SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment

[Coyote]

In MSNBC

Right now, this is all there is:

WASHINGTON - The United States Supreme Court said on Thursday that individuals have the right to own guns, striking down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban.

Please check back for details on this breaking story.

I wonder how it will be interpreted, and what sort of "restrictions within the pale" will be attempted? Such as, "you can have a gun, but, it has to be a single-shot .22," or something.

[Coyote]

Ah, here's more:

BREAKING NEWS

updated 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said on Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."


In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The beautiful, sweet summary:

1. It's unconstitutional to require disassembly of firearms or trigger locks.
2. The right to keep and bear arms for hunting and self-defense is explicitly preserved.
3. Guns cannot be banned for use in the home, to defend the home, in any circumstance.

This primarily affects New York, D.C., Chicago, and maybe a couple states that have trigger lock provisions.

[Tsyroc]

I thought the dissenting summary was interesting because that justice obviously missed the fact that the people making the US Constitution weren't real big on government control and that's why they didn't include tools to regulate civilian use of weapons.

Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something about revolution every 20 years or so? Kind of hard to do if the government is controlling the rules regarding owning weapons.

[Glocksman]

From the syllabus:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56

Outright bans and regulations that amount to effective bans are unconstitutional, but this won't affect 90% of the gun laws already on the books.

Though personally I hope that it's used to strike down the 1986 ban on new NFA machine gun registrations.

[Rogue 9]

Here's the opinion. (PDF)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think it very well might be construed as striking down the ban on people already holding (or who receive) class III permits to purchase full automatics. The standards for class III permits are extremely strenuous, so there really isn't a problem with that.

[Coyote]

I think it very well might be construed as striking down the ban on people already holding (or who receive) class III permits to purchase full automatics. The standards for class III permits are extremely strenuous, so there really isn't a problem with that.

They'd have to lean on the "commonly available" clause, which can be argued that while they are "commonly available" for the military, they are not so for civilians... a delineation which will draw on the 1934 ban as precedent. And it won't undo the 1994 import ban... but I'm guessing.

Any time law makers make something less restrictive, I'm suspicious. A gerrymandering "interpretation" is not far behind.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I'm actually glad about this.

I'm in favor of gun CONTROL, not banning.

By that i mean i dont want some hick with an AK-47, but if someone wants to own a .45 or a Glock or even a rifle or shotgun i have no quarrek with them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think it very well might be construed as striking down the ban on people already holding (or who receive) class III permits to purchase full automatics. The standards for class III permits are extremely strenuous, so there really isn't a problem with that.

They'd have to lean on the "commonly available" clause, which can be argued that while they are "commonly available" for the military, they are not so for civilians... a delineation which will draw on the 1934 ban as precedent. And it won't undo the 1994 import ban... but I'm guessing.

Any time law makers make something less restrictive, I'm suspicious. A gerrymandering "interpretation" is not far behind.

Well, it's already legal to own full automatics which entered the civilian market before 1986, and the import ban wouldn't be struck down, we're referring to the purchase of new automatics, which was banned in 1986.

[Broomstick]

3. Guns cannot be banned for use in the home, to defend the home, in any circumstance.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the bans on the mentally ill and convicted felons (especially those on probation) holding guns will probably stand.

[RedImperator]

In the long term, this decision could be a disaster for the NRA and the Republican Party. The NRA's primary argument against virtually all forms of gun control--and I know this for a fact, because I've read their literature--is that any measure to restrict gun ownership is actually step one in the gun control advocates' plan to outlaw all private ownership. Similarly, Republicans have been able to argue to gun owners that any vote for a Democrat is a vote for gun control, because even a Blue Dog is going to vote for anti-gun liberals in leadership positions in Congress.

SCOTUS just kicked the legs out from under that argument. Now there can't be a secret plan to take guns away, because you cannot outlaw private ownership of firearms without a constitutional amendment, and good luck getting that through 38 state legislatures.

[MKSheppard]

I'm surprised that this went through, given the last couple of rulings which have been just

[MKSheppard]

In the long term, this decision could be a disaster for the NRA and the Republican Party.

