SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well, the NRA sure are quick to take advantage of the ruling

NRA sues San Francisco to overturn a ban on guns in city-run public housing
The action follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that people have a right to handguns in their homes.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 28, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- The National Rifle Assn. sued the San Francisco Housing Authority today to overturn a ban on guns in city-administered public housing -- one day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have a right to handguns in their homes.

The lawsuit filed in federal court here said the city's ban on guns violates residents' 2nd Amendment right to keep a handgun at home for self-protection. An NRA lawyer said the group hopes the suit will lead to a ruling that clarifies whether cities and states can be sued under the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C., law that banned handguns in the district, which is under federal jurisdiction.

One anonymous plaintiff in today's lawsuit was identified as a gay man who lives in a Housing Authority project and keeps a gun for protection from hate crimes. The suit said identifying the man could subject him to eviction or retaliation by the city.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said he was confident that the ban was legal and would be upheld.

[Rogue 9]

Quick is right; they filed a lawsuit against Chicago fifteen minutes after the ruling was handed down.

[Kitsune]

What is wrong with quick?

[Broomstick]

Thought of the moment, re: both the DC mayor and Chicago mayor's responses... my response to them would be, "Well, why then are your cities so damn violent as is?"

According to Daley, there is all this gun crime in Chicago because surrounding municipalities (and the State of Indiana) have not adopted similar statutes and therefore criminals can still obtain guns. Well, yes, but he's totally disarmed his own populace. It also doesn't answer the question why, in those municipalities where guns are legally obtainable (even easily obtainable) the gun crime rate is so much lower than Chicago's.

[Surlethe]

Hmm. I learned something new last night. Apparently, SCOTUS did create a new right by misinterpreting the Second Amendment: if we want to go by the intent of the Constitution's writers, we must take into account that they explicitly rejected an amendment to the effect of ...

Seventh. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Link

[Rogue 9]

Well, this is interesting.

NRA sues to overturn S.F. gun ban in city housing

By PAUL ELIAS – 14 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he is "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."

San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with trigger locks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.

A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban that voters approved in 2005.

The Chicago lawsuit challenges the city's 1982 ordinance making it illegal to possess or sell handguns there.

NRA lawyer C.D. Michel said both lawsuits were necessary to expand the Supreme Court's ruling beyond Washington, a federal district, to states and cities.

"The Supreme Court decisions was very encouraging," Michel said. "But it is just a start."

I can hear the heads exploding from here.

[darthbob88]

[Snip gay dude demanding his right to keep and bear arms]
I can hear the heads exploding from here.

Yar. Either the city must deny this gay dude his right to protection, or they must permit those horrible guns in their fair city. Which of their liberal ideas are they going to have to give up?

[Lancer]

Hmm. I learned something new last night. Apparently, SCOTUS did create a new right by misinterpreting the Second Amendment: if we want to go by the intent of the Constitution's writers, we must take into account that they explicitly rejected an amendment to the effect of ...

Don't believe that bullshit for a second, as every single amendment the Pennsylvania delegation proposed was shot down, despite the fact that many were later ratified as the 1st-10th amendments as the Bill of Rights. Here's the full text of proposed amendments:

First. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable; and neither the legislative, executive nor judicial powers of the United States, shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the constitution of the several states, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion.

Second. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury shall remain as heretofore, as well in the federal courts, as in these of the several states.

Third. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man has a right to demand that cause and nature of this accusation, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states; to be heard by {Omitted text} and {Omitted text} ; to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses; to all for evidence in his favor, and a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent, he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to five evidence against himself; and that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Fourth. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.

Fifth. That warrants unsupported by evidence, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are grievous and oppressive, and shall not be granted either by the magistrates of the federal government or others.

Sixth. That the people have a right to the freedom of speech, of writing and publishing their sentiments, therefore, the freedom of the press shall not be restrained by any law of the United States.

Seventh. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Eighth. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands' they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.

Ninth. That no law shall be passed to restrain the legislatures of the several states, from enacting laws for imposing taxes, except imposts and duties on goods imported or exported, and that no taxes except imposts and duties on goods imported and exported, and postage on letters, shall be levied by the authority of Congress.

Tenth. That the house of representatives be properly increased in number; that elections shall remain free; that the several states shall have power to regulate the elections for senators and representatives, without being controuled either directly or indirectly by any interference on the part of the Congress; and that elections of representatives be annual.

