The Supreme Court has declared for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
I doubt if this will be a long-standing decision – in the sense of carrying forward for decades. Not at 5 to 4.
Sooner or later, a more broadly-based court will decide thoroughly to support or revise today’s opinion.
Hitler repeatedly called for his generals to plan an invasion of Switzerland, but never followed through, and the existence of so many private guns was a major factor.
#91, I suspect the point he was trying to make was those who believe the Constitution to be a living document also tend to be those who believe in a strong, central government. They want to use it to enforce their views on the entire nation, effectively removing States’ rights on certain issues. I suspect this because I believe that way myself and reading his statement struck true.
Any decision handed down by the Supreme Court pretty much trumps any other argument in any other court in the nation. The Constitution is a hammer, not a foil. IMO, that’s why we should safeguard it and not let it be used as differently as the wind blows.
AFA the abortion issue: The answer is at 18 years of age unless you want to get drunk and screw. Then it’s 21. Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
And I agree with you on the homosexuality statement. He might have been referring to the ERA amendment. The Federalists would have gained more power by taking those decisions away from the States. It’s already in the Constitution — no need to explain it further — move along.
#93, I’ve always disagreed with him on this. Actually on a lot of things. He was a Federalist, after all 🙂
@85 “you ask for a case of armed citizens stopping a government army”
True. If armed citizens against a government doesn’t work, then why are we still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?
#96–armed with IED’s and suicide bombers?
Good one.
All the Washington D.C. gun ban proves is that black people don’t even trust themselves with guns. Thats a problem that lies with their culture, not with the gun itself.
Guns don’t stop crime, guns don’t make crime worse. Crime is a cultural and social issue unrelated to how many guns are on the streets.
Afghanistan is not unsafe because of guns, but because of ethnic and religion tensions that go back 1000 years.
Switzerland is not safe because of guns, but because its a fairly wealthy nation with an excellent social welfare system that is a natural disincentive for crime.
Its all grey folks, there’s no black & white in the gun debate. This is why conservatives are so wrong about everything, they can only see black & white.
I’ve read and read. Can’t find the info. Does this ruling give us the right to have ammunition?
Could not a state require licensing to possess explosives? After all, a shotgun shell is just a small explosive device for producing shrapnel…
There was no Global Warming before gun bans. I’ll leave the rest as an exercise for the class.
#95, well, whether or not you agree with the practical necessity of the Bill of Rights, Hamilton was philosophically correct in that when you mention exceptions to powers, you imply that those powers exist, even when they haven’t been granted. For example, the power of eminent domain is a relic of the Common Law, nothing in the Constitution actually grants the federal government this power, yet by the very existence of the 5th Amendment, the government is implied to possess it.
#101, I agree with that philosophically. However, I still believe it was necessary, practically.
“I taught Constitutional Law for ten years. So I’ve got an opinion. And my opinion is that the second amendment is probably, is an individual right, not just the right of a militia. That’s what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that’s a fair reading of the text of the Constitution.”
Barack Obama Dec 2007
MikeN: “Hitler repeatedly called for his generals to plan an invasion of Switzerland, but never followed through, and the existence of so many private guns was a major factor.”
You’re still kidding, right? Hitler invaded France, Russia, and attacked Britain. I don’t think he was afraid of a Swiss militia except in one area: they would have blown a number of tunnels in Alps making it hard to support the Italian campaign. The Swiss Air Force was a pretty formidable opponent at the time and would have presented more problems than any militia.
Swiss exports were vital for the German war effort, especially fuel and food. It wasn’t an arrangement the Swiss were proud of, but it helped keep them out of the war. That would have collapsed after an invasion.
Also, the Bank of International Settlements was located in Switzerland. That would have stopped German gold sales and they would have run out of money in weeks. No money, no war.
The Swiss Nazi party pushed pretty hard for annexation right through 1942. Luckily, for the Swiss, they didn’t win out. The upshot of all this was a phenomenal amount of gold which poured into Switzerland during war (from all countries involved) and created the banking juggernaut they still are.
Hitler managed to secure some surrenders(Belgium is one) from leadership, even while he was outnumbered in the field. The Swiss had armed their private citizens with automatic guns, and had already ensured that the leadership would not surrender.
MikeN, so what you’re saying is citizen militias are more important for threatening your own leaders and not stop invading armies?
#106 – I think they are valuable in both roles.
Valuable in both roles, but that’s not what I meant. The Swiss had told the public that any surrender by leadership was to be taken as propaganda. It was an all-in bet to deter attack, telling Hitler that if you invade, you have to deal with the militia.
I can understand where MikeN, and I respect your comments since I’ve read a lot of which you’ve written. I just can’t seriously buy the argument that the armed Swiss militia was a deterrent to Hitler’s armies.
# 87 MikeN said, on June 26th, 2008 at 3:46 pm If private right to bear arms is so pointless, then why do so many governments try to disarm the public? This is what the US did in Iraq too.
wronge. i was in iraq. the people are allowed by our military to possess firearms (even automatic ) for protection. And we also regularly issued permits for those who worked on our FOB’s to carry conceieled. Even onto the FOB. Get your facts right. We actually have structured a 2nd ammendment in Iraq. For the people not the terrorists.