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.
Now we get to hear from a bunch of people who normally bitch about the government taking away individual freedoms try to justify their hypocrisy while they argue for gun control, and how the supreme court wasn't thinking of the children...
I'm glad they made the right decision, but shocked that it was so close (5-4). I'd expect more intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges.
Thank goodness. Gun control laws only keep the honest person honest and defenseless.
Law abiding citizens will obey the law and revoke ownership of guns. Criminals on the other hand already have a mind to break the law, and having a law against guns won't stop them for a second.
Gun Control only serves to take guns out of the hands of people that give a shit about the law.
Lets have more law abiding citizens with guns with the ability to defend themselves against criminals.
Police aren't there to defend you, they are there to arrest people (generally after they commit a crime).
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The individuals who are going around killing people with hand guns can't get a permit for a gun in the first place. These individuals buy their hand guns on underground black markets; markets that will exist whether hand gun possession is legal or not.
What's the point?
The real intention of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to revolt (or at least threaten to). And that is a right that I savor.
What about the fact that it doesn't say "guns", just "arms"? I want my personal nuclear weapons!
E pluribus unum
Apparently Stevens needs to learn how to read. Of course the framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
In case you don't see the connection, I'll spell it out: "Oh judge, what good are your laws?" They represent the consensus of the governed. The bad man will not follow them but the government will enforce them. This will always be true.
The good man absolutely does need laws, as the laws spell out what the consensus is, and as long as the rule of law exists, where laws are applied equally and fairly to all the governed, then the good man will accept them if they are acceptable, and will work through legitimate channels if they must be changed.
Or would it make sense to say, "Oh Grocery Store, what good are your prices? The shoplifter will not follow them, and the good shopper does not read them." -- no, of course not.
On the other hand, even if the mugger didn't think you had a gun, he may shoot you just to be safe. Then take your wallet and run.
If the mugger is armed, you're screwed either way. (Assuming he's a decent shot.) But if you're armed, (A) you might be able to frighten off the attacker, even if he were armed (cuz he knows he's a bad shot), or (B) you might take the bastard down, saving yourself, or (C) you might take the bastard with you, even if he got ya.
So explain to me again why unarmed is better?
Now, to weaken my argument: a gun is an awful responsibility. One wild round or accidental discharge and you may have killed an innocent bystander. So, for a lot of people, that's too much of a risk. Me, for instance. I may not have any compunction about defending myself with lethal force, if I could assure myself to nearly 100% certainty that only my attacker and possibly myself will suffer. But bullets don't stop when you miss your target, and that's why I won't risk 'em.
That's just me, though. YMMV. FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
That should have read "conservative" justices in the Breyer case, but it's clear what you meant.
It's unbelievably sad that there's currently only one justice on the Supreme Court who supports our Constitution-guaranteed individual rights regardless of the swings of left/right politics.
Amendment 2.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The term "people" is also used elsewhere in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the PEOPLE of the several StatesAmendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment 4.
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment 9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLEAmendment 10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLEAmendment 17.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the PEOPLE fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.Anyone having trouble understanding what the word "people" was understood to mean by the writers of the US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and the Seventeenth Amendment?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Besides, everyone knows that if you make laws prohibiting gun ownership, that only affects law-abiding citizens. The criminals always manages to have guns anyway, thus leaving the law-abider at a severe disadvantage.
Responsible Gun Ownership is the way to go, and will result in less crime, lessen the need for police (which themselves figure into the crime component), and fix a host of other ills.
Many liberals will disagree with me, but I have yet to see a sound counter-argument. And no, I am NOT a conservative -- I am a Libertarian.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
If Gore or Kerry beat Bush, no way Roberts or Alito are on the bench, and no way this law gets struck down. Whatever freedoms Bush might have curtailed, this forum gets awful silent when it's time to thank Republicans or blame Democrats. Just remember who is controlling Congress right now the next time some further criminalization of intellectual property law passes.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
As deplorable as their 2000 political intrusion was, Gore handed the case to them on a silver platter by only demanding a recount in the precincts where he was behind due to Florida stupidity. If he had thought about it for a few seconds, he would have realized he was opening himself up for an equal protection lawsuit.
