Second Admendment

[alaskaguy]

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the District of Columbia's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution's fundamental right to "keep and bear arms."

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the basic meaning of that passage. When it last considered a Second Amendment case, in 1939, it addressed a somewhat peripheral question, holding that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the “armsâ€￾ that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

The title of the case is Heller v. District of Columbia, after **** Heller, a District of Columbia resident who works as an armed security guard and is one of six plaintiffs recruited by Mr. Levy. None of the plaintiffs has asserted a right to carry their weapons outside their homes.

“I want to be able to defend myself and my wife from violent criminals, and the Constitution says I have a right to do that by keeping a gun in my home,â€￾ Mr. Heller said in a statement. “The police can’t be everywhere, and they can’t protect everyone all the time. Responsible gun ownership is a basic right we have as American citizens.â€￾

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?hp

 

[Stormin]

I believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court decision of overturning the District of Columbia's gun control law. I believe this to be a privacy issue. The gun owners have stated their intent is to keep the guns in their home for self-defense. I would think it would be very difficult to rule against them.

 

[Incyte]

I believe this to be a privacy issue.

I don't know how this is a privacy issue. I don't even really know what that means from a constitutional standpoint. You aren't protected from laws of general application because the criminal activity takes place in your home. It's more of a second amendment issue.

Regardless, I think you are correct in that its unlikely the S.Ct. upholds this law.

If the law is upheld, I think the south will secede again.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I don't know how this is a privacy issue. I don't even really know what that means from a constitutional standpoint. You aren't protected from laws of general application because the criminal activity takes place in your home. It's more of a second amendment issue.

Regardless, I think you are correct in that its unlikely the S.Ct. upholds this law.

If the law is upheld, I think the south will succeed again.

Secede?:twitcy: It could be argued that the South has seceded, but never succeeded.

 

[Stormin]

I don't know how this is a privacy issue. I don't even really know what that means from a constitutional standpoint. You aren't protected from laws of general application because the criminal activity takes place in your home. It's more of a second amendment issue.

Regardless, I think you are correct in that its unlikely the S.Ct. upholds this law.

If the law is upheld, I think the south will succeed again.

The gun owners have stated their intent to keep the guns in their homes.....not carry them in public. DC has a ban on handguns. I believe that by keeping the guns in the privacy of their own home and not in public that the gunowners will prevail in this case.

 

[Incyte]

Secede?:twitcy: It could be argued that the South has seceded, but never succeeded.

That's pretty funny. I'm a first rate idiot. :yes:

I better fix it before I make the idiot HOF.

 

[herbicide]

I am quite surprised that this has not been a case before on this (at least that I know about)

If the lower court's ruling is overturned, this set a precedent and will make the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the Constitution obsolete, as every word, meaning, context, punctuation will be open to interpretation.

Essentially, the Bill of Rights and Constitution will no longer guarantee anything. The Judicial Branch will have supreme power.

And yes, I am a gun owner and believe that many gun control laws are unconstitutional. No one will ever convince me that any law abiding citizen should not have the right to own firearms.

That being said, this decision has much more serious consequences than that of any one of our Constitutional Rights. Of course, to date this has really been the only controversial amendment, even though others have been violated (The internment camps in WWII, the "red-scare," etc)

 

[Cyclonepride]

That's pretty funny. I'm a first rate idiot. :yes:

I better fix it before I make the idiot HOF.

Sorry......I'm just a natural smart*ss. Plus, I know you'd do it to me.

 

[herbiedoobie]

I don't have the references at hand, but the original "ten" amendments were once "fourteen", and they crammed four of them together in the first two, creating the religion/speech mishmash in amendment one and the militia/keep and bear arms mishmash in amendment two.

This "melding of amendments" intended to make the Bill of Rights a more marketable "Ten", has led to the misreading of the 2nd Amendment as a "government right, not an individual right" by the anti-gun lobby.

States have a need for militias - (completely violated, as state militias have been largely federalized in the national guard)

People have the right to keep and bear arms - (routinely violated by subdivision, cities and counties).

 

[Iastfan112]

If they crammed 4 into the first 2, then wouldn't that mean 12 initially, or were there other ammendments that were discarded or shoved into others as well? Another issue the supreme court should tackle is that of youth curfews. I've always debated the constitutional legality of that and basically right now there a cluster of lower court rulings saying a variety of different things.

 

[Cyclonepride]

If they crammed 4 into the first 2, then wouldn't that mean 12 initially, or were there other ammendments that were discarded or shoved into others as well? Another issue the supreme court should tackle is that of youth curfews. I've always debated the constitutional legality of that and basically right now there a cluster of lower court rulings saying a variety of different things.

Some of the other proposed amendments had basis in natural law, God given rights that many of the founders felt important to spell out directly. I believe that these amendments were dropped as a potential barrier to ratification because slave owners/ Southern states felt that spelling these things out more clearly would have spelled the immediate death of the practice. The other two applied some items of the Constitution directly to state practices as well, but were not accepted.

 

[iceclone]

I am quite surprised that this has not been a case before on this (at least that I know about)

If the lower court's ruling is overturned, this set a precedent and will make the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the Constitution obsolete, as every word, meaning, context, punctuation will be open to interpretation.

Essentially, the Bill of Rights and Constitution will no longer guarantee anything. The Judicial Branch will have supreme power.

And yes, I am a gun owner and believe that many gun control laws are unconstitutional. No one will ever convince me that any law abiding citizen should not have the right to own firearms.

