U.S. Supreme Court to take on battle over gun rights

[ensho]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14489424?source=most_viewed


The U.S. Supreme Court is about to take dead aim at the fierce debate over gun regulations in cities and states across the country, with California's strict gun-control laws squarely in the cross hairs of the legal showdown.

The justices on Tuesday will hear arguments in a challenge to a Chicago area ban on handguns and semiautomatic weapons, weighing for the first time whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to local and state gun regulations. For a state such as California, which has long been a target of gun rights advocates for a slew of firearms regulations, a Supreme Court ruling extending Second Amendment protections to cities and states could open the floodgates to a new generation of lawsuits.

-snip-

The Supreme Court case is the second in the past two years that takes on a legal debate over the Second Amendment that went unresolved for more than 100 years: how much, and whether, constitutional protection restricts government's ability to regulate gun ownership, possession and sales.
-snip-
--------------------------------


wonder how much money the Supremes get from the gun lobby

[thereismore]

1. This can't be good. Bush really did a number on the SCOTUS. nt

[arthritisR_US]

9. unfortunately the dems are responsible for this too, several dems voted

for Alito and Roberts.

[thereismore]

18. Yep. Them too. nt

[warm regards]

67. It could be a good thing...

They could re-validate the 2nd Amendment.

[ThomWV]

2. Great, finally a national respect for the 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense

[eShirl]

33. If only the rest of the Constitution had similarly vigorous defenders. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. It does.

[Robb]

49. I fancy myself a booster of the 21st, for example. nt

[spanone]

170. where?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. The ACLU has historically been a staunch defender of the other Rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. and the people said, "Amen"!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

3. But what about gang bangers? They are a real threat being armed.

[Taitertots]

64. They are already breaking enough laws to send them to prison

We need to make sure those laws are enforced. Telling a crack dealer that it is double illegal is not really going to stop them.

Lets do things that can actually work to stop "gang bangers":
We have a prison system which is a disaster. How about a prison system that doesn't make people worse off than when they came in?
Our drug laws criminalize addiction and fund gangs. How about drug laws that provide addicts with a realistic chance of getting better?
We offer young people in impoverished area no feasible way to get fundamental human needs. Isn't that the problem?

[Statistical]

85. WTF? Really?

I am hoping it is sarcasm.

[michreject]

4. I sure do hope the 2nd Amendment wins in Chicago

No state should be able to cherry pick what parts of the Constitution they support.

[proteus_lives]

13. +1

[quiller4]

17. agree completely

[closeupready]

53. I agree.

n/t

[tammywammy]

55. +1 n/t

[Kaleva]

60. +1

[Statistical]

110. +1. Incorporating the 2nd would correct an injustice.

[tekisui]

113. It is going that direction.

Most of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. The second should be, too. The others are stronger, when all are defended.

[aikoaiko]

121. well put.

:applause:

[gratuitous]

5. Oh good, I predict a snappy 5-4 decision

Let's flood our violent society with even more guns, fewer regulations, and a whole bunch more needless deaths. Look for the Court to ignore the "well-regulated" language in order to give the widest possible interpretation of what constitutes infringement.

[michreject]

6. That would be great

:toast:

[ThomWV]

7. Works for me.

[Taitertots]

10. The amount of guns has dramatically increased

While crime is going down. Your fears are not supported by reality.

The "well regulated" interpretation is as flawed as saying "Congress shall make no laws" means the first amendment allows states to establish religions.

[proteus_lives]

14. "well-regulated"

Another grabber favorite. :eyes:

[SoCalDem]

23. With any luck , maybe they will all start shooting each other

and whittle their ranks :rofl:

and here's hoping the rest of us can escape the stray bullets :scared:

[gratuitous]

32. Unfortunately

They seem to like their "self-defense" targets unable to return fire, which is in keeping with the tenets of the High Church of Redemptive Violence.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Do you have some stats to back that up?

[gratuitous]

59. Harris, Klebold

Jeffrey Grahn, Amy Bishop, Jason Rodriguez, Andre Watkins . . . ah, the hell with it. Just google "shooting spree," as if it would make any difference. Our country is so much in love with guns and violence as the solution to our troubles, it's like shouting at the ocean anymore.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. So you have no statistics to back it up and instead are relying on emotion and anecdote. Thanks.

[gratuitous]

89. Yes, numbers are so much more important than dead bodies

And you don't have any "statistics," either. And you don't even have emotions. Or anecdotes. Thanks back atcha.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. When considering policy, statistics are much better than anecdote and emotion.

[gratuitous]

99. And you don't have any of them

Sucks to be your "argument."

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Fortunately I don't need statistics. I've got the Constitution.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

[beevul]

70. I guess that makes those that created "gun free zones" complicit, right? N/T

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. Check out our local ---

crop in open carry freaks -- they rank very high on the "loser" scale:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=7248504

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. That would be great.

[Statistical]

101. I hope your right! Would prefer a 6-3 but I'll take a 5-4. n/t

[immoderate]

130. What do you think well regulated means?

For an example of usage contemporary with the BoR, check out Hamilton's Federalist #29.

--imm

[Viking12]

8. I will be anxious to hear the cries about Judicial Activism...

...when the Court incorporates the States under the 2nd. Oh wait, they only cry about that when they don't like the outcome.

[beevul]

71. You'll hear them...

From helmke (r) brady (r) vpc and the rest of the anti-gun crowd...

[DainBramaged]

11. Don't sweat it, the gunnies won't e happy until they can carry their guns everywhere at any time

THEY have the right, screw the rest of us.