Infuriate left and right
What disturbs me, and deeply, is that "the right to keep and bear arms" was all but ignored by 4 out of 9 people on that bench. I mean they basically reasoned that "well, it says that, but that's not what it really means".
The 2nd Amendment is in two parts... the first part gives a justification for the right, the second part lays out the actual guarantee to the right itself.
Even if you think that changing times has voided the reasoning for the first part, that doesn't actually void the right guaranteed in the second part. The only way you're supposed to be able add or remove something from the Constitution, including rights themselves, is through the amendment process.
But in reality that's not how it works. In reality, a simple 5-4 majority can, with the stroke of a pen, completely null and void not just laws passed by Congress and local governments, but it seems that they can also void parts of the Constitution itself, simply by declaring, in legalese, "never mind what the text of the Amendment says, here's what it means".
This is, in practical terms, a kind of "tyranny of expertise"... the notion that only experts can understand the Constitution, no matter how plainly written its text is, and the rights of citizens are subordinate to these experts, as the flock was subordinate to the rulings of the Priesthood in the old days of the Catholic Church, dependent upon their interpretation of scripture. But I say that if common citizens cannot trust the Constitution to be understood in its plain text... if it doesn't "mean what it says" .... then it's worthless. It is, in that case, not worth the paper it's written on. If the Constitution says "up means up", and a judge can say "no, up really means down in the Constitution", then we don't live in a free country after all. We are in thrall to the priesthood of experts.
Think about that for a moment. 4 people in black robes today voted to essentially null and void a part of the bill of rights, the amendment process aside, by declaring that, despite what is written in it, the right guaranteed in it was never really a right at all. Just kidding, folks. Ignore that "shall not be infringed" stuff. Is this not the kind of thing George Orwell warned of? Is this not Newspeak?
The vehicle of the minority's dissent was the notion of "collective rights". John Paul Stevens' dissent was truly frightening to read, as he reasons that virtually everything in the bill of rights is a "collective right"... not an individual right, but dependent upon the collective as a whole. It was Soviet-lite in its reasoning. What are rights if not for individuals? Isn't the very notion of a right that one man's liberty is not limited to the collective?
Today, I became convinced that the three branches are in fact not equal. I think SCOTUS is more powerful by far than the President and the Congress combined. Neither of those branches have the power to void the Constitution with an opinion, with the stroke of a pen. SCOTUS can null an executive order, or a law passed by Congress. The President and Congress can do nothing to cancel out a ruling of the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS deems in a ruling that left really means right, then that's it. That's the law. And unless the President and Congress openly defy that ruling (and trigger a national crisis as a result), then "Stare Decisis" indeed makes left into right in the eyes of the law. The issue is settled.
I'm firmly convinced that if the United States ever has another Civil War, it will be the direct result of a Supreme Court decision.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Your equations aren't necessarily true. The VAST majority of guns in the US are NOT used in crimes, and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. States with conceal-carry laws have substantially reduced crime rates as well.
States can still regulate firearms, as long as they don't infringe upon the second amendment. Individual rights, in this case, trump state rights.
Actually, you can't "just as well argue" that. It would, in fact, be much harder to argue that proposition unless one were not particularly bright and speaking to an audience that was basically stupid.
Let's compare these arguments side by side:
1. SCOTUS lost all credibility after the 2000 election? OK, "all" is hyperbole. The court did not lose "all" credibility. However, the right wing of the court did manage to tarnish their reputation as being strict Constitutionalists by being so eager to jump into this issue.
2. Bush jammed the court with right-wing idealogues? Basically true if you define "right-wing" as equivalent to "Republican party line" as opposed to the traditional definition of Conservative. Neither Roberts nor Alito seem to have Scalia or Thomas's respect for the Constitution but seem to vote along party lines. Basically, both of them will vote according to what the Republican consensus (as reported on Fox News) tells them to vote.
