by the 2A, but only when imposed in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. That would seem to disallow much of the discretion typically exercised by issuing officials in places like New York.
3. Outright bans of classes of arms in common use by the people are forbidden. This is a key point because it disposes of the frivolous argument that even if the 2A protects an individual right, it only protects the right to keep and bear arms of a type common in use during the 18th Century. In particular, the Court notes that handguns are in common use and overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense. In dicta, the Court noted that machineguns could *possibly* be banned. However, it left open the argument that the reason machineguns are not in common use is because they have been so heavily regulated since 1934.
4. The Court declined to specify a standard for review in 2A-based challenges to gun control laws. For example, it will leave the matter of whether gun control laws must pass rational basis or strict scrutiny to later challenges. This wasn't unexpected.
5. The Court did not explicitly incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. However, it did cite several state cases in its decision supporting the idea that the 2A protects an individual right. This leads me to believe that the Court would be open to incorporation in a future case where a state law is challenged, e.g., Chicago's handgun ban. Again, this isn't totally unexpected, since the D.C. law which was struck down was a Federal matter, not a state law. The Court tries to craft most decisions narrowly.
In my opinion it is a sound legal decision.
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/
Well, consider reading the Federalist Papers on the Bill of Rights. It tells you exactly what the writers of the Constitution thought about the issue, since the Federalist Papers were written by writers of the Constitution.
I note a single example:
What is the militia? The militia is the whole body of the people, except for certain government officials.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
March on the White House to storm it eh?
Look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
That is only one example.
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.
The purpose of guns is not to protect your freedoms. That's what voting is for. The guns are to protect your person. To make the soldiers think twice before coming in. If you debate that look at the third amendment.
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.
Well, I believe that when I go to work, make a living, and adhere to certain societal norms that result in my ability to take of my health care needs being met, taking money from me at gunpoint against my will to meet the needs of people who fail to take care of their own health care needs is tyrannical.
Not tyrannical, not at all. We have a society, a community, and a nation. There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation.
1st, not everyone can afford health care.
2nd, universal health care will raise your taxes but save you money. If you look at what you or your company pays for your health care, it will be reduced. Every nation with universal heath care pays less for care than we do and according to the UN have better care.
3rd, shared responsibility is the glue that makes society work. We no longer have the wild wild west.
4th, your neighbor's sickness or ill health cost you money. What are you going to do, let them die?
This site has a good number of statisics on it, broken up by age/race and so on...
I'm not really taking either side with this post, I'm just sick of unsupported facts being thrown around. From this data, my own opinion is "Wow, more people kill themselves with guns then other people."
I could care less if you have a gun, though I don't agree you should have enough to equip an army. More then anything, I personally just hate the fact that most people who are really all about having a gun are assholes. Gun owners (actuall good people) should focus their attention on shutting up gun assholes, then both Gun Owners and Non-Gun Owners would stfu about it all.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
Why yes I can. The first the comes to mind is the American Revolution, maybe you have heard about it. The second in more recent times was the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Maybe you have heard about that as well. Sorry to burst your bubble but it has happened on several occasions throughout history.
Fully-automatic rifles were banned in 1986, and only grandfathered pre-86 machine guns are currently in circulation. They were not in any way covered by the Assault Weapon Ban.
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
I think the argument is that when the armed crook comes to rob a citizen, that citizen will be armed too. And, since we have already established that the crook is a crook, he or she(ok, he) is likely to be armed regardless of if its legal or not.
From page 4 of Breyer's dissent (117th page in the PDF file):
... a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence'---a provision that the majority says was interpreted as 'secur[ing] an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.' " (p. 6 of Breyer, 119th page of the PDF file)
"colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the 'right to keep and bear arms,' whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home."
The majority relied on law and convention prior to the 2d amendment (in fact, way back into English history) for the notion that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a right to use arms in self defense. Nothing in the 2d ammendment expresses such a purpose explicitly---if there it is implicit in the interpretation of "to keep and bear arms." So, Breyer points out that essentially the same constituency that established the constitution and the first 10 ammendments (ratified in 1791), had passed regulations affecting the use of weapons in self defense under constitutional provisions of their times, which were stronger than the 2d amendment. Some of these constitutional provisions were the unwritten English provisions that the majority insisted supported such a right. Others were the existing state constitutions:
"Pennsylvania, like Massachusetts, had at the time one of the self-defense-guaranteeing state constitutional provisions on which the majority relies." (p. 7 of Breyer, 120th page of the PDF file)
In other words, according to Breyer, the majority relied on law preceding the 2d amendment to infer interpretations that should be applied to that amendment, yet ignored evidence that contemporary jurisprudence had not interpreted those laws in the way relied on by the majority:
"Massachusetts residents must have believed this kind of law compatible with the provision in the Massachusetts Constitution that granted 'the people
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
you are correct that that is not proof it wasn't working.
The fact that they had a gun ban in place for over 30 years and still had one of the highest gun related crime rates in the country shows it wasn't working.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
A BBC report from 2003 detailing the narrowing gap in crime rates as US crime rates fall and UK crime rates rise.
Also telling is the 200-year comparison showing that when firearms were virtually unrestricted in both countries, the choice of weapons to commit murder were different. The use of guns to commit murder is simply a societal "choice," and has no bearing on how many murders are actually committed. The availability of weapons to criminals has virtually no impact on crime rates. The availability of weapons to people who are otherwise law-abiding, on the other hand, does have a measurable impact on those people being able to protect themselves.