Guns legal in Washington D.C. (and elsewhere)

[wmbwinn]

The Supreme Court today eliminated the ban on guns in the District of Columbia today. It was more than even the most hopeful NRA member hoped for and it was everything that the anti-gun movement feared.
The ruling does not eliminate regulation of firearms. It does, however, prevent banning guns from private persons. The ruling does not say that I can now go buy an Abrams tank and a WartHog airplane. The ruling does not say I can own a fully automatic weapon. But, the ruling does say I can own a firearm.
The Second Amendment now has the same "stare decisis" protection that other rights have.
I did not link a news article. I'm sure you can find 2 dozen of them right now...

I suspect the higher percentage of people in Texas will applaud the decision. What say ye?

[wmbwinn]

This is the biggest Supreme Court decision in decades...

[wmbwinn]

WASHINGTON - John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.

The hotly contentious issue surfaced in the presidential campaign Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns and struck down the 32-year-old D.C. ban.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.

Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.

Both presidential candidates endorse an individual's right to bear arms. But they strongly differ beyond that. McCain has had a mostly conservative record on the issue; Obama, a mostly liberal record.

Other than a few departures, McCain is largely in line with the National Rifle Association's hardline support for gun rights. He voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil damage suits. But he broke with the NRA to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and has taken heat for pushing through campaign finance legislation that gun-rights advocates say muzzled their free speech.

Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business Network that he's been consistent.

The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.

"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke, nodding and saying, "Right, right."

"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.

Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.

The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."

In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.

The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...andidates_guns

Once again, Obama refuses to answer a question...

[jefelump]

Interesting that Obama is trying to take both sides of this issue. He's from Illinois, where as a State Senator he helped put such strict gun laws in place, but he also knows if he comes out against the ruling he'll piss off a lot of people in a lot of states he hopes to win. I'll be moving to Illinois soon, and was afraid I would soon become a criminal for owning unregistered hand guns, but it looks like the NRA is going to file suit in San Franscisco, Chicago, and elsewhere based on this ruling.

Note, Illinois is one of only two states in the Union that does not have a Conceal Carry law.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Interesting that Obama is trying to take both sides of this issue. He's from Illinois, where as a State Senator he helped put such strict gun laws in place, but he also knows if he comes out against the ruling he'll piss off a lot of people in a lot of states he hopes to win. I'll be moving to Illinois soon, and was afraid I would soon become a criminal for owning unregistered hand guns, but it looks like the NRA is going to file suit in San Franscisco, Chicago, and elsewhere based on this ruling.

Note, Illinois is one of only two states in the Union that does not have a Conceal Carry law.

May be good timing to move to Chicago...

[wmbwinn]

Dems split on Supreme Court’s gun ruling
By Ian Swanson
Posted: 06/26/08 03:49 PM [ET]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was “profoundly disappointed” that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito voted to overturn Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.
“I guess I didn’t really think they would do this,” said Feinstein, who supported confirming the two justices nominated by President Bush but decided against supporting a filibuster of Alito.

She described the decision as monumental in suggesting the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own guns, and is not limited to states forming militia groups. She also singled out the court for striking down the District’s trigger lock requirement, describing that part of the decision as unbelievable.

“I remember both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect stare decisis and precedent — and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent,” Feinstein said during a business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said he was disappointed in the Supreme Court, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the decision could leave room for the District’s government to regulate guns.

“I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive,” she said at her weekly briefing Thursday. “I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”

Not all Democrats were disappointed with the ruling. While liberal Democrats decried the decision, some colleagues from rural or more conservative districts and states hailed the court for protecting the right to bear arms.

“I don’t think that any jurisdiction in the country has the legal authority to ban possession of handguns and I don’t think the people of Washington, D.C. are second-class citizens,” said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and top surrogate for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“Certainly there can be reasonable restrictions for certain classes of weapons like assault weapons, but the core right to possess guns for your personal use is a constitutional right.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a possible vice presidential candidate, also applauded the ruling. “With today’s decision, the right to gun ownership is now the settled law of the land,” said Webb, one of 55 senators and 250 House members to sign an amicus brief in favor of overturning the ban.