Compare these arguments to your argument:
1. The SCOTUS was in the process of degenerating into a puddle of crypto-marxist Priests of the Temples of Syrinx? I just did a Google search and I was unable to even find a definition of "crypto-marxist". Is that something you just made up? But, if you mean that the pre-Bush appointments were closet Marxists, then it's pretty clear that you are wrong. At least since you can never know the inner thoughts of someone else, one must judge them on their actions. Justice Ginsberg -- referred to as the "most-liberal" of current justices -- is actually relatively moderate by the Segal-Cover ranking with a score of 0.6 on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale. Interestingly, Ginsberg is the richest member of the Supreme Court.
Secondly, it is also almost impossible to argue that any current or former member of the SCOTUS is or was a Priests (or Pristesss) of the Temples of Syrinx since: (a) it's a fictional group that doesn't enter (fictional) human history until at least 2060 according to the band Rush, and (b) go back and read (a) again.
Therefore, in summary, you are wrong and based on your knowledge of the SCOTUS I'm certainly not going to take your advice when it comes to presidential elections.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
This will comfort huge numbers of single issue voters that would normally vote simply to protect their gun rights from Democrats.
I very much disagree. While 2nd amendment activists are pleased with the ruling, they're also deeply disturbed by the fact that it was 5-4. This only highlights the fact that elections are important. They matter, especially since the President nominates SCOTUS candidates.Had Anthony Kennedy woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, the 2nd Amendement... a key part in the Bill of Rights... could have been voided with the stroke of a pen.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
If people by law are unarmed the robber can safely assume the victim will hand over his or her money.
Personally I will any time give up my money rather than face the option of taking someones life or losing my own - its just money for Christ sake! Remember; when you are being approached your gun is in your holster - his is already out, who do you think gets to shoot first?
And all that crap about taking care of civilians - BS! if you got a gun and start flashing it people will die, even at 15 m. most people will be wildly inaccurate with a pistol - and if they are inexperienced with munition they are likely to have bullets that will go straight through the target and hit whatever is on the other side (hint even the police in several countries have bullets that fail to stop inside the target, and have killed innocent bystanders).
I'll take a gun less society anytime.
OR maybe it means that criminals just get better guns. ... but i'm sure your hand gun will protect you.... definitly... right.
You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.
Or with more of them.
The transition from no-gun to nontrivial gun essentially levels the playing field, regardless of the relative size and capabilities of the guns on both sides. A bigger or faster gun is not a shield. It doesn't matter how big the gun is if the guy with the little (but big enough) gun fires his.
A bad-guy in a gun-on-gun confrontation is in a world of disadvantage: Fire (first) and he loses: He's now escalated from armed robbery (or whatever) to attempted murder, and called attention of bystanders and authorities to the confrontation. The ordinary citizen, on the other hand, is in reasonable fear for life and limb and may fire.
Usual result: The bad guy retreats to hunt for less-toothy prey, with no shots fired on either side.
Occasional result: Bad guy makes one more threatening move, good guy fires, police sort it out in a few hours or weeks or courts do after a few years.
VERY occasional result: Bad guy fires. Bad guy becomes subject of manhunt (progressively moreso if he makes a practice of this) and is eventually run down and removed from circulation (either by a victim who did fire first or by the authorities).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I don't agree with the CW on Slashdot that everything Bush has done is bad. And most of my disagreements with Bush come from the conservative side of the spectrum, not the radical, civil libertarian, the-Constitution-is-a-suicide-pact perspective that is so pervasive on Slashdot. But many here suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or less elegantly, are haters. If Bush rescued kittens from a burning building, many here would have something snotty to say. That just isn't reasonable. Anyone who is happy with the Heller decision simply must recognize that without Bush in the White House appointing two justices, gun rights would have taken a serious hit today.
But if you suffer from BDS and don't care about a civil liberty so important that the framers listed it above search and seizure and right to counsel, then of course you are not interested in an objective, fair view of the 43rd president. Besides, it is much easier to call me names than to be reasonable and admit to something that flies in the face of your ideology. It is so much easier - and takes so much less thought and introspection - to just label Bush evil, with no redeeming qualities.
the fact that the so-called "originalists" on the court basically reversed about a centuries worth of decisions previously decided), but that doesn't matter.
Nonsense. Miller is the *only* 20th-century SCOTUS gun rights case that even addresses the Second Amendment, and only touched on taxation and registration of sawed-off shotguns, not the issue of individual gun rights in general. In fact, Heller upheld DC's licensing schemes.