Eleventh. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

Twelfth. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept separate; and to this end, that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant
attendence; and also that the judges be made completely independent.

Thirteenth. That no treaty which shall be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be valid until such laws shall be repealed or made conformable to such treaty; neither shall any treaties be valid which are in contradiction to the constitution of the United States, or the constitutions of the several states.

Fourteenth. That the judiciary power of the United States shall be confined to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states--between a state and citizens of different states --between citizens claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states; and in criminal cases to such only as are expressly enumerated in the constitution, and that the United States in Congress assembled, shall not have power to enact laws, which shall alter the laws of descents and distribution of the effects of deceased persons, the titles of land or goods, or the regulation of contracts in the individual states.

[Rogue 9]

Surlethe, the 2nd Amendment (or the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.) wasn't ratified at the Philadelphia Convention either; that's why the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments. The Convention overruled enumerating explicit rights at all in the main body of the Constitution because they feared that by enumerating some rights, they would by implication deny others, which is the last thing they wanted to do.

The Bill of Rights was ratified later as a compromise measure; that they rejected similarly worded proposals at the Convention itself doesn't mean anything.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its not an 'argument' Shep, there is not A therefore B statement. They're simply stating that Scalia concluded the amendment does guarantee a personal right to bear arms even though the personal right to bear arms is not explicitly enumerated. In, "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 "being necessary" clause is a qualification of the right. So the personal right is not explicitly stated (similarly, as you have noticed, to the unenumerated right to privacy that has been held to necessarily guarantee some basic access to abortion).

But such an interpretation sets a dangerous precedent when comparing it to the other rights-- the "People" who are addressed in the 2nd Amendment are the same "People" being addressed by the right to free speech, assemble peaceably, to be free of self-incrimination, to be free of unreasomable search... it would not go over well to try to restrict those rights as well under strained concepts of "neccessity"-- which is precisely why some of these being undermined by Bushco. are raising such ire.

What the fuck does that have to do with the fact that the People are not granted the right personally or without qualification? All I am saying is with "being necessary" included in the amendment, it is qualified and not necessarily open-ended. Those other amendments, do not include explicitly necessity clauses, so your equivocation is meaningless. Furthermore, pre-independence and colonial precedent abound supports the interpretation that the Second Amendment was a civic right extended for the purposes of the protection of the community and the state, not as a personal right. Certainly the absurd arguments that the Second Amendment denied any role for government regulation and restriction is absurd (in the post-Revolutionary era, citizens actually had to submit to inspection of their arms in some cases, so as to prove they would be able to muster in the militia and serve effectively if necessary). I didn't say that because of the necessity clause they shouldn't have found like they did, I am saying it is not necessarily included, and their extension of the right to personal ownership is in the same kind of ballpark as extending a "right to privacy" that protects abortion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hmm. I learned something new last night. Apparently, SCOTUS did create a new right by misinterpreting the Second Amendment: if we want to go by the intent of the Constitution's writers, we must take into account that they explicitly rejected an amendment to the effect of ...

Seventh. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Link

As explained, plenty of amendments were proposed that were shot-down and readapted in some form as the Bill of Rights. Not only that, but the quoted amendment SIGNIFICANTLY differs from the actually ratified 2nd Amendment in its content. It explicitly reserves the personal or individual right to bear arms for the purposes of hunting game and personal defense. It also might have prevented Congress from maintaining any Regular Army and constitutionally mandated a levy/militia-based army.

[Glocksman]

Thought of the moment, re: both the DC mayor and Chicago mayor's responses... my response to them would be, "Well, why then are your cities so damn violent as is?"

According to Daley, there is all this gun crime in Chicago because surrounding municipalities (and the State of Indiana) have not adopted similar statutes and therefore criminals can still obtain guns. Well, yes, but he's totally disarmed his own populace. It also doesn't answer the question why, in those municipalities where guns are legally obtainable (even easily obtainable) the gun crime rate is so much lower than Chicago's.

Well, there is Gary.
Though before the collapse of the US industrial heartland back in the 70's and 80's, Gary's crime rate wasn't much out of the US norm.

Like I've said many times in the past, there are both cultural and economic factors that impact crime rates much more than firearm availability.

The contrast between Gary and the rest of the state (no other area in the state was so completely dependent upon a single industry as Gary was) is a perfect illustration.