An aide to Webb was arrested last year when he attempted to enter the Russell Senate Office Building with a handgun. The aide, eventually cleared of charges, said Webb had given him the gun for “safekeeping” and that he had forgotten it was in his briefcase as he passed through security.



Jordy Yager and Mike Soraghan contributed to this story.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-06-26.html

___________________

Many Democrats are in favor of the ruling...

Pelosi and Feinstein are (not surprisingly) pissed...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

May be good timing to move to Chicago...

If there ever is a good time to live in such a whacked out city...

The sad thing about this decision is the 5-4 split. Four justices voted to completely nullify the 2nd amendment. We all knew the other 4 would vote to uphold it. So it really came down to Justice Kennedy. We're just lucky that he got laid the night before and was in a good mood.

[Flacolaco]

So 4 people flat out voted against the Constitution of the United States of America.

That's great.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was “profoundly disappointed” that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito voted to overturn Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.
“I guess I didn’t really think they would do this,” said Feinstein, who supported confirming the two justices nominated by President Bush but decided against supporting a filibuster of Alito.

She described the decision as monumental in suggesting the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own guns, and is not limited to states forming militia groups. She also singled out the court for striking down the District’s trigger lock requirement, describing that part of the decision as unbelievable.

“I remember both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect stare decisis and precedent — and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent,” Feinstein said during a business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Feinstein. This case was about whether or not gun ownership was an individual right. This is the first time the court has ruled on that question. There was no stare decisis, or precedent, before this ruling.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

So 4 people flat out voted against the Constitution of the United States of America.

That's great.

It's better than five...

Now the second amendment is protected by:
1)being in the Bill of Rights in the first place (first 10 amendments)
2)being finally officially interpreted as guaranteeing the individual right to the firearm rather than the state militia right to firearms.

Point 2 is the crux.

I agree that it is sick and sad that 4 judges voted against it. But, nonetheless, it is now settled by stare decisis that the second amendment applies to the personal right to own and possess firearms. It is now illegal to ban firearms in totality from any state or even District. The regulations that follow cannot ban firearms and cannot remove reasonable access and use as I understand it.

So, I'll take that 5-4 victory!!!!!!!!!!

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

So, I'll take that 5-4 victory!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I'll take it too. A victory is a victory!

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Feinstein. This case was about whether or not gun ownership was an individual right. This is the first time the court has ruled on that question. There was no stare decisis, or precedent, before this ruling.

Agree with you I do (Yoda speak).

The only "precedent" shot down was the precedent of legislatures at the city/state/federal level. She could have been referring to "precedent" at the appeals court level.

There never was a precedent at the Supreme Court level. We have the Supreme Court specifically to decide these issues...

[wmbwinn]

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

You can ignore the footnotes that the NRA has at the bottom of each page. But, this is nice. You can read the exact wording of the decision and the dissenting opinions.

[jefelump]

from the link above:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Further refutation to Feinstein, that the court did NOT go against precedent.

[jefelump]

another quote from the link, regarding licensing....

Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Heller didn't contest the requirement to license the weapon, so the court made no judgement on the constitutionality of a state requiring the weapon be licensed.

[jefelump]

another interesting quote from the courts decision...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

I assume by stating "bearable" arms, they are not including things like Abrams Tanks, which makes sense.

[wmbwinn]

15 minutes after the decision was read the Illinois State Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed lawsuits against Chicago and some of it's surrounding suburbs. The NRA and others are expected to do the same.

This is a great day for freedom loving Americans!!!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...10#post4638310

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

15 minutes after the decision was read the Illinois State Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed lawsuits against Chicago and some of it's surrounding suburbs. The NRA and others are expected to do the same.

This is a great day for freedom loving Americans!!!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...10#post4638310

15 minutes? Gee, it took them long enough! haha

[jefelump]

But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying
phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use.

I think Alito is my new hero....