[michreject]

12. I see you're finally getting it

Your rights shouldn't trump mine. They should coexist.

[proteus_lives]

16. Not about you.

It's about protecting our rights. We're not trying to take anything from you, why are you trying to take away rights from other people?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. Sure is about our rights to be free from the threat of gun violence that is a 9/11

a year for children--and dozens of 9/11s a year for adults. From Columbine to Virginia to the math-teaher-hero jr-high shootings last month, 3 miles away from Columbine, PSYCHOTICS and RECKLESS YOUTH GANGS find it easier to get guns in the US than anywhere else in the industrialized world.

Gun crybabies, who act as if somebody allways is tryng to take away their blankee, hold way too much sway in this country, IMO.

[proteus_lives]

24. What about your right be free of drunk drivers?

Better take away everyone's licenses. Violent crime is falling actually.

You sound consumed by fear. To bad, what other rights will give to be "safe"?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

28. People NEED to drive. Nobody but law enforcement and trained security personnel NEEDS

a gun.

Tens of thousands of people a year are DYING for your AMUSEMENT.

[proteus_lives]

30. So you're an authoritarian.

Only cops and feds need guns huh? Sickening. That line of thought leads down a dark road.

[Taitertots]

31. You don't need to drive

You are just too lazy to accept the clear alternative.

Three times as many people are DYING for YOUR AMUSEMENT.


Security people don't NEED a gun any more than anyone else. How can guns protect security guards but not regular people?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. If you count suicides you can get up to tens of thousands.

[X_Digger]

46. Who's the Secretary of Need these days?

And how do they decide which constitutional rights we should actually be able to exercise?

[BreweryYardRat]

79. Do a little research sometime. Sociological, historical, etc...

"Nobody but law enforcement and trained security personnel NEEDS a gun."

Believe me, that's a tempting line of thought to go into. I used to think that way myself, but I realized there were some problems with that outlook.

First, law enforcement response times aren't instantaneous. If you've got an armed robber breaking into your place while you're at home, minimum response time for cops will be 5-10 minutes -- if you're in a heavily policed area. Rural areas can be up to an hour. "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

Second, if you're being robbed, there's no assurance that the criminal is a "professional" who's too smart to shoot you. Most criminals are dumber than dirt, and have little to no concern for other people. Not the sort of people whose self-interest I'd want to trust my life to.

Little personal experience story for you: My freshman year of college, a guy was murdered in my dorm's parking lot just for stumbling over a couple of gangbangers breaking into a car. They shot him because they thought they'd somehow have a better chance of pulling off the robbery if they eliminated the witness.

Third, certain groups of people are more at risk in our society than others. Women and GLBT people, just off the top of my head. Disarming honest citizens puts these groups even more at risk for rape or hate crimes than they are already.

Fourth, dictatorships have a habit of disarming their citizenry so they can't fight back when the secret police are kicking in the door.

Advocating gun safety and background checks is one thing. Advocating total disarmament of citizens is another. A gun is a tool that you can go for years without needing, but when you need one, you'll need it BAD.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Those with an irrational fear of guns are the only ones crying.

[kevinbgoode]

163. Right...because only "rational" people carry guns around. . .

and they do so cuz they are always in need of "defending" themselves. It is utterly impossible that a legally gun-carrying person could ever commit a crime. Or shoot someone by mistake. Or settle differences by pulling their firearm. Or have any intention of ever thinking about being violent because they are carrying a firearm which proves they never would consider being violent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

174. Nice strawman.

No one has argued that those legally carrying firearms never commit crimes. Cops often commit crimes, in fact you are more likely to be accidently shot by a cop than you are a concealed carry permit holder. Statistically speaking CCW permit holders are among the most law abiding people you will ever encounter. So yes it is irrational to fear a law abiding person who happens to be carrying a firearm. For the sake of full disclosure I should state that I do not have a concealed carry permit and have not carried a firearm since 1991.

[X_Digger]

118. How about Clinton's DOJ?

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

1.5M Defensive Gun Uses (admittedly this was 1997, crime has came down since then.)

[immoderate]

134. Does being an economist give you license to psycho-babble?

A bit out of your field with your diagnoses?

--imm

[Statistical]

171. Rights are not subject to needs. It really is that simple.

I am sure at one point a Christian super majority thought people don't "need" the right to have other religions. If they just love Jesus everything will be rainbows.

You don't "need" right to be safe from warrantless search. I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong who care is they do or do not have a warrant. Imagine how many criminals are not prosecuted due to the requirement for a warrant. Those criminals go on to re-offend causing millions of violent crimes each year. Everyone would be safer from ciminals if the right to protection from warrantless search didn't exist.

Of course the beauty of rights, any right is there is no requirement to show a need. A right just is.

The 2nd amendment protect (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms.

It protects that right from infringement by the federal govt.
The case before SCOTUS will determine if that protection extends to states also.

[maxsolomon]

38. logical fallacy

false comparison.

purpose of gun: inflicting lethal wounds
purpose of car: providing convenient transportation

those WITHOUT guns in a society flooded with guns would seem to be the ones UNCONSUMED by fear.

[DainBramaged]

39. All of my 59 years, NEVER considered the need for a gun

And I have traveled to ALL of the States except Alaska, Hawaii, and Mississippi for work or travel at one time or another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Good for you.

