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

It's about damn time

[sabre86]

It has long amazed me how anyone could manage to construe the subordinate clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state," as anything other than an explanation as to why the amendment was being included in the first place. It is clear that this clause is an introduction to the rest of the amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's an even stronger prohibition on action than the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..."

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

Re:It's about damn time

[Astro Dr Dave]

Read the opinion; there are limits to those arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. Here is an excerpt from Scalia's majority opinion:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35â"36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Elsewhere, he writes:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." [...] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceâ"M-16 rifles and the likeâ"may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Breyer's dissent notes a logical problem with the majority opinion:

Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides which loaded "arms" a homeowner may keep. The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home." Ante, at 57; see also ante, at 54â"55. But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majority's reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In essence, the majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what existing regulations permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning.

Brietbart.com?

[sm62704]

How about a link to a real newspaper?

here
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?

Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have Chicago implications
An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.

The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.

Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.

Illinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.

Other city officials said they felt confidant that challenge would fail.

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.

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"??

Re:Who Goes to the Store for Guns?

[MBGMorden]

Not true. Even at 'gun shows' any firearm purchases *require* the same federal background check as if you purchased from a store. The 'gun show loophole' simply does not exist....you can not make an end run around state and federal laws by buying a firearm from a gun show. Depending on the state, you're not quite correct. In MOST states (exceptions are California for sure, and maybe 1 or 2 others that I'm not aware of), a sale between private individuals does not require any Federal NICS check. So I can take one of my rifles to a gun show, tote it around with a "For Sale" sticker on it, and if someone wants to buy it they can without background check.

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.

Re:Oh great...

[onecheapgeek]

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.

Re:Oh great...

[jfsimard79]

Quote: 'India didn't gain their independence through guns.' Yeah, but they also died by the thousands.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Where? Not in America

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.

Re:fuck yes

[CrimsonAvenger]

That is the decision of the courts. That is how they chose to interpret the constitution. As best I know, the court did not travel back in time to ask the writers of the constitution to clarify the message they were trying to convey when they wrote it.

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.

Re:Oh great...

[gorehog]

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.

Re:Oh great...

[DnemoniX]

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.

Re:Sweet

[orphiuchus]

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.

Re:First hand experience

[Darth]

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.