[chumdawg]

Alito's clever phrasing notwithstanding, I'm afraid I don't understand the point. What do handguns have to do with killing game?

[FishForLunch]

I have no desire to own a gun, I don't live in a rural area and have no need for a gun. I am happy that for people who need to own firearms, and can do so without some politician poking his/her nose in these matters again.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Alito's clever phrasing notwithstanding, I'm afraid I don't understand the point. What do handguns have to do with killing game?

I quoted only a small part of the text of the court's opinion, because I found his "mad hatter" comment amusing. In that section, Alito was discussing the general right to "bear arms", and discussing more than just handguns. He was discussing bearable arms in general, which of course would include high powered rifles.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Alito's clever phrasing notwithstanding, I'm afraid I don't understand the point. What do handguns have to do with killing game?

There is an arguement that the second amendment only applies to militias. This arguement states that the second amendment only provides for weapons for military purposes.

Alito is pointing out that that arguement is silly. The dissent opinion and the petitioner's opinion both point to maintaining a right to own a gun to go hunting. Alito is saying that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is ok to own guns to hunt and then say that the second amendment only applies to military weapon needs.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Alito's clever phrasing notwithstanding, I'm afraid I don't understand the point. What do handguns have to do with killing game?

You might be surprised to learn that hunting with handguns is quite popular actually. Look up Thompson Center Encore and TC Contender pistols. These are available in a very wide array of calibers/cartridges and are frequently used to hunt deer and even bear.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

I have no desire to own a gun, I don't live in a rural area and have no need for a gun. I am happy that for people who need to own firearms, and can do so without some politician poking his/her nose in these matters again.

I knew a young woman who thought the same way. She went to a conference in Chicago and when she got there she found that her nice hotel reservation was messed up. The nice part of town was completely full with no vacancies in the hotel business. She went to a not no nice area and found a motel. The next day when she got back to Texas, she went and bought a revolver and enrolled in classes to learn to use it and picked up her concealed handgun license...

Hope you never need a gun, Fish. Glad you can get one when/if you do need one. Very glad you support the right to bear arms.

I have guns. I also hope I never need to point one at a human.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

There is an arguement that the second amendment only applies to militias. This arguement states that the second amendment only provides for weapons for military purposes.

Alito is pointing out that that arguement is silly. The dissent opinion and the petitioner's opinion both point to maintaining a right to own a gun to go hunting. Alito is saying that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is ok to own guns to hunt and then say that the second amendment only applies to military weapon needs.

Oh, I see. He's conflating the two issues. He's saying that the petitioners can't say that the "right to bear arms" applies only in a militia sort of way yet at the same time maintain that guns for hunting is cool.

I don't buy that argument. When you are walking around a city street, you aren't hunting. This is, of course, patently obvious. It would seem perfectly legitimate to me, to say that you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia and that it's cool if you own arms that you can "bear" while you hunt, but you don't have the constitutional right to carry a handgun while you walk a city street.

In this context, I think Alito's comments were disingenuous. Own a weapon all you like, if it's for hunting purposes, whether it's a rifle or a handgun-for-hunting like you described. But owning it and carrying it are two very different things.

[jefelump]

Alito's reference to hunting is very minimal in the entire document. He was simply offering the argument, and then debunking it.

Here's the entire paragraph, to give better context:

JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly
showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently
used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9;
Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact
that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context
does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any
event, we have given many sources where the phrase was
used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection
appears to include (who knows how many times) the
idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant.
The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . .
for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are
“expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (JUSTICE
STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state
constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment
that identify private-use purposes for which the
individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That
analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that
contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this
side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some
courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of selfdefense”
or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying
phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is
not limited to military use.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, I see. He's conflating the two issues. He's saying that the petitioners can't say that the "right to bear arms" applies only in a militia sort of way yet at the same time maintain that guns for hunting is cool.

I don't buy that argument. When you are walking around a city street, you aren't hunting. This is, of course, patently obvious. It would seem perfectly legitimate to me, to say that you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia and that it's cool if you own arms that you can "bear" while you hunt, but you don't have the constitutional right to carry a handgun while you walk a city street.