I have traveled all over the country and I have never needed to exercise my right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

[Statistical]

111. Lucky for you the 2nd amendment doesn't force you to ever be armed.

[kevinbgoode]

165. Right. The neighbors will instead. . .

you know, after pulling their piece after declaring you are "threatening" them by disputing six inches of a property line. Or for yelling at their kid for throwing rocks. Or in "self-defense" from a snowball thrown at their car. . .

[Statistical]

169. So you have lots of examples of that happening right?

I mean there are nearly 100 million guns in circulation so you should be able to find a 100 examples like that which happened in last year?

Wait you can't. Even if you could 100 examples would be what 0.000001% of gun owners.

This is just more lame "blood in the street talk" that the Brady bunch puts out after every gun law change and like a broken record it never comes true. Violent crime of all forms is on a 20 year decline despite less restrictive gun laws. We heard this when FL allowed conceal carry, and then when 40+ other states adopted similar laws. We heard this when it became legal to transport guns across state lines (through gun unfriendly states). We heard this when the 3 day waiting period was dropped. We heard this every time a state passes a law allowing guns in parks, or restaurants, or in parking lots, or in cars. Every single time it is proven wrong.

3/4ths of all violent crime is committed by repeat offenders who are already prohibited from even owning a firearm.

The odds in you getting shot by your neighbor over a snowball is slightly less than the chance of that snowball surviving a week in hell.

[proteus_lives]

40. Fallacy of your own.

Why are gun-owners consumed by fear?

[maxsolomon]

61. umm... people WITHOUT guns scare them?

wait... i know... it's OTHER PEOPLE WITH GUNS! or maybe Obama's gun-grabbin'?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. That's funny none of my handguns has ever inflicted a lethal wound.

Despite tens of thousands of rounds being fired through them.

[maxsolomon]

62. so the PURPOSE of a gun is target shooting?

this comes as a surprise to me as i have noticed their lethal use in
a. hunting
b. every war since their invention.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. No the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile.

[immoderate]

137. False witness! That's not the purpose of my gun.

When I bought it, I knew it would never inflict a lethal (or non-lethal) wound on any living thing. Unless you consider over-ripe fruit a living thing. :)

--imm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Sorry but your numbers on children are false.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

65. Easy for you to assert, but HERE ARE THE FACTS from the USCDC, via

a recent Children's Defense Fund report.

From http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-report-2009.html :

"Protect Children, Not Guns 2009
Release Date: September 16, 2009 2009

The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006„a 6 percent increase from 2005. This means one young life lost every two hours and 45 minutes, almost nine every day, 61 every week.

Of these deaths, 2,225 were homicides, 763 were suicides and 196 were due to an accident or undetermined circumstances. Boys accounted for 2,815 of the deaths; girls for 369 deaths. More than five times as many children and teens--17,451--suffered non-fatal gun injuries."

[X_Digger]

72. What's the definition of 'child' used by the CDC?

Do 18-20 year olds count as 'children'? (He asks innocently..)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

109. At what age do most young people move out of their parents' homes AND start

supporting themselves with full-time work? THAT would be a FUNCTIONAL definition of adulthood, IMO.

Given the prevalence of college educations and the difficulty young people encounter in the full-time labor market, do most young people fully leave home before their twenties?

Perhaps in reconition of this reality, official tabulations released by the CDC generally lunp together 15-24 year olds in detailed tables and report 0-24 year old statistics in summary tables.

Generally, you have to delve into less-reliable comprehensive CDC databases even to piece together firearm death figures (and associated wide standard errors) for 0-18 year olds or 0-17 year olds.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. That sure is some good dodging there White.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. So now you are counting 18 and 19 year olds as children.

2006, United States
Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,
Y35.0,*U01.4


Number of
Deaths 1,593

Population 73,593,694

Crude Rate 2.16

There are the actual numbers from the CDC which of course I checked before responding to you in the first place.
Here is the link if you want to check it for yourself. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[ProgressiveEconomist]

102. No -- they are TEENS, just as I posted.

Can you refute what I posted? It seems the answer is no--or you already would have done so.

What would the firearms death statistics be for teens if guns were not so easily obtained, and if, like the Boston PD in the 90s, jurisdictions everywhere could trace crime guns?

You seem to be way more interested in protecting rogue gun dealers who sell to youth gangs than you are in the lives of children and teens.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. You didn't mention teens in post 19. That was the post that I said was incorrect and it is.

Your revised numbers after you added 18 and 19 year olds are fine.

[beevul]

106. Careful, Dave...

Stay out of the way of that tractor... :rofl:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

120. IMO "children" is almost universal shorthand for "non-adults". In post #19 I distinguished

between "children" and "adults", Do you consider 18 and 19 year-olds, very few of whom support themselves and live separately from their parents, to be "adults"?

Sorry I confused you by using a shorthand in #19 that I spelled out in detail in #65,

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. Yes I consider 18 and 19 year olds to be adults, as do the Courts in this country.

You weren't using shorthand, you were just wrong and you didn't like being called on it. It's okay though you'll get over it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

126. The "Courts" selectively try even 12 year-olds as adults--they're no arbiter of social statistics, I...

[beevul]

138. Legal age of adulthood...

Legal age of adulthood...the age at which one can own sign property, and can sign and be held legally bound to contracts, and can enlist in the military...


But you knew that.

"The "Courts" selectively try even 12 year-olds as adults--they're no arbiter of social statistics"


Neither is the brady bunch.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

140. Firearm mortality and morbidity is a matter of HEALTH, What is the role of age

in HEALTH-related public policies?

Many states don't allow legal drinking of alcohol in bars by those under age 21, for example.

Borderline commercial fraud and recruitment of cannon fodder at age 18 does not seem relevant here.

[beevul]

142. The question was whether 18 and 19 year olds were adults, I believe.

That question has been answered. Not, perhaps, to your satisfaction, but answered it was nonetheless.

Take a break.

I'm sure those goalposts get heavy after this much lifting.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

143. Why not follow your own advice?

[beevul]

145. Because I am not the one moving the goalposts. That would be you. N/T

[Statistical]

87. Only true if a 19 year old gangbanger felon is a "child".

[kevinbgoode]

161. So why were guns ever regulated in the first place?

Was there some kind of illegal revelation that it wasn't a good idea to let everyone run around armed all the time because. . .?

After all, isn't everyone "law-abiding" until they decide to commit a crime?

[Statistical]

166. Initially to keep blacks, imigrants, and other underiables from having access to firearms.

The restriction of gun rights like the restrictions on any other right has a very dark history. Blacks with guns might actually kill some Klansman who came to rape, burn, and murder.

"The sheer audacity of those uppity blacks for exerting their right to self defense and rolling over and allowing their family to be beaten, raped, and hung. We can't be having that".


So they passed laws that they knew Blacks wouldn't be compliant with. Then they sent over the local Sheriff (nod, nod, wink, wink) who just happen to also wear bedsheets at night to find them them non-compliant and seizes the guns. That made sure the good white-folk could have a proper cross burning with no risk of injury (being the only ones who were armed).


Racism & Fear is the roots of gun control

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

[kevinbgoode]

160. Except maybe our lives

. . .and claim "self-defense" as any little paranoid public moment a gun-toter might experience at any time.

[eShirl]

22. Try to avoid the second-hand lead. n/t

[Fla_Democrat]

78. color me happy

I already do that. Don't recall screwing anyone to do it. :shrug:

[951-Riverside]

15. How come I can't own an AT-4 or an Mk-19? Freaking whiny liberals.

How am I supposed to protect myself if North Korea decides to invade us?

The constitution clearly says I have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of the type of weapon.













:sarcasm:

[11 Bravo]

29. Fuck that, I want a nuke!

[slackmaster]

34. You can. You just have to do the paperwork, pass the background checks, and pay the taxes

HTH

[damntexdem]

20. Likely bad news for sensible Americans.

More concessions likely for the gunnuts.

[proteus_lives]

26. Sensible Americans protect their rights.

Nuts give up those rights for "safety".

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

25. Canard from the new-fish.

Welcome to DU and you're going to have to do better around here.

[RedCloud]

27. In a bizarre ruling, the Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that guns have personal rights too!

Their argument was the bullet was more efficient than the ballot.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. I believe the 2nd Amendment --

is the one place they really screwed the pooch on. Or maybe it is just the Supreme Court's interpretation. :(

[slackmaster]

36. Because we have open borders, state and local restrictions are pointless

If someone can acquire a particular type of weapon legally somewhere in the USA, that weapon can easily be taken anywhere.

I urge people to read up on the issues being brought up in this case. They are interesting, and could have a wide effect on much more than just the right to keep and bear arms.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

48. CSPAN is airing a Cato Institute preview of this USSC case right now

Many chuckle-headed right-wing lawyers are having their say. It's quite amusing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Listen well it could soon be the law of the land.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

56. Brought to ua by the previous advocates of "States Rights" in all things

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. People have rights, in this case the State is restricting those rights.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

58. More fruit of the tree poisoned when by 5-4 the USSC STOLE the Presidency

the USSC STOLE the Presidency in 2000 for a reliably rightwing moron named Dubya. Two of the five Justices in the Majority should have recused themselves from Bush v. Gore. (See below.)

Dubya then added Alito and Roberts, who lied to the Senate that they would respect longstanding precedents.

The impending "gun rights" decision going far beyond 14th amendment protection is just the latest outrage from a USSC tipped so far to the right it has become an international legal laughingstock.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore :

"There has also been analysis of whether or not several Justices had a conflict of interest that should have forced them to recuse themselves from the decision. ... on several occasions, William Rehnquist had expressed interest in retiring under a Republican administration.... At an election night party, Sandra Day O'Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona."

[ProgressiveEconomist]

63. And the so called "2nd Amendment right" is itself another manifestation of the

poisoned tree. The June 2008 DC v Heller decision overturned, on reasoning that was pure right-wing sophisry, a legitimate 1939 decision, DC v Miller.

Did the Founders intend gun ownership to be an INDIVIDUAL right? Then why did they preface the 2nd Amendement with the phrase, "A well-regulated MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free State"?

Not just a MILITIA, but a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA".

[aikoaiko]

68. As I understand it, Heller did not overturn Miller.

Can you show me in the Miller decision anything that contradicts the 2nd Amendment as an individual right? As I see it, it clarified that militia service was not the only reason for government to not infringe on individuals' rights to keep and bear arms.

The preface of the 2nd is just that -- a preface. The people, individuals with arms that is, could make up the militia if they were free to keep and bear arms.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

69. Just as I said (though I left out the "t")-- pure right-wing SOPHISTRY

Try just about any of the first 1000 hits from this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=heller+miller+amendment+individual&btnG=Google+Search

[aikoaiko]

92. No where in the actual Miller decision does the court say the 2nd only applies to the militia/

The justices used the possibility of using the arms in militia service as the test for whether or not individuals were free to own them. If there was evidence that they could be useful in the service of a militia, then individuals should be able to own them.

Have you read the Miller decision or only what anti-2nd Amendment folks say about the Miller decision?