Not really. Look at the closeness of the vote. This should not have been 5-4; it should have been 7-2. Vote Republican to prevent such close votes from happening again.

Secondly, the NRA is more than just fighting gun control. Like a retard, you assume that that's all it does. It does far more than that; like run firearms competitions, firearms training programs, etc.

It's NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) which will slim down some -- this ruling isn't the end for supporters of the 2nd Amendment -- the Gun controller crowd will fight to the last bloody court case.

[Beowulf]

The ILA will probably slim down some, yes, but will probably never actually disappear. It's too useful to the NRA to disband. And since the NRA has a purpose other than fighting gun bans, it will continue to exist as long as it's real purpose does, probably.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

3. Guns cannot be banned for use in the home, to defend the home, in any circumstance.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the bans on the mentally ill and convicted felons (especially those on probation) holding guns will probably stand.

Well, I confess I simply thought that was so obvious as to be unnecessary to state--obviously the laws only apply to people who have Civil Rights, and those of Felons and the Mentally Ill have been reduced by judicial action.

[Broomstick]

Obvious in one sense, but since most of the Bill of Rights applies even to incarcerated felons and the mentally incapacitated you probably should add those qualifications to such a statement.

[Broomstick]

Mayor Daley - that's Chicago's mayor - was on TV talking about this decision. Looked like he was about to have a stroke, he was frothing at the mouth about buying automatic rifles and going back to the wild west and having gunfights or something. Of course, with Chicago's anti-gun ordinance based on DC's it's a sure bet that Chicago's law is also unconstitutional based on this SCotUS decision.

[Darth Wong]

I'm surprised that this went through, given the last couple of rulings which have been just

You mean the ruling about how habeus corpus can't be thrown out the window? That one struck you as ?

[Phantasee]

I'm surprised that this went through, given the last couple of rulings which have been just

You mean the ruling about how habeus corpus can't be thrown out the window? That one struck you as ?

I think he's talking about the one concerning death penatly for child rapists or something like that.

[Darth Wong]

I'm surprised that this went through, given the last couple of rulings which have been just

You mean the ruling about how habeus corpus can't be thrown out the window? That one struck you as ?

I think he's talking about the one concerning death penatly for child rapists or something like that.

I don't see why that's so shocking. Many countries have outlawed the death penalty period, and your constitution has a provision against cruel and unusual punishment. Someday down the road, it's entirely possible that a more progressive Supreme Court might strike down capital punishment across the board.

Besides, he did say "couple of rulings". What's the other one?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I thought he might be referring to the Exxon-Valdez case... but then I remembered that it is Shep

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't see why that's so shocking. Many countries have outlawed the death penalty period, and your constitution has a provision against cruel and unusual punishment. Someday down the road, it's entirely possible that a more progressive Supreme Court might strike down capital punishment across the board.

Well it already kind of did 1972-1976, but every justice had a different opinion in the ruling, only two concurred that the death penalty should be illegal in all instances, and so it didn’t take long for the decision to be reversed.

Personally I think that lifetime imprisonment without possibility of release is far more cruel and unusual, especially in view of the totally fucked up environment found in US prisons.

[Phantasee]

I don't see why that's so shocking. Many countries have outlawed the death penalty period, and your constitution has a provision against cruel and unusual punishment. Someday down the road, it's entirely possible that a more progressive Supreme Court might strike down capital punishment across the board.

Besides, he did say "couple of rulings". What's the other one?

I couldn't tell you, but I'd like to point out that it's not my constitution. I'm as Canadian as you

[Broomstick]

I'd also like to remind people that support of the death penalty is by no means universal in the US, and several states/territories have NO death penalty, specifically Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. A rather interesting collection, really. While we have several people voicing emphatic support, I would like to state that I am an American against the death penalty. I don't believe taking human life is justified on anything other than the basis of self-defense, and if we can confine dangerous individuals then we can not justify killing them. (However, if they escape I am in favor of using lethal force if necessary to protect society at large)