[Broomstick]

However, post-handgun ban Chicago's murder rate has exceeded that of Gary most years. I'm not denying Gary is fucked up in many ways, of course.

[Glocksman]

However, post-handgun ban Chicago's murder rate has exceeded that of Gary most years. I'm not denying Gary is fucked up in many ways, of course.

Ironically, a precursor to Heller happened right here in Indiana when the Mayor and police chief in Gary decided on their own to refuse to provide and process the paperwork needed under state law that was required to issue Indiana CCW permits.

The fight went to the state supreme court, which ruled that RKBA was both a liberty right and a property right under our state constitution, and that the offending officials were personally liable (IOW, they had to pay the judgment themselves, not the city of Gary) for the damages awarded the plaintiffs in the suit.

While Indiana has some fucked up laws, our gun laws are on target

[SirNitram]

The idea of an Amendment in the original Constitution specifically for self defense was kinda absurd; IIRC, Common Law already afforded that right, and therefore it was already there.

[Galvatron]

Is there any hope that this ruling will force California to ease up on their roster of approved hanguns and allow me to buy the Taurus 8-shot .357 magnum revolver I've been wanting for so long? I mean, I already have a friggin' Sig Sauer automatic that holds 10 rounds, so WTF is up with restricting an 8-shot revolver??

[Glocksman]

It might, but Scalia's opinion does allow wide latitude to the states WRT gun laws, despite Brady handwringing to the contrary.

So at a guess, I'd say no.
The best advice I can give you would be to move to a more 'gun friendly' state such as Nevada, if you can.

[Sea Skimmer]

Is there any hope that this ruling will force California to ease up on their roster of approved hanguns and allow me to buy the Taurus 8-shot .357 magnum revolver I've been wanting for so long? I mean, I already have a friggin' Sig Sauer automatic that holds 10 rounds, so WTF is up with restricting an 8-shot revolver??

Simple, only idiots ever propose banning specific types of guns or calibers of ammo, and idiots also judge guns to be ‘dangerous' based on how they look, and not any connection to reality. Its really nothing more complex then that. A revolver with a big cylinder looks meaner then a semi automatic with a short magazine that’s all inside the handgrip.

[Galvatron]

But I need that gun for the inevitable World War Z! Resident Evil taught me that a magnum is always good for a one-shot kill.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The idea of an Amendment in the original Constitution specifically for self defense was kinda absurd; IIRC, Common Law already afforded that right, and therefore it was already there.

No, because common law does not automatically override statutory law enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people; constitutional law does without an amendment.

[Sephirius]

Simple, only idiots ever propose banning specific types of guns or calibers of ammo, and idiots also judge guns to be ‘dangerous' based on how they look, and not any connection to reality.

Augh, like Canada.

Welcome to the world where a Dragunov is classified as an 'AK-47' Variant, and is banned because it (ak47) looks evil.

[Master of Ossus]

The idea of an Amendment in the original Constitution specifically for self defense was kinda absurd; IIRC, Common Law already afforded that right, and therefore it was already there.

What are you talking about? Common law can be overridden by statutory law, but moreover common law had to be more-or-less explicitly folded into the constitution, in places. "Due Process," for instance, means nothing independent of common law context, but had to be explicitly recognized by the Constitution.

[Loner]

Is there any hope that this ruling will force California to ease up on their roster of approved hanguns and allow me to buy the Taurus 8-shot .357 magnum revolver I've been wanting for so long? I mean, I already have a friggin' Sig Sauer automatic that holds 10 rounds, so WTF is up with restricting an 8-shot revolver??

Not immediately, however the Chicago lawsuit will try and incorporate the 2nd into the 14th amendment, which if successful can mean all states will have to have the same rights on an equal-rights basis. So that roster of 'approved handguns' can be tossed out.

Though that's years off, your best bet would be to find someone who has that pistol locally and do a 'Person to Person Transfer' as those type of sales do not involve the approved handgun list.

[Darth Wong]

Simple, only idiots ever propose banning specific types of guns or calibers of ammo, and idiots also judge guns to be ‘dangerous' based on how they look, and not any connection to reality.

Augh, like Canada.

Welcome to the world where a Dragunov is classified as an 'AK-47' Variant, and is banned because it (ak47) looks evil.

The idea of classifying weapons by their danger level is not inherently flawed. It is merely implemented badly in most cