Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment NOT about militias

[Drudgewire]

From the Scotus Blog:

Quote:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

And so there is no ambiguity:

Quote:

Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

And from The Hill

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, ruling the restrictions do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

The 5-4 decision handed down Thursday is the Supreme Court’s first major Second Amendment ruling in nearly 70 years. It declared unconstitutional a D.C. law on the books for more than 30 years.

The District since 1976 has restricted handgun ownership to former or current law enforcement officers who registered their guns before 1977. The law permits shotguns and hunting rifles in homes but requires them to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled D.C.’s gun ban unconstitutional last year. Dissatisfied with the ruling, lawyers for the District appealed the decision, and in November the Supreme Court agreed to consider the case. Arguments were heard in March.

Dozens of lawmakers in almost every Congress have put forward amendments and bills to revoke the D.C. gun ban, all of which have failed.

Critics of D.C.’s law say it infringes on their right to bear arms, while D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other supporters of the ban argue that restricted gun ownership is a tactic to battle gun violence in the city.

157 page ruling

[RenaissanceBiker]

Thank you, SCOTUS!

[Demigorgon]

Nice to see there's still a bit of sanity left in this world.

[billydkid]

I'm with you! Let's hope this settles it for a while.

[billydkid]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Thank you, SCOTUS!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...60fc01caf2.jpg

RB - that is just mean!!! It is clear your intention is to torment old farts like me.

[BPSCG]

Thank you, RenaissanceBi... Hey, wait, that's my sister, you !!!

[NoZed Avenger]

From the majority decision:

Scalia, J.: Well, we were really torn, but the exhibits from RenaissanceBiker were very compelling.

[BPSCG]

The Hill:

Quote:

Mayor Adrian Fenty and other supporters of the ban argue that restricted gun ownership is a tactic to battle gun violence in the city.

Emphasis mine.

I believe that's a misstatement of the District's position. Nobody argues that the District doesn't have the right to restrict gun ownership. But the District was arguing it had the right to ban it outright.

Now the District has to decide what restrictions it wants to put in place. Felons, mental patients, minors, would all be a good place to start. They also need to decide what kind of firepower people should be allowed to have. I suspect Abrams tanks won't be permitted.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

The Hill:

I suspect Abrams tanks won't be permitted.

Not a firearm.

In Texas the open carry law is now being bandied about, and for my money, is a good start. I'd like to see everyone in DC packing an 1873 Colt Peacemaker, openly. Let the distinguished ladies and gentlemen of Congress harken back to the days of Andy Jackson and Sam Houston, when Congress was wilder and woolier, which of course was a bit pre 1873.

Let the duels of Burr and Hamilton resume their rightful place in American politics.

DR

[BPSCG]

Another compelling argument:

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Not a firearm.

The second amendment doesn't mention firearms. Just Arms.

Quote:

Let the duels of Burr and Hamilton resume their rightful place in American politics.

Because killing people over insults is what we want to encourage, just look at the inner city youth, they have got it so right.

[Complexity]

I'm delighted.

It is important to remember that the right to bear arms is there in part, and I think most importantly, to resist an unworthy government.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The second amendment doesn't mention firearms. Just Arms.

Do you take the position that subsequent legislation passed since the Constitution's original drafting is not binding? Do you hold the laws the ATF tries to enforce as non binding? Do you hold that the distinction made between firearms in various act and elements of the US code to be non binding and invalid?

Quote:

Because killing people over insults is what we want to encourage, just look at the inner city youth, they have got it so right.

How are these inner city youth you cite American politics? Please explain.

Please explain how you equate a drive by with a duel.

@ Complexity: *tips cap*

DR

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The second amendment doesn't mention firearms. Just Arms.

I say let the man who can bear an Abrams have an Abrams.

