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.
#24, good job equating possessing arms to owning slaves. :-\
#32, correct. Arms in common usage today that would meet a lawful militia purpose are pistols, semi-automatic rifles and carbines, and long barreled shotguns. It’s pretty reasonable to say those should be allowed. Beyond that, not so much.
#34–Sea Lawyer==busy today? Yes, the sup ct upholding slave holding by enforcing the clear meaning of the words of the constitution is the same in every respect to upholding the right to bear arms.
What in the world is your point? Don’t we want the Court to enforce the Constitution AS WRITTEN and not go off creating rights they feel are best for us?
There is further equating when I said the Constitution regarding guns needs to be changed just like it was regarding slavery. You do know the slavery provision was changed?
#29 in your words:
“Call me a ‘radical moderate’, but I hate the black and white thinking of #7…” you continued to say “There is also a difference between self protection weapons, like .22s and weapons of mass destruction like fully automatic uzis. Cities, counties and states should be allowed to divide the line as they see fit.”
Why should my right be turned into a privilege? One where there is always the temptation to restrict more and more of it? No way.
Again we must protect ourselves from GOVERNMENT who have M16’s and 50 cal. machine guns, grenades, body armor, etc. The little UZI you mentioned doesn’t even stack up. Why should I have to beg for a permit to arm myself with a sidearm or handgun? That’s ridiculous.
Remember, once the permit, registration, and licensing rules are established politicians expand them. For instance, take the bill that tried to ban veterans with “PTSD” from owning firearms. Or the problem with D.C. that got us here with the Supreme Court – NO HANDGUNS. What a joke.
My whole point is look up the difference IN A DICTIONARY between the words rights and privileges. Don’t take my word for it. Do it. We don’t have a Bill of Privileges. We have a Bill of Rights!
You are a radical. But not a “radical moderate” whatever the fuck that is.
#35 “Arms in common usage today that would meet a lawful militia purpose are pistols, semi-automatic rifles and carbines, and long barreled shotguns.”
Actually, militia would use M-16s, not semi-auto rifles. The last one used by general infantry was the M1.
The M16A2/A3/A4 (Automatic rifle, 5.56x45mm NATO) is the standard infantry weapon and would be used by reserve & militia.
#37–Ian==you are an idiot. How have guns prevent BushCo from shredding your valued Constitutional rights? They haven’t. Instead the fascist oil conglomerate has given you these love fetishes as a substitute for freedom.
Go–shoot your neighbors, shoot at police while BushCo sends this country into financial ruin.
Proud and free living in a tent city, but I got my gun!! Dope.
The fact that the decision even recognizes and states that guns can be restricted shows they are still tethered to reality.
Does being able to protect oneself require the ability to be able to assualt others? Think single shot vs automatic weapons?
But it all goes back to the moronic notion that individuals can use guns to protect themselves against the government. Lunacy.
#36, Yes, I found it interesting that you chose that specific example to make the association with. As if there was some moral equivalency of bearing arms for self defense to owning slaves, implying “just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.” And as you can most correctly also guess, I do not agree that the Amendment should be removed, and in fact, the ruling today reaffirms that it wouldn’t matter if it was.
‘The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”’
#39 , “bobbo,” you sir are an idiot. At least I use my real name.
In your own words:
“But it all goes back to the moronic notion that individuals can use guns to protect themselves against the government. Lunacy.”
Then why do we have the right to bear arms in your opinion? Your words demonstrate that you clearly have no understanding of the entire intention of the 2nd amendment.
The only reason Bush & Co. are doing the things they do are because nobody have truly challenged them. Trust me, when the people do challenge the criminals that are in power, you will need the right that we fight for while idiots like you stand in our way.
#38, well, you’re picking nits. The M-16 is mostly used as a semi-automatic rifle but is capable of a 3 round burst, so yes, technically it is automatic in that when used in that mode it fires 3 rounds with one trigger squeeze. The larger point is that an M-16 is not capable of functioning similarly to, say an Uzi, unless there is a malfunction with the sear mechanism. An AR-15 (non-automatic) is largely similar to an M-16, and would fulfill the same purpose.
#40–Sea Lawyer==excellent post.
I made no moral equivalency. I made a procedural point. Reading the clear words of the constitution vs legislating from the bench.
So, you’re saying any amendment to the constitutition specifically limiting gun ownership would be against the natural rights of man, recognized as foundational to relationship of man to government? In a document that enforced slavery for 100 years? Nice dancing on the head of a pin that makes.
Well, you got a number of problems there. Why can’t the insane carry weapons? Why can’t ex-cons carry guns? Why not bazooka’s I supposed was anticipated by the court: not standard militia issue. Hah, Hah. Doesn’t the standard militia carry automatic fire weapons aka machine guns?
Simply put, the Founding Fathers did not contemplate modern society and modern weapons. Sounds like its time for another “revolution”–peaceable, at the Convention.
No #42, the AR-15 fulfills a similar, not the same purpose. If it fulfilled the same purpose, it would have 3-round burst.
#42 “The M-16 is mostly used as a semi-automatic rifle”
Umm, wrong. In close combat you aren’t firing in single shot mode, especially if you are taking auto weapon fire. Stick to s/g you know.
Bobbo, Plessy v Ferguson is the wrong case. You mean Dred Scott. The case didn’t just say the Constitution allowed slavery, but said it was a right, though the debate is open if it was correctly decided. Interestingly, it was the majority that said if slavery were outlawed, blacks could vote, hold property etc.