In this context, I think Alito's comments were disingenuous. Own a weapon all you like, if it's for hunting purposes, whether it's a rifle or a handgun-for-hunting like you described. But owning it and carrying it are two very different things.

NO, owning and carrying a gun with you while you walk around the streets at night is exactly what the concealed carry handgun laws are all about.

And, you did not understand Alito. Perhaps, you should just go the link and read it yourself in its entirety.

Alito's point is about CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. That is his job by the way.

He is saying that the constitutional law arguement that the second amendment only applies to militias and protecting weapons for military purposes is not sound. You have to read the rest of what he said to understand that statement.

AFTER he makes that point, then he says basically, "And, oh by the way, you guys said it was ok to use guns to hunt. Therefore, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too."

The funny statement is an afterthought to the main points. Go read from the link.

And, this is a constitutional discussion. I don't care if you like the constitution or not or whether you agree or disagree with Alito.

It is not my purpose to post this to argue with you or to convince you that you are wrong. It is not my intention to convince you that I am right.

This is a discussion about constitutional law.

My opinion and your opinion don't matter in constitutional law. Constitutions are produced to create basic ground rules that are intended to be impossible to get around and very hard to change. The Second Amendment was part of that. The Founders wanted to maintain a right to be armed. They wanted that right to be very hard to deny and very hard to eliminate. Thus, it is in the constitution (or more precisely in the Bill of Rights which had to be produced to get the people to sign the constitution).

[chumdawg]

Thanks for the context, and I appreciate your opinions on it, but I still maintain that one has nothing to do with the other. If the Bill of Rights doesn't spell it out, that certainly does NOT mean that we don't have the right to it. We have other means of establishing rights to things, besides those ten amendments.

I understand what constitutional law is. I also understand that it does not fully determine all law in all contexts. For example, if you own a concealed weapon permit you still are disallowed (by law) to bring that weapon into a place that serves alcohol, am I correct? Regardless if I have this point correct, I'm pretty certain that there are limits on where you can carry your weapon. You can't carry it in a courthouse, and so on...

So it seems perfectly legitimate to me, and certainly not the perspective of a "mad hatter," to maintain a point of view that says you are welcome to carry a hunting weapon while you are hunting but you are not welcome to carry that same said hunting weapon while you walk the streets of town.

After all, can you carry around a loaded hunting rifle while you walk the neighborhood mall? Answer me that.

The question that was before the Supreme Court was whether the second amendment guaranteed Americans the right to carry handguns in the municipality of Washington, DC. It didn't have anything to do with hunting. I'm all for interpreting and applying constitutional law, but I don't like the introduction of other issues (like whether you can hunt or not) that have nothing to do with the constitutional language at hand.

It's pretty clear that the Second Amendment had the issue of a militia in mind. They weren't talking about hunting...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thanks for the context, and I appreciate your opinions on it, but I still maintain that one has nothing to do with the other. If the Bill of Rights doesn't spell it out, that certainly does NOT mean that we don't have the right to it. We have other means of establishing rights to things, besides those ten amendments.

I understand what constitutional law is. I also understand that it does not fully determine all law in all contexts. For example, if you own a concealed weapon permit you still are disallowed (by law) to bring that weapon into a place that serves alcohol, am I correct? Regardless if I have this point correct, I'm pretty certain that there are limits on where you can carry your weapon. You can't carry it in a courthouse, and so on...

So it seems perfectly legitimate to me, and certainly not the perspective of a "mad hatter," to maintain a point of view that says you are welcome to carry a hunting weapon while you are hunting but you are not welcome to carry that same said hunting weapon while you walk the streets of town.

After all, can you carry around a loaded hunting rifle while you walk the neighborhood mall? Answer me that.

The question that was before the Supreme Court was whether the second amendment guaranteed Americans the right to carry handguns in the municipality of Washington, DC. It didn't have anything to do with hunting. I'm all for interpreting and applying constitutional law, but I don't like the introduction of other issues (like whether you can hunt or not) that have nothing to do with the constitutional language at hand.