Just don't complain about my stock of depleted uranium.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Because killing people over insults is what we want to encourage,

Absolutely. That's exactly what the 2nd amendment says; it's exactly what SCOTUS has said; it's exactly what Darth Rotor said; and it's exactly what every supporter of gun ownership rights is thinking. You nailed it, PT. Well done.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

just look at the inner city youth, they have got it so right.

Give a few of 'em an Abrams and watch the internecine murder rate drop right off. After an initial upswing, of course.

[volatile]

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

[Giggywig]

Originally Posted by volatile

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

Because it says "the right of the People", not "the right of the People who are part of a well regulated militia." Or maybe I'm just not sane.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I say let the man who can bear an Abrams have an Abrams.

Just don't complain about my stock of depleted uranium.


Absolutely. That's exactly what the 2nd amendment says; it's exactly what SCOTUS has said; it's exactly what Darth Rotor said; and it's exactly what every supporter of gun ownership rights is thinking. You nailed it, PT. Well done.


Give a few of 'em an Abrams and watch the internecine murder rate drop right off. After an initial upswing, of course.

Let me repeat,

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

Yes, the word is there, but the amendment is clearly about the individual right. Particularly when it's put into historical context.

[LTC8K6]

If you win the argument that it's about the militia, well, the militia was the people.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by volatile

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

Speaking just semantically and not legally or philosophically, I think there is a legitimate case for exactly the position you deride.

"A well regulated militia being necessary" is the reason.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the means.

Reasoning being this:

If ever the state requires a militia, it will be unable to raise or keep one if the populace from which it is to be raised is unarmed. Therefore, the practical implication is that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms separate from any actual service in the militia.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Let the duels of Burr and Hamilton resume their rightful place in American politics.

And let us not forget the 1850 fracas on the Senate floor between Missouri's Senator Thomas Hart Benton and Mississippi Senator Henry Foote.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Do you take the position that subsequent legislation passed since the Constitution's original drafting is not binding? Do you hold the laws the ATF tries to enforce as non binding? Do you hold that the distinction made between firearms in various act and elements of the US code to be non binding and invalid?

I was pointing out that consititutionaly the distinction you make does not exist. The basis of something being a firearm or not is not something that is significant as to a law being constitutional.

Quote:

Please explain how you equate a drive by with a duel.

They are both based on the idea that violence is how you need to respond to personal slights. So they are very much the same and stem from the same sense of personal honor.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Complexity

I'm delighted.

It is important to remember that the right to bear arms is there in part, and I think most importantly, to resist an unworthy government.

Which is of course why SAM's need to be legal. How else am I supposted to protect my house from their helicopters?

Home defense is one of the rights cited after all.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Originally Posted by volatile

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

I dunno... the Ablative absolute^WP?

How about that, "the right of the people part?" Ever considered what that might do to the rest of the thing is it were decided that, "the people," was a collective, and not individual, designation?

Just asking.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Absolutely. That's exactly what the 2nd amendment says; it's exactly what SCOTUS has said; it's exactly what Darth Rotor said; and it's exactly what every supporter of gun ownership rights is thinking. You nailed it, PT. Well done.

That is what duels are about, someone dis's you and you fight them hopefuly kill them.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I was pointing out that consititutionaly the distinction you make does not exist. The basis of something being a firearm or not is not something that is significant as to a law being constitutional.

Please look into Article I of the Constitution before you try that again, section 8. You didn't bother to respond to my questions. Please do so.

Quote:

They are both based on the idea that violence is how you need to respond to personal slights. So they are very much the same and stem from the same sense of personal honor.

Wrong again.

The duel is a very formal social ritual, and has existed in numerous human societies at various times and places.

The drive by has as much relation to a duel as your foot does to a jellyfish.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by volatile

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

Aparently the idea is that the founders like to pepper their documents with unrelated sentence fragments.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Speaking just semantically and not legally or philosophically, I think there is a legitimate case for exactly the position you deride.

"A well regulated militia being necessary" is the reason.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the means.