Moreover, you have no idea what judicial activism means. It does not mean that a court is "active" in reversing precedent - especially if it is reversing case law inconsistent with the Constitution or statutory law (i.e., overturning activist cases is not activism). Activism means judges legislating from the bench, ignoring the Constitution or statute for their own public policy ideals. And "originalist" philosophy has nothing to do with upholding precedent (i.e., stare decisis); it is about judging consistent with the original understanding of the framers' intent, which this decision certainly does. You might disagree with the author of the Bill of Rights, but clearly he was talking about an individual right.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
For the record, I am a law professor, so I am not just talking out of my ass here, as most jailhouse lawyers here do. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts or law.
But since you are lamenting activism, I am sure that you are upset that, thanks to a recent SCOTUS decision, for the first time in American and world history, POWs/unlawful combatants now get access to civil courts. Now that's activism.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
you could open up ten police forces the size of the NYPD.
Not necessarily a good option. While I'm sure there are areas that could use more police protection, there are already a good amount where additional police would simply result in more speeding tickets(because they're easy).
No, my solution would be to legalize, regulate, and tax the currently illegal drugs. Killing the illegal drug trade would drop our violence levels to near european levels overnight.
I don't read AC A human right
why do some people think that 'the founding fathers' were space aliens with more wisdom than anyone who has lived since?
We had some old white men write important documents in UK history too. Most of them were maniacs or bloodthirsty freaks, and we don't cling to some fantasy that what they wrote down was THE LAST WORD.
In fact, we overturned their views many times, regarding votes for women and homosexuality, abortion etc etc.
Just because people wrote a document a long time ago doesn't make what they wrote magically wise.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
the defense of personal safety, the order is just about the opposite.
damaged by dogma
First off, about half the army will likely defect. Civilian targets? Marshall law? Blow up towns?
Second, you have guns so when the Nazis march into your town to start yanking you out of your houses, you're fuckin' armed. It worked for Hitler, it won't work here; Hitler collected up all the guns, if we have them all still then when the gestapo wants to take us they can take us through the bullet spray.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
it seemed to work pretty well for the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Mujaheddin. The entire point of guerrilla warfare is that it almost completely eliminates the military advantage that large standing forces have. Artillery and other massive weapons are only useful against other standing militaries. Cruise missiles are only useful against infrastructure and other persistent targets. Attack helicopters are no use at picking one soldier out of a crowd of civilians. Aircraft carriers are useless against someone poisoning your barracks' food supply. ICBMs don't frighten someone who lives 2 miles from your own military base. Stealth fighters can't protect you from roadside bombs.
Of course, your argument is pointless anyways. As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right. You don't say that the freedom of speech is no longer protected just because Rupert Murdoch can easily speak louder than any protester, you don't say that the fourth amendment is no longer valid since the police can easily find out tons of information about you without entering your home. I don't think there's any risk that the government will want to quarter soldiers in private homes to save some money, that doesn't mean the constitutional prohibition against it ceases to be the law of the land.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The military is our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers -- they do not want to shoot a single US citizen. Most will follow orders so long as they do not include shooting and harming US citizens, and that's exactly why we need the guns; more than likely only a few minor incidents would be needed, because the aftermath would further ignite public outcry and also dampen military resolve to use weaponry on its own citizens.
damaged by dogma
Bush himself has used the "not at war" tactic to justify circumventing the Geneva Conventions, claiming our prisoners are not POWs but "enemy combatants." This despite the fact that
...the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." Seems we are at war when it is convenient, and not when it is inconvenient.FDR and Truman were wartime presidents. We declared war in WWII.
"Police action" was invented to circumvent the Senate. It was invented to take advantage of the ambiguity in Article 2 of the Constitution, which simply states that the president shall act as Commander in Chief. Presidents use this to order troops to war, without having to get the Senate to actually declare war.
Yes, war is hell. But we are better at killing our enemies than they are at killing us. That does not mean we should debase ourselves to use their tactics, tactics which we have agreed are illegal when we signed the Geneva Conventions. It certainly does not mean we should willingly sacrifice our core values because they are inconvenient. If we do that, we have already lost, because that is exactly what the enemy wants.