It's pretty clear that the Second Amendment had the issue of a militia in mind. They weren't talking about hunting...

1)can you carry a hunting rifle around in a mall? Yes, you can. The laws about carrying weapons are:
a)concealed weapons require concealed weapons licenses in all states I am aware of.
b)unconcealed weapons are actually completely legal. Remember when every redneck had a rifle and shotgun mounted in his truck window? That was and is still legal. Those are not concealed weapons. It is actually legal to put a high powered rifle on your shoulder and walk around a mall, just as it is legal to put a rifle or shotgun in your truck window. The reason that most people don't carry guns in their trucks anymore is because theft went way up. People were breaking the back windows and stealing the guns...
c)there are places where you cannot carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon. There are laws that disallow such for other reasons too. Examples are federal buildings. You cannot carry a weapon into a post office (unless you are mailing it and it is declared and packaged and unloaded and other laws regarding this exception are met). Companies/stores in most states have the right to put a sign on their front door that says, "Guns banned in this facility".
d)If you carry a deer hunting rifle slung over your shoulder as you stroll through the mall, then mall security and even the police may show up and politely ask you to leave and may escort you away. But, you have not actually committed a crime in most places.

2)"The question that was before the Supreme Court was whether the second amendment guaranteed Americans the right to carry handguns in the municipality of Washington, DC. It didn't have anything to do with hunting. I'm all for interpreting and applying constitutional law, but I don't like the introduction of other issues (like whether you can hunt or not) that have nothing to do with the constitutional language at hand."

The issue of adding other factors to the decision is a matter of the legal briefs that were filed for and against the matter. The other factors entered the discussion because the two sides of the case presented those other facts. Alito did not just throw that in there to make a point.

3)"It's pretty clear that the Second Amendment had the issue of a militia in mind. They weren't talking about hunting"

That is what this case was about. And, the decision is that the second amendment WAS NOT ABOUT just militias. It was about the personal individual right to bear arms.

And, again, the issue of hunting entered the debate through the legal briefs/arguements from the two sides and Alito also refers to Justice Stevens's arguements.

[wmbwinn]

"If the Bill of Rights doesn't spell it out, that certainly does NOT mean that we don't have the right to it. We have other means of establishing rights to things, besides those ten amendments."

In systems derived from Constitutional Law, rights are defined and provided by that Constitution and then interpreted by the Judicial power in that system assigned to handle such interpretation.

There are no other ways in our system to establish rights.

You may argue that Congress passes laws that establish rights. I would say that is only true if the Judicial power allows it to stand. That Judicial power goes back to the interpretation of the Constitution.

You could argue that what I said is specific to our country and our constitution and might not fit other Constitutional systems and you would be right if that other Constitution had other parameters that enabled other avenues to establish rights.

[chumdawg]

Okay, that's good. I'll buy your explanation that it's good and fine, according to the laws, to carry a rifle around town...though I do wonder if this would still be the case in the event that a lot of folks decided to avail themselves of the right to do it. Law being contextual, if you will...

And I do understand your point about the adding of other factors being down to the briefs that were put before the court...though...what did the petitioners stand to gain by "submitting" that guns for hunting were still cool?...my sense is that there is a lot of context here that should be read in order to be understood.

But finally, I do NOT subscribe to your point of view that the Court's decision about this Second Amendment case "WAS NOT ABOUT just militias." That has always been the crux of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment didn't say that people have the right to bear arms as they see fit...it said that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed." You can't divorce the "well regulated militia" part of that from the "right...to bear arms."

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Okay, that's good. I'll buy your explanation that it's good and fine, according to the laws, to carry a rifle around town...though I do wonder if this would still be the case in the event that a lot of folks decided to avail themselves of the right to do it. Law being contextual, if you will...

And I do understand your point about the adding of other factors being down to the briefs that were put before the court...though...what did the petitioners stand to gain by "submitting" that guns for hunting were still cool?...my sense is that there is a lot of context here that should be read in order to be understood.