Reasoning being this:

If ever the state requires a militia, it will be unable to raise or keep one if the populace from which it is to be raised is unarmed. Therefore, the practical implication is that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms separate from any actual service in the militia.

The problem is that this is demonstrably not true.

So when the constitution uses falacious logic, it is still all fine?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The problem is that this is demonstrably not true.

Please support this vacant assertion with significant evidence, if you'd like to not be laughed at on this matter.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Please look into Article I of the Constitution before you try that again, section 8. You didn't bother to respond to my questions. Please do so.

Not a thing in there differentiateing firearms from other sorts of arms.

Quote:

Wrong again.

The duel is a very formal social ritual, and has existed in numerous human societies at various times and places.

Yes, it was taking the basic motives of killing someone because they steped on your shoe and socialy recognizing it.

This would mean that public stonings would be better than private honor killings because one is a formal social ritual.

Quote:

The drive by has as much relation to a duel as your foot does to a jellyfish.

And yet the laws against dueling still come into play.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Please support this vacant assertion with significant evidence, if you'd like to not be laughed at on this matter.

DR

So do nations that broadly ban weapons have problems equiping their military?

When was the national guard BYOG?

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Giggywig

Because it says "the right of the People", not "the right of the People who are part of a well regulated militia." Or maybe I'm just not sane.

The People can make up a well regulated militia and then bear arms, as part of that well-regulated militia. That's what the sentence means. It specifically establishes that well-regulated militias are necessary for the freedom of the state. Private gun ownership is almost the opposite of a well-regulated militia, isn't it?

If it meant "Everyone should have the right to bear arms", then there is semantically and syntactically no need for the militia clause. The insertion of such a clause specifically limits the People owning guns to those within the well-regulated militia, at least in any sensible reading.

Let's replace "well-regulated militia" with "dairy farm" and "arms" with "cows". Seems like a good swap right? "Militias" are coordinated ways of organising guns and putting them to collective use, dairy farms do the same with cows.

"Dairy farms being necessary for the milk supply of a free state, the right of the people to own cows shall not be infringed". This rendering clearly demonstrates that it is the collective use of the cows, and not the individual use, which the Amendment is suggesting "not be infringed".

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Thank you, RenaissanceBi... Hey, wait, that's my sister, you !!!

Which one of my brother-in-laws are you?

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Gagglegnash

Hi




I dunno... the Ablative absolute^WP?

How about that, "the right of the people part?" Ever considered what that might do to the rest of the thing is it were decided that, "the people," was a collective, and not individual, designation?

Just asking.

Of course.

The people, collectively as you rightly assert, have the right to bear arms in the form of the necessary well-regulated militias. Collectively. Not individually, and not outside of the Well-regulated militia.

In what way does uninhibited individual gun ownership necessarily pre-figure a well-regulated militia, which is the absolute opposite?

[marksman]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Not a thing in there differentiateing firearms from other sorts of arms.

At the time the Amendment was drafted, the term "arms" was limited in meaning to "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." For example, at the time of the Second Amendment, the federal government could restrict an individual's right to own a cannon (and often did), and many States as well required all cannon and cannonballs to be held at a central armory.

Thus, for purposes of the 2nd Amendment, "arms" does not include tanks, bombs, nukes, etc. Those can be restricted legally with no Constitutional issue being present.

[Suddenly]

Reading the opinion is always fun. Relying on a brief snippet about the decision by a reporter is not going to give a decent picture of what is really going on.


My opinion after a quick reading:

A bit predictable. My reading is that it answers the theoretical historical question but will have almost no effect on the practical state of the law. An academic victory for conservatives that won't significantly change gun laws as they stand today.

Mostly it is the same tired historical definition hair splitting that has plagued the debate over the years. Fair enough. I'm more concerned with the quality of the opinion than the conclusion, although I find Scalia's argument a jumbled collection of claims applied in a manner indicating a results-based analysis seeking to reverse longstanding accepted principles without admitting to doing so, this is more of a matter of opinion than a critical analysis.