[X_Digger]

96. Interesting article re Miller..

http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawliberty/pdfarchive/vol3no1/ECM_PRO_060964

[Statistical]

159. The irony the antis don't get is Miller could be used to allow access to currently banned weapons.

Repeal of 1984 ban for example. Machineguns are heavily regulated but licensing new machineguns is prohibited under the 1984 ban. Thus every legal civilian automatic weapon was manufactured and licensed prior to 1984. A rifle that was made in 1983 is legal, the same rifle made in 1984 can never under any circumstances be legally owned by a civilian.

Miller indicated that weapons that have use in a militia are protected. Millers weapon (sawed off shotgun) did not meet the definition. It would have been interesting if Miller had been caught with a service pistol instead.

The reverse is also true. Automatic weapons and assault rifles (M-4, M-16) would be useful in a militia however new sales are prohibited under 1984 ban. It is possible that ban is unconstitutional on face. The registry already heavily restricts these weapons. A rifle made in 1984 isn't substantially more dangerous than a rifle made in 1983. The ban had resulted in astonomical prices (30 year old rifle costing $10,000 to $50,000 ea) which is a defacto restriction on all but the most wealthiest Americans.


Keeping the machinegun registry and repealing the 1984 ban would be possible under a lawsuit using Miller and Heller as precedent.

Miller specifically did NOT require that the individual be a member of a militia only that the weapon would be useful in a militia.

The anti's hold Miller up like some shining beacon to gun restrictions when in reality it is a double edged sword.

[beevul]

73. Answers to your questions lie here.

"The June 2008 DC v Heller decision overturned, on reasoning that was pure right-wing sophisry, a legitimate 1939 decision, DC v Miller."

No, they did not. You obviously either didn't read miller, or didn't understand it.

"Did the Founders intend gun ownership to be an INDIVIDUAL right? Then why did they preface the 2nd Amendement with the phrase, "A well-regulated MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free State"?"

Why, you ask...Read:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

http://billofrights.org/

A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state..." is a declaratory clause, as described in the preamble to the bill of rights, which I quoted.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", is a restrictive clause, also described in the preamble.

Now, the preamble to the bill of rights, clearly says that those clauses both declaratory and restrictive, were made "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" - "it" being government.

So the words "well regulated militia", do not mean what you think they do.

To argue otherwise, is to argue with the words and plainly spelled out meaning, intent, and purpose of the document itself.

Which you are free to do. And others are free to recognize.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

76. Thanks for the "clarification". But you've just compounded sophistry with

nonsequiturs and unintelligible language, IMO

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good

Check into it.

[beevul]

98. Such a claim...

Such a claim - "compounded sophistry with nonsequiturs and unintelligible language", is just a claim, without proof to support it. Proof which - in the case of your "sophistry" claim, you haven't offered.

If you need an example of what proof is, refer to my original post. A link to an unbiased source. Well, unless you think the bill of rights itself is biased...

As to the rest - "nonsequiturs and unintelligible language" - I expect this sort of reply, I'm used to it. The truth is quite difficult to argue against, and leaves those that wish to, few options. And those that believe as you do, seem unwilling to bounce those beliefs off the truth of the matter. Like I said, I'm used to it. In my experience, those that shout sophistry first and loudest are most often those engaged in it the deepest.


If you really believe theres sophistry involved, point it out, explain it, and PROVE it, rather than just accuse others of it - and expect everyone should just take your word for it. y'know...Discuss it.

This is a discussion board, right?


That or just admit you are wrong and have been proven so.

[X_Digger]

75. You mean US v Miller?

The case that was 'gamed' so as to be the one before the SCOTUS as the weakest challenge to the 1934 NFA, where the counsel for Miller didn't even argue the case, and Miller was already _dead_? The decision written by the anti-semitic, lazy, McReynolds?

Here are a few links for you..

http://volokh.com/2010/02/27/united-states-v-miller/

http://ssrn.com/abstract=981831

[ProgressiveEconomist]

77. Right name, BIZARRELY wrong substance. And where did you find such obscure

ultra-right-wingnut links? I prefer mainstream, nonpartisan links, such as
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php .

Thanks for crrecting my use of the wrong title for US v Miller. I tried to crrect it myself, but the time for editing had passed.

[X_Digger]

80. Was Miller's counsel present? Was Miller actually alive at the time?

Here's another source for the same article re Miller.. http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawliberty/pdfarchive/vol3no1/ECM_PRO_060964

Surely, you're not calling NYU right wing?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

81. You sure can find those right wing links. That "journal" at NYU advertises a "Friedrich A. von Haye...

lecture--the 5th Annual, no less" on its homepage ( http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawliberty/index.htm ).

I see that nutcase Volokh's name there too.

Is this a project of the deep-pocketed "Federalist Society"?

[X_Digger]

93. Still impugning the source rather than the substance? n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

97. Sometimes the source has such a foul smell that "going in" would be just plain

foolish. If you can't make your case with mainstream links, I reserve thr right to skip your "sources", and not try to argue with ultra-right-wing-nut idiots.

[X_Digger]

112. Then actually read the case and transcripts in Miller..

Miller presented two challenges- a tenth amendment claim and a second amendment claim.

Regarding the tenth amendment claim:

The NFA is a tax law, not strictly a weapons law. It was done this way because congress knew it didn't have the power to directly ban weapons. (Look up the congressional debates at memory.loc.gov.)