But finally, I do NOT subscribe to your point of view that the Court's decision about this Second Amendment case "WAS NOT ABOUT just militias." That has always been the crux of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment didn't say that people have the right to bear arms as they see fit...it said that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed." You can't divorce the "well regulated militia" part of that from the "right...to bear arms."

Somehow, you are missing the point that the Supreme Court of the USA just divorced the "well regulated militia" phrase from the equation and stated that the Second Amendment gives the individual person the right to bear arms...

Yes, a great many people make the same Constitutional Law arguement you are making. But, the whole issue of this case pivoted around the question of:
1)does the amendment only apply to militias
or
2)is their an individual right to bear arms having nothing to do with the militia.

That was the question. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of point 2 above. They ruled that the individual has the right to bear arms and that because the individual has the right to bear arms that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional.

Now, you will need to read the actual decision to understand the arguements/decision wherein the SCOTUS (supreme court of the US) made that determination.

But, to keep saying that the amendment only applies to militias is to keep confirming to me that you haven't read the decision yet...

[chumdawg]

You didn't just tell me anything that I don't already know. Yes, I recognize that the SC decided that it doesn't have anything to do with militia (quite obviously, since in this day and age we don't have militia anymore). The question is not WHAT they decided, it's WHY they decided it.

The founding fathers didn't say that you, in the year 2008, have a right to carry a handgun around Washington, DC. This year's SC decided, though, that this is what they meant. Despite the fact that what the founders talked in their contribution to the Constitution of the United States of America was the idea that a "militia" (no longer existant, but certainly something of interest at the time that they were fighting off the damned British) was important and necessary.

Personally, I view the Constitution as in parts a dated manifesto that has little relevance to present-day life. If I ask myself whether the founders would have believed that in the year 2008 people could carry around guns and use them against other Americans...well, I have to suspect that they wouldn't.

[wmbwinn]

"Personally, I view the Constitution as in parts a dated manifesto that has little relevance to present-day life. If I ask myself whether the founders would have believed that in the year 2008 people could carry around guns and use them against other Americans...well, I have to suspect that they wouldn't."

In the day that the Constitution was written and in the following days/years of Western expansion and even in the settling of the NorthEast New England areas, guns were very common and were commonly used between men to settle fights and to protect their lands and property against other men. These men were all Americans. The Civil War also is an obvious example of using those guns to kill each other.

The second amendment was not altered or destroyed in that time period. It was universally understood that most men were armed and if you messed with a man or his property, he might shoot you in defense with no legal consequence so long as he was judged to have acted in legitimate defense.

So, your arguement that the Founders had no thought for Americans bearing arms to kill other Americans is without logical or historical basis.

[wmbwinn]

"Okay, that's good. I'll buy your explanation that it's good and fine, according to the laws, to carry a rifle around town...though I do wonder if this would still be the case in the event that a lot of folks decided to avail themselves of the right to do it. Law being contextual, if you will..."

Again, the only reason that people don't routinely carry unconcealed weapons around mounted in the back window of their truck is because those weapons were being stolen and the truck vandalized. It was very common as recently as 25 years ago for nearly everyone to move around with an unconcealed weapon. That caused no change in law or problem with law.

Previously, most men walked around with a revolver stuck in a holster on their hip. This was also an unconcealed weapon and laws were not made against that occurence other than that in Dodge City, a famous sheriff confiscated said revolvers at the door of saloons.

We still disallow weapons into bars or other places where alcohol is served.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

"Personally, I view the Constitution as in parts a dated manifesto that has little relevance to present-day life. If I ask myself whether the founders would have believed that in the year 2008 people could carry around guns and use them against other Americans...well, I have to suspect that they wouldn't."

In the day that the Constitution was written and in the following days/years of Western expansion and even in the settling of the NorthEast New England areas, guns were very common and were commonly used between men to settle fights and to protect their lands and property against other men. These men were all Americans. The Civil War also is an obvious example of using those guns to kill each other.