That being said, this decision has much more serious consequences than that of any one of our Constitutional Rights. Of course, to date this has really been the only controversial amendment, even though others have been violated (The internment camps in WWII, the "red-scare," etc)

As is often the case, the court is only addressing a narrow issue at their own choosing. Specifically, even though they are taking this case, they said that they will address the following issue: They will examine whether the DC stature has provisions that “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.â€￾

Nobody really knows what they mean, but my reading is that they will address if the Second Amendment applies to individuals, that is, if it is an individual right or if you can only claim Second Amendment rights while serving in an "appropriate" militia. It is also interesting that they specifically say "state-regulated militia," rather than "well regulated militia."

Reading the tea leaves of the Supremes is always a guessing game, and I'm probably wrong :unsure: But since they will address such a narrow question, I don't share your concern about implications to interpretation of other amendments.

 

[alaskaguy]

As is often the case, the court is only addressing a narrow issue at their own choosing. Specifically, even though they are taking this case, they said that they will address the following issue: They will examine whether the DC stature has provisions that “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

Nobody really knows what they mean, but my reading is that they will address if the Second Amendment applies to individuals, that is, if it is an individual right or if you can only claim Second Amendment rights while serving in an "appropriate" militia. It is also interesting that they specifically say "state-regulated militia," rather than "well regulated militia."

Reading the tea leaves of the Supremes is always a guessing game, and I'm probably wrong :unsure: But since they will address such a narrow question, I don't share your concern about implications to interpretation of other amendments.

Determining whether the Second Amendment applies to individuals is an important issue which is likely to have significant ramifications. Furthermore, the wording of the Supreme Court decisions often expand upon the original scope.

 

[herbicide]

Determining whether the Second Amendment applies to individuals is an important issue which is likely to have significant ramifications. Furthermore, the wording of the Supreme Court decisions often expand upon the original scope.

Exactly. The 1st amendment has similar punctuation. These constitutional debates should not even be debates. EVERYBODY knows what the founding fathers intents were on ALL the amendments. Now we have "do-gooders," lawyers, and special interest groups trying to not only re-write our constitutional rights, but history as well.

The whole point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to limit government powers and protect inalienable rights. Now (and in the past) the Constitution/Bill of Rights meaning is under trial in a very bad way. But, the way its been done (a little bit at a time, or in the public's "best interest") makes it seem not so bad.

I know I am on my high horse here, if the plain English of the 2nd Amendment's meaning can be changed, so can all the others.

 

[Incyte]

if the plain English of the 2nd Amendment's meaning can be changed, so can all the others.

Many already have been. The Court has crafted constitutional doctrine from thin air (rights of privacy, substantive due process).

The language of the constitution is really the only check or balance on the Court and now the Court reads whatever they want into or out of the Constitution. We have a serious judicial power problem in this country.

 

[herbicide]

Many already have been. The Court has crafted constitutional doctrine from thin air (rights of privacy, substantive due process).

The language of the constitution is really the only check or balance on the Court and now the Court reads whatever they want into or out of the Constitution. We have a serious judicial power problem in this country.

Yes sir, the system of checks and balances our fore fathers envisioned hasn't worked out the way they envisioned. We don't need another brick in the wall.

The Judicial Branch is by far and away the most powerful. In the end, they decide what laws are just, and how to enforce them. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, or constitutionally acceptable on their whim. In effect, the laws that congress enacts are at the mercy of the judicial system.

It has more direct effect on our rights and everyday lives than the Executive or Legislative branch.

Any political reform should start at or at least include the Judicial Branch.

 

[alaskaguy]

Other than through judicial appointments I don't know how you "reform" the system.

 

[herbicide]

Other than through judicial appointments I don't know how you "reform" the system.

Thats kind of how I see the problem. There is no way to reform them that I know of. I definitely don't have any answers to the problem.

You definitely can't have elections for them, because it will politicize them even more than they already are. Its a shame that both parties use these nominations to promote an agenda, instead of what their actual purpose is. IMO, its one of the few things that we have no choice but to take faith in the process and our elected leaders to put the right people in these chairs.

For the most part, I think they have done a pretty good job throughout history.

At the end, we and our freedoms are all at their mercy. This ruling will set an important precedent either way it goes.

 

[alaskaguy]

I believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court decision of overturning the District of Columbia's gun control law. I believe this to be a privacy issue. The gun owners have stated their intent is to keep the guns in their home for self-defense. I would think it would be very difficult to rule against them.

The majority of the opinions I have heard it is that the Supreme Court will reverse. The more difficult question becomes how far they will go. Hopefully they don't decide that the second admendment doesn't protect any individual rights.

The only votes to uphold will come from Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

 

[alaskaguy]

As is often the case, the court is only addressing a narrow issue at their own choosing. Specifically, even though they are taking this case, they said that they will address the following issue: They will examine whether the DC stature has provisions that “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

Nobody really knows what they mean, but my reading is that they will address if the Second Amendment applies to individuals, that is, if it is an individual right or if you can only claim Second Amendment rights while serving in an "appropriate" militia. It is also interesting that they specifically say "state-regulated militia," rather than "well regulated militia."

Reading the tea leaves of the Supremes is always a guessing game, and I'm probably wrong :unsure: But since they will address such a narrow question, I don't share your concern about implications to interpretation of other amendments.

The traditional view is that the Supremes determine that the Second Amendment protects the rights of states to have militias and that it does NOT guarantee individual rights.

If the Supremes rule that the Second Admendment does not guarantee individual rights, I suspect it will become a HUGE political issue with our elected officials.

There is only two “clean” decisions on this issue and that is to find either that there are no individual rights or that the individual rights have no limits. Any other decision is messy. For example if the government agrees that the second admendment allows individual rights, does it apply to semi-automatic assault weapons with laser scopes loaded with depleted uranium shells, or only those without the depleted uranium?