Scalia spends a significant part of his time worrying about the dissent. Other than that he does some curious things. Like at one point saying the "keep and bear" clause should be defined by the everyday understanding of the words as to meaning, but is limited by historical legal doctrine as to the type of weapons it covers (no nukes).

He also somehow cites the Miller court's (the only other SC case dealing with the substance of 2nd amendment) ending its analysis by determining the gun at issue was not one commonly used in military purposes as supporting an individual right because the status of the defendants was not discussed. He is citing the lack of dicta (part of the opinion beyond what was necessary to decide the case and thus with no binding legal authority) as supporting one way or another his position.

Quote:

Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

This is the only passage that shocked me.... it takes an extremely unconservative attitude as to the role of the judiciary, that a court should not speak as to issues not necessary to decide a case. This line is not necessary to Scalia's conclusion, but it does not speak well as to his analysis. He does some similar things with a few other cases that touch on the second amendment but are silent as to substance of the amendment. While not as bad as above, still a bit odd.

The rationale for holding that the DC ban on hanguns is not a reasonable regulation is that they are really popular, and useful because one can dial the phone with one hand while holding the gun in the other. So much for judicial deference to legislative policy determinations.

There was no finding that this new formulation of the second amendment will apply to state gun laws, nor that it will overturn many federal laws. Scalia all but states that bans on automatic weapons are just peachy keen, as are provisions about felons and the mentally ill. The weakness of the holding finding the handgun ban not a reasonable regulation indicates that the practical effect of this opinion will be limited because it largely relies on present ownership patterns without noting that existing laws have a very solid effect on those patters.

[webfusion]

Quote:

When was the national guard BYOG?

In the American War of Independence, the local militias were able to be formed as a result of the fact that individuals owned muskets. And bayonets.
Even during the US Civil War, the Confederacy was composed of troops that brought their own weapons when they joined.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Wrong again.

The duel is a very formal social ritual, and has existed in numerous human societies at various times and places.

... and has been ridiculous every time. Whether sword or pistol, a duel comes from some crybaby being insulted...

** edited **

Got rid of the second part of my post, because I really just wanted to share my opinion on duelling.

[Giggywig]

Originally Posted by volatile

The People can make up a well regulated militia and then bear arms, as part of that well-regulated militia. That's what the sentence means. It specifically establishes that well-regulated militias are necessary for the freedom of the state. Private gun ownership is almost the opposite of a well-regulated militia, isn't it?

If it meant "Everyone should have the right to bear arms", then there is semantically and syntactically no need for the militia clause. The insertion of such a clause specifically limits the People owning guns to those within the well-regulated militia, at least in any sensible reading.

Let's replace "well-regulated militia" with "dairy farm" and "arms" with "cows". Seems like a good swap right? "Militias" are coordinated ways of organising guns and putting them to collective use, dairy farms do the same with cows.

"Dairy farms being necessary for the milk supply of a free state, the right of the people to own cows shall not be infringed". This rendering clearly demonstrates that it is the collective use of the cows, and not the individual use, which the Amendment is suggesting "not be infringed".

The Court found that the prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
But why do you keep insisting your reading is the only sensible one? Why do you keep dismissing your opposition as unreasonable?

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Giggywig

The Court found that the prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
But why do you keep insisting your reading is the only sensible one? Why do you keep dismissing your opposition as unreasonable?

The Court could announce that the sky was pink, it wouldn't change reality.

The sentence is about militias. The clause, which establishes "well-regulated militias" as "necessary" in fact seems to actively exclude private, unregulated gun ownership (because it is not "well-regulated", and has nothing to do with militias), and if you'd read it as you would any normal English sentence, that would become clear. The first clause establishes the conditions for bearing arms, quite clearly.

It really is baffling that someone can claim, as the OP does, that a sentence which includes the words "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" isn't actually about militias at all. I don't understand the weird distortive lens that is the pro-gun lobby, at all.