The government attorney even went so far as to say “even as to this class of firearms there is not a word in the National Firearms Act which expressly prohibits the obtaining, ownership, possession or transportation thereof by anyone if compliance is had with the provisions relating to registration, the payment of taxes, and the possession of stamp-affixed orders.”

Congress knew the NFA couldn't stand up on strictly police power authority. "Who us? We're not banning anything.. just taxing. Nothing to see here, move along." So Miller's attorney (had he shown up) would have had to argue not only that Miller had a right to a short barreled shotgun, but also that Congress had no power to tax them. Congress had passed the Harrison Act to regulate narcotics, and a pile of cases confirmed the viability of such regulation (US v Jin Fuey Moy, US v Doremus, Linder v US, Alston v US, and Nigro v US).

So the first part of Miller's pleading was done away with (the challenge via the tenth amendment.)

Regarding the second amendment claim:

The government brief starts out fine- “The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” (emphasis mine)

McReynolds takes that and then goes on to say (re militias), “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

The ability to raise an effective militia is why the second amendment codified a pre-existing right. It doesn't limit it, merely sets up the scope of protections.

Here's where he goes off the rails a bit- “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Actually, short barreled shotguns were used in WWI ("Trench Sweepers"). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBW/is_1_3/ai_103384455/

But more importantly, his reasoning would have stood up under either an individual or collective theory, since the NFA only applies to weapons without a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Quoting Aymette, he said that the second amendment protects those weapons “usually employed in civilized warfare,” not “those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin.”

At the time, the government was almost giving away surplus weapons and promoting civilian marksmanship via the CMP under direction of the Department of War (later under the Army.)-- google 'National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice'. So to say that the government, on one hand, was handing out rifles to people with no association to the militia / Army / National Guard, but at the same time was limiting arms to the militia- is preposterous on its face.

Now do you see why hanging a collective interpretation on Miller is ludicrous?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

116. No. Take your argument to writers of mainstream legal bibliographic summaries, such

as http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php .

I'll rely on the considered opinion of nonpartisan groups of recognized legal scholars, rather than on the sophistries of reckless politically biased right-wing lawyers such as Eugene Volokh.

[X_Digger]

119. That's my take on the decision and briefs.. where's yours? n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

125. I rely on expert nonpartisan opinion in matters such as these, such as LINK

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php .

And those experts seem to regard the sophistical "logic" of the 2008 Heller decision as a bizarre, aberration, much like their opinion of Bush v Gore (see post #58 above), a purely political bit of sophistry at the root of Heller and other major departures from longstanding precedent carried out by Dubya's wrongheaded appointees to the USSC.

[X_Digger]

127. I don't think you've read your own sources..

Akhil Reed Amar -- comes down on the individual side.. as does Eugene Volokh, and Sanford Levinson. (You did actually look at the bibliography, right?)

as does Chrisman, And Cottrol

[aikoaiko]

131. I'm pretty sure the ProgressiveEconomist hasn't read Miller or much of the work he cites.

Except for the superficial summaries.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

132. Yes, I looked at the bibliography, but I have no intention of reading all those books and

long law-review articles.

I rely on the one-page summary, whcih does NOT reflect your tortured defense of the Bush Court Heller decision.

[X_Digger]

162. Life isn't a one page summary.

If you're going to delve into a subject as esoteric as court decisions, it actually pays to read and understand them.

Or you can skip it all and go with cliff notes.

*sigh* That's kind of disappointing.

[aikoaiko]

129. One of the links embedded in your link should clarify the issue for you

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf

Halstead explains that Miller deduced a test for whether or not a civilian could own a weapon based on whether or not it "showed some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". In other words, individuals could make the case they could own firearms if they were used by the military ordinarily.

It was the subsequent lower court decisions that deviated from this decision and created the "collective right" interpretation.

The Fifth Circuit started to correct these errors with Emerson.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

133. Aha! The key nonsequitur in your reasoning follows your phrase, "in other words".

What reductionism.

[aikoaiko]

135. Its not reductionism or nonsequitur -- I paraphrased Miller. Read it and get back to us.

Its like you're trying to avoid the words written in the decision. Its not very long. Read. It.

[Statistical]

167. Self Delete

Delete

[Statistical]

168. Well here is the exact quote from the case:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

The court dismissed Miller claim (who was dead at the time and had no lawyer present) due to the fact that the weapon in the courts opinion didn't have a "reasonable relation to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia".

Notice the court didn't dismiss the case because Miller wasn't part of any militia. Rather the case was dismissed because the weapon he was caught with (sawed off shotgun) didn't have any use in a well regulated militia.

[beevul]

104. You know the paradigm at work, X_Digger...

Nothing short of a brady/vpc link will do.

And nothing which supports your assertions or position will be allowed.

Some people have lived many years in 1994.

[Cid_B]

88. The trick is to read the whole thing...

Due to the fact that you need a well regulated militia (first group), the right of the PEOPLE (2nd and larger group) shall not be infringed.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

94. Substitute the more modern term "police force" for "militia" and you'll see your

non-sequitur.

Because every jurisdiction has to recruit a police force, we should allow every psychotic and criminal to own and carry firearms?

[beevul]

100. Except that the "militia" was never intended to be a "police force".

The "militia" was never intended to be a "police force".

"Because every jurisdiction has to recruit a police force, we should allow every psychotic and criminal to own and carry firearms?"



No. Because the amendment says that the right belongs to the PEOPLE, and that it shall not be infringed, and that the amendment is directed at government, we should not disallow law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms...


Or ending up in court when the rules are broken. Just like everyone else.