First off, about half the army will likely defect
Precisely why they wouldn't use the army. Think Blackwater gleefully plying their trade for very fat bonuses. They won't give a second thought about you.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
The difference is that 230 years ago,
1. a musket was the best any army had. Civilians even had the equivalent of sniper rifles, see the minutemen.
Heck, you could make a musket and ammo in a local smithy or in your shed. It was a simple weapon where the tolerances were _extremely_ generous.
Artillery? Sure. Anyone who could make a bell, could make a cannon just as good as the royal armourers in England.
Shock troops? That still meant cavalry. Any rancher who had a horse could be the equivalent of what today is a tank or a gunship.
2. Tactics were also more... lacklustre. Armies were trained to just march to 100 yards of each other and stand tall, shooting volley after volley at each other, until one looks like it's breaking. Then the other would do a cavalry charge or bayonet charge to finish it all. The only difference between a fully trained army and a militia was that the army was trained to stay in formation longer.
The Brits essentially did little more than pout when the rifled guns of the minutemen just sniped their officers in the first volley.
Modern infantry tactics and indeed combined arms tactics are a bit more effective than that. A militia whose claim to glory is shooting a few vermin now and then, and a bit of penis-size posturing at the shooting range on sundays, would sustain heavier casualties even if they had the exact same weapons the army had.
3. While willy-waving about the independence war is good and fine, let's not forget that it was mostly won because there was an ocean in between _and_ because France went bankrupt supporting you guys against the Brits. The whole French navy, as much as there was of it, fought hard to make that ocean a bigger problem for the Brits than it already was. And there was military help on the ground too from the French and from the northern indian tribes they had worked hard to befriend.
In fact, if you look at the French Revolution, soon there after, and at the king getting beheaded, that's what started it: eventually the peasants and burgeoisie had enough of paying the debt for a war that wasn't theirs and gained nothing for them. But I digress.
At any rate, you fought, only a fraction of the English army and you didn't fight it alone. And yeah, you repeated it a few years later, when the Brits were busy with Napoleon and made little more than a token show of force to keep you from trading with Napoleon. And gave up as soon as Napoleon was no longer a threat, and they had no more reason to keep you from trading with France.
Don't let it go to your head. Just a few rag-tag militias against the full might of England, _could_ have went a lot differently.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That's the crux of the problem with gun laws in general. Criminals, by definition aren't interested in following the law, therefore, the stringent gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A friend of my Mom's had this happen to their family.
They came home from a trip, came upon armed buglers in their home. The bad guys already had the drop on them.
The father went for the gun in his briefcase. He was shot dead. His son was injured in the same incident.
You might think you can sort all this stuff out and make the right decision when it happens. Or you might get
angry or scared or overcome by the desire to protect your family and wind up dead.
Maybe you think you are smarter and would be able to trick the guy with the gun on you. Hey, it happens a lot
in the movies. Let's hope you never find out.
Also by having guns in your household, you run the risk that one of your household becomes so distraught that
they would use the gun on themselves or someone else in your family.
Let's say that your wife decides you are cheating on her and sobbing and finds your gun just before you get home.
What might have been an argument can instantly turn into someone getting killed.
So on the one hand, the gun might make you safer. On the other hand it might make you less safe. The way the
US constitution is today, you get to choose. I choose not to have guns. You might choose differently.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
IIRC, that was from the New England Journal of Medicine and it classified "family" as anybody you knew, including rival gang members.
When it came out a very liberal columnist in Playboy (Scheer?) was screaming anti-gun with it as evidence. The next issue was a huge mea culpa as he exposed the lies of the study that had apparently been pointed out to him.
What a dreadful idea. More firepower to whoever has the most money, as if power in the US wasn't already dangerously concentrated into the hands of a few, very wealthy people.
the stringent gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.
You're too kind to our elected leaders. Stringent gun laws get people killed. Maybe if a few of these errant officials were put up on negligent homicide charges they'd think twice about this unConstitutional poppycock. So far as I'm concerned, every time a law-abiding citizen is killed because he was unable to legally acquire a firearm with which to defend himself, the people who prevented him are partly responsible for his death.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.