#43 “Simply put, the Founding Fathers did not contemplate modern society and modern weapons. Sounds like its time for another “revolution”–peaceable, at the Convention.”
No, but they anticipated citizens having to be able defend themselves against a tyrannical gov’t.
Thus, they wouldn’t limit “the people” to muskets while the standing army had modern weapons. What was your point again?
I do not think this is a case of turning a right into a priviledge. You do have a right to protect yourself, you do not have a right to endanger the lives of others. There is a HUGE difference, and that is exactly what SCOTUS more or less decided in this case.
It is completely consistent with rulings of other rights guaranteed by the constitution. You have the right to free speech unless that speech endangers the lives of others (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater for example). Freedom of the press is limited by slander and libel laws (which bloggers must adhere to as well btw). Freedom to “peaceably” assemble is limited by that word peaceably.
In the case of bearing arms, there is a lot of ways to cross that line into endangering others. A gun in the hands of a criminal, or a mentally retarded person, or even a child is an endangerment to others. Stockpiling ammunition in an unsafe way is an endangerment to others. Posessing a weapon designed to cause as much collateral damage as possible is an endangerment to others.
Seems perfectly logical to me.
#43 ‘bobbo” you clearly have contempt for the bill of rights! Just listen to what you are saying!
Again, in your own words:
“So, you’re saying any amendment to the constitutition specifically limiting gun ownership would be against the natural rights of man, recognized as foundational to relationship of man to government? In a document that enforced slavery for 100 years? Nice dancing on the head of a pin that makes.”
Asshole.
#44, well, I guess that depends on how narrow you define the purpose as. If killing the bad guy is the purpose, then the do they same thing. If employing suppressive fire is the purpose, then yes, the AR-15 falls short compared to the M-16 (not that the M-16 is much better compared to something like an M249). Regardless, either is suitable for a common militia member to bring from his home to defend himself or the state. This is really straying too far in the weeds in any case.
#50 – “well, I guess that depends on how narrow you define the purpose as.”
How ’bout filling the role of a infantryman in this day & age. Show me ONE potential enemy we’d go up against that uses semi-auto rifles as ITS standard infantry weapon.
#50
I enjoyed your response.
I honestly believe that the only reason we still have the liberties that we do is because of the second amendment.
I wish we could have a peaceful restoration of liberty, peace and prosperity in this country. I just don’t see it happening. Unfortunately, in my lifetime, I think we will see much worse.
#41–Ian==the name game? hah, hah. Why gun rights in the Constitution? I’ll guess and say America was traumatized by an occupying force that was invading their homes and seizing their weapons? Makes me think that “in context” the constitutional right to bear arms may only apply to when British Troops are setting fires to corn fields? At least then it would make sense?
#46–MikeN==thanks for the correction. I need to put about 4-5 case names on a slip of paper to carry in my wallet. They really said it was “a right?” Amazing if true.
#47–Patrick==Post #39 is for you too. Name a single instance where an armed citizenry stopped a tyrannical government. Tell us what good guns are against BushCo’s current raping of your Constitutional rights?
#48–ArianeB==wouldn’t much of your post be handled by saying you can have the gun but just not use it? Goes greatly to my point of having a gun for defense as opposed to offense but the Constitution doesn’t make that distinction.
#49–Ian==my contempt is for those that argue against rational gun control based on a fantasy.
#53 – You’re hilarious. You don’t even know armed citizens overthrew their own government to form the U.S.A.? I’ve got to see your act. Where do you do your stand up routines?
#51, you really are beating on a distinction that isn’t especially important in the scheme of things. Is the militia even thought to be an equivalent force to a proper, organized standing army? Common crew-served weapons used today include the M240G, M2 and MK-19. Do you think that bans on those should have been overturned today too?
#55 “Common crew-served weapons used today include the M240G, M2 and MK-19. Do you think that bans on those should have been overturned today too?”
Sure why not. Not like I’m going to tote around an M2, although I like firing the M2 lightweight.
#54–Patrick==can’t you read? I’ve already said that the home residing militia man should be allow to have guns when the British are burning corn fields. How much more consistent with your point can I be?
#57 – Forgot your meds this am? You asked me, “Name a single instance where an armed citizenry stopped a tyrannical government.”
Take your meds and then post, okay?
I will be satisfied when I can have my right to bear arms…. ANY KIND OF ARMS! When the Bill of Rights was written, you could possess the best weapon technology. Not now. I want them to bring back the entire second amendment, not just pea shooters. I want my right to bear a shoulder mounted tactical rocket launcher, which would be in the “true” spirit of said amendment!
#43, Bobbo, well the equivalency is what I inferred from your post. If that wasn’t your intent, then sorry.
Funny, I didn’t catch your case slip-up either. Guess that’s why I’m just a sea lawyer, and not an actual attorney.
#58–Patrick==fair enough.
But in fact it was not any armed citizenry that defeated the British. It was in fact THE MILITIA or the Continental Army of George Washington and the NAVY of France that gained freedom. People in houses with guns didn’t use them for fear of being shot themselves by the superior force outside the door.
Again, fantasy world. You are closer to Rabble Rouser than common sense.
#60–Sea Lawyer==could have fooled me but all I do is read as well. Your acting skills are finely honed. At least you play one well on the blogs.
Keep your good stuff coming!
#61, uh, the militia is the armed citizenry, in whole or in part.