Government has rules which it must follow too.


You seem unfamiliar with the oldest most fundamental of them.

[Statistical]

164. Police force are agents of the govt. The founders were specific that the govt ...

shouldn't be able to infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You may feel the 2nd is antiquated but simply being not to your liking is not sufficient grounds for pretending it doesn't exist (a defacto repeal).

If you feel the 2nd hurts rather than helps freedom than work to repeal it. People like me will fight you but I will have a lot more respect for someone legally challenging the 2nd rather than just pretending it doesn't exist because they don't like it.

[immoderate]

139. As I said above, you really don't undertand that phrase.

You can verify by reading Federalist #29, but in short:

Well regulated means "skilled" or "well qualified."

The militia is anyone who can bear arms to protect the United States, not an organized force. These were the common usages of the day, and can be found in legislation and the Oxford dictionary. Do your homework.

--imm

[ProgressiveEconomist]

141. What's the likelihood that any of the 50 states and DC would send out a call for

gunowners to assemble as a militia in 2010?

Even if your interpretation of the key clause in the Second Amendement were correct, it would not justify individual rights to ***unrestricted*** gun ownership in modern times.

Remember, it's ***unrestricted*** gun ownership that is at issue here. Nobody is trying to take away your blankee.

[beevul]

144. Who, praytell, is arguing for UNRESTRICTED gun ownership?

"What's the likelihood that any of the 50 states and DC would send out a call for gunowners to assemble as a militia in 2010?"

Whats the likelihood that the answer to that question has any relevance to this discussion? Or just about any other discussion?


Who, praytell, is arguing for UNRESTRICTED gun ownership? Maybe you ought to be taking it up with whomever this imaginary party is, thats doing such a thing, eh?



"Remember, it's ***unrestricted*** gun ownership that is at issue here."

Uh no, a gun ban is whats at issue here.


"Nobody is trying to take away your blankee."

Thats funny, but chicago and its cheerleaders here in this thread sure are pissing and moaning about this court case, aren't they...


Telling, that.


And your characterization of it too, for that matter.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

146. Read the OP

[beevul]

148. I read it.

It said nothing of anyone fighting for unrestricted gun rights.


Perhaps you consider the inability to ban firearms as some sort of twisted definition of "unrestricted"?


That would explain a great many things.

[Statistical]

158. repealing a ban does not equal unrestricted.

Are abortions completely unrestricted because Roe v. Wade repealed a complete ban on them?

In no possible ration thought does repeal ban = unrestricted anything. Your responses seem very emotional on the issue. It seems you haven't done any reading on the merits of the case, the briefs, or the Heller decision rather you just want people to agree with you on an emotional appeal.

[immoderate]

147. Cheap shots denigrate your argument. But wait...

You don't have an argument.

The Constitution is about rights, not likelihoods. Frankly I don't know if I could handicap that.

And it's not my interpretation, it's what those words mean! Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison -- they all talked like that.

Personally, I feel that in a free country, no one has the right to tell me I can't own a gun. Testing the limits on how big it can be is not illuminating and I'll leave that to economists who wannabe psychoanalysts.

--imm

[ProgressiveEconomist]

149. "The Constitution is about rights, not likelhoods." What if those rights are conditional

on public needs that no longer exist? Such as the need for militias?

Most of the Founding Fathers were dead set against "standing armies" that would make militias unnecessary. But now we have all the standing armies of soldiers and police we could ever need. Is that fact irrelevant to interpreting the Second Amendment?

Many scholars have answered that question with a resounding NO.

It is only since Bush v Gore STOLE the Presidency for Dubya and Dubya appointed justices who lied about their intention to uphold longstanding precedents that the opinions of those scholars have become irrelevant to what the tainted and tilted USSC does and will do (see post #58).

[immoderate]

150. Sounds like you want an amendment. Fair enough.

Sounds like an argument to disband the army though. I'm sure "many scholars" have said no to whatever. But others disagree like me. (I went to school too, and I'm no slouch.)

My point is that the Constitution says what it does. And you want it to mean something different.

--imm

[ProgressiveEconomist]

151. Agreed: "The Constitution says what it says". But what does it MEAN two-hundred-

some years later, when society has undergone drastic changes from what the Founders knew and provided for?

What would the Founding Fathers have said about Columbine, or the Viginia college massacre? Or about the Colorado bloodbath averted last month only because of the heroism of a math teacher?

We need for laws to be interpreted to handle the problems of the 2010s, not those of the 1790s.

[immoderate]

152. Taking away rights is not the answer.

Countries like Switzerland and Canada have armed populations without the murders. It's not the guns. The founders gave us the process to deal with changes. What you won't get is consensus for your POV.

--imm

[Statistical]

157. The founders put in place a system to modify the Constitution.

It has been done 26 times in the history of the Union.

[Spoonman]

173. What would the Founding Fathers have said

about Columbine, or the Viginia college massacre?

GUILTY
Sentenced to death by hanging, sentence to be carried out at dawn.

We need to address the problems, not look for excuses to justify an overactive emotional state.

[Statistical]

172. The right is with the people not the militia and it exists even without the Bill of Rights.

First thing that is often confused is the Bill of Rights grants no rights. If something is granted it isn't a right.

Under the founder's vision people all over the world (even in communist China) have these right which are endowed by our creator (for non religious you could consider them "human rights").

The rights always exist. Now in many places, and many times they have been infringed upon but the right still exists. The govt that is infringing upon the rights has lost its legitimacy to rule.