The second amendment was not altered or destroyed in that time period. It was universally understood that most men were armed and if you messed with a man or his property, he might shoot you in defense with no legal consequence so long as he was judged to have acted in legitimate defense.

So, your arguement that the Founders had no thought for Americans bearing arms to kill other Americans is without logical or historical basis.

That's a fair argument, and I will grant you that point. Yet, this was a time when ordeals were still being settled, as you describe. Those ordeals have LONG since been established. We all now know who owns the land, and any shooting of anyone isn't going to change that. You can shoot a guy all you want, but that doesn't mean you own his land. (As it may have at that time.)

[wmbwinn]

Killing a man back then did not mean you owned the land either. On the very edge of the frontier, it may have been true. But, as law caught up with the frontier, the land was registered in courts so that there was a legal record of who the land owner was.

It is still true today that we have a right to protect ourselves and our property. Ironically, Texas is probably the most stringent to maintain that. Is it not true that a dozen years ago or so, a law was passed in Texas saying that you could shoot a threatening person from your home, car, or place of business if the person posed a true threat? Did not that law specifically note road rage as a shootable offense if an idiot used his car/truck as a weapon against you? Do you not have the right to shoot that idiot dead in Texas?

Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner in that case had the right to keep a handgun in his home for defense of his person and home.

Using a gun to defend life and home is the same now as it was in the time period when the Constitution was written.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I understand what constitutional law is. I also understand that it does not fully determine all law in all contexts. For example, if you own a concealed weapon permit you still are disallowed (by law) to bring that weapon into a place that serves alcohol, am I correct? Regardless if I have this point correct, I'm pretty certain that there are limits on where you can carry your weapon. You can't carry it in a courthouse, and so on...

You are correct. Constitutional rights are subject to subordination to various legitimate government interests. In each instance, there's a balancing test that goes on between our constitutional right and the government's interest. In the scenario you've described, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting drunk assholes from shooting other drunk assholes at a bar, and that interest supersedes our rights under the 2nd.

And, of course, that sort of balancing test applies to all of our Constitutional rights, not just the right to bear arms. The right to free speech aside, you can't yell "I have a bomb" at the airport, because the government has an interest in prohibiting that sort of conduct.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

"Okay, that's good. I'll buy your explanation that it's good and fine, according to the laws, to carry a rifle around town...though I do wonder if this would still be the case in the event that a lot of folks decided to avail themselves of the right to do it. Law being contextual, if you will..."

Again, the only reason that people don't routinely carry unconcealed weapons around mounted in the back window of their truck is because those weapons were being stolen and the truck vandalized. It was very common as recently as 25 years ago for nearly everyone to move around with an unconcealed weapon. That caused no change in law or problem with law.

Previously, most men walked around with a revolver stuck in a holster on their hip. This was also an unconcealed weapon and laws were not made against that occurence other than that in Dodge City, a famous sheriff confiscated said revolvers at the door of saloons.

We still disallow weapons into bars or other places where alcohol is served.

You will forgive me, I hope, but I don't think the "only reason" folks don't carry rifles around anymore in their pickup truck windows is that they fear said rifles will be stolen. Rather, I think it's that they don't want to be seen as rednecked dumbasses who are living in the last generation. Or, they don't rest their rifles there when they aren't on their way to a hunting trip. Or, they simply don't feel the need for their rifles when they aren't out on a hunting trip.

After all, you can carry that rifle behind the seat and not invite theft, right?

Look...it's not about what law-abiding citizens can do with their weapons. It's about keeping the weapons out of the hands of people who would be inclined to do something non-law-abiding with them. It's about being able to imprison a man who wields a weapon for something other than self-defense.

Basically, it's about keeping guns out of the bad guys' hands.

The people who are all about the free handling of firearms are, by the same token, endorsing the use of handguns by the bad guys. Have a records check on someone who wants to get one? Hell, no! The government shouldn't care who I am! I'm me, and I can buy this gun. I'm an American! Read the Constitution!

It's like you guys really wish you could go to war or something. Make all the arms legal, and let the best guy win.