So the Bill of Rights GRANTS NOTHING. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the federal govt. It restricts what the federal govt can do.

States don't have right. I know the term "states rights" exists but it is incorrect. Governments have powers. The Constitution defines the separation of powers. In separates them into branches of govt but also into powers for federal govt and powers reserved by the states.

So states can't have a "right" to form militia. States have the POWER to form a militia and they have that even if it is not enumerated because the Constitution indicates that any powers not granted to the federal govt are reserved by the States. Since no provision of Constitution grants the federal govt the ability to disband a state militia states reserve that power.

Any determination between if/when/how states have the power to form a militia would be defined in the Constitution and listed as POWER not in the Bill of Rights which listed Rights of the people that are protected.

So even in the absence of a militia the right of the people still exists.

[Statistical]

156. The case isn't about unrestricted anything.

Did you even read the brief?

The question before the court is a complete prohibition on handguns in Chicago Constitutional. The indirect question is do the restrictions on the federal govt indicated in the 2nd also apply to the states via incorporation?

I know facts don't really matter for antis but did you even think this through?

Did Heller decision end all federal regulation of firearms? No.
Then how would applying the Heller decision (which indicates the scope and breadth of the protection applied to the 2nd amendment) to the states magically end all restrictions? It won't.

[Statistical]

155. Well if you actually read the Heller decision you would know.

In the context of the period that the BofR was written "Well regulated" means well trained, functioning, useful, effective.

See giving the states rights to form a militia wasn't enough. The states wanted EFFECTIVE militias.

What is necessary for an EFFECTIVE militia? Citizens needed access to firearms. That access needed to be secure from infringement.

If citizens were prohibited from owning firearms by a tyrannical federal govt (which is something founders feared) then the federal govt could do an end run around the states power to effectively defend itself (with a wll regulated militia) How effective would the state militia be when they citizens of a state had no experience or knowledge of firearms?

You only read part of the amendment.
"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."

If the founders had believed that only state militias had the right to arm they would have simply said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the power of the states to form militia shall not be infringed"

You ignorance of the words PEOPLE is apparent. Also you ignore the fact that neither federal govt nor the states have ANY RIGHTS. The term "states rights" is an oxymoron just because it is incorrectly used today doesn't mean that the founders didn't understand the distinction between rights and powers. Govts (federal, state, local) have powers not rights. So not only is the wording wrong it is very unlikely a statement of state powers would be placed in the bill of RIGHTS. Anything enumerating the power of states would be in the Constitution (where every other enumerated power of both federal and state govts is).

Lastly any such amendment wouldn't even make sense. The states reserve powers not given to the Federal govt by the Constitution. Since the Constitution doesn't grant the Federal govt any oversight. Therefore by defacto all states have the power to form militias.

[MicaelS]

52. So, those here who do not want...

The average citizen to own guns, because they do not trust them, or feel they are incapable of using them properly. That means the only ones permitted to have guns will be law enforcement and the military. Law enforcement, considered by many here to be a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes, and the military, considered by many here to be a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic warmongers.

So you don't trust your fellow civilian citizens with guns, and those you do trust with guns are racist, sexist and homophobic.

[TexasObserver]

66. Not surprised the Oaf Makers can get behind this.

They hate judicial activists, EXCEPT when it is the right wingers doing it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Who mentioned the Oath Takers or did you forget a link?

[TexasObserver]

114. I mentioned them. No link necessary.

We hold these truths to be self evident - that all Oath Fakers and Tea Baggers are latter day Confederates who hate the Union and the constitution. They hate liberals, blacks, Democrats, foreigners, gays, and pretty much everyone who isn't a backwoods, inbred country bumpkin.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. So those that are complaining about the 2nd Amendment here are racist, country bumpkins.

Interesting take I never thought of it that way.

[TexasObserver]

123. No, those who embrace Oak Fakers are.

The guilty chicken cackles loudest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. I'm glad there are none of those here.

[TexasObserver]

128. Purportedly.

[Spoonman]

176. Oath Takers ? or Oath Keepers?

Who are you refering to?

[BreweryYardRat]

74. Banning personal small arms is a bad call. Hope the USSC rules it unconstitutional.

The only people a handgun ban hurts are law-abiding citizens, all of whom have to take heavy-duty classes and get a CCW permit to carry a handgun concealed. Criminals will always get hold of weapons illegally.

As for semi-auto rifles -- how many of the folks trying to ban them know how one works? It's a rifle with clip ammo. Semi-auto just means you don't have to work a bolt between each shot -- it fires each time you pull the trigger. They're hunting rifles or target rifles. They don't have 3-round-burst capability, and they don't have full-auto fire. In fact, you can't legally get a burst/full-auto weapon in the U.S. for under $8-10,000, because the government taxes the hell out of those purchases to ensure people don't get hold of them easily.

That said, I'd be okay with the government requiring more stringent background checks and mandatory gun safety/training classes before you can own a firearm.

[billh58]

86. You can take the

bubbas out of the Gungeon, but you can't take the Gungeon out of the bubbas...;-)

[scheming daemons]

136. THIS IS WHY IT IS RIDICULOUS TO CLAIM THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND BUSH!

Supreme Court nominations matter.


Any idiots who still spout that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans need to look at cases like this that come up before the court.

[Statistical]

154. Some Democrats support the entire constitution. n/t

[mmonk]

153. The only amendment they give a damn about.

The 2nd amendment without the regulated militia part or the history behind it. This court isn't about freedom at all. This is an idelogical court legislating from the bench seeking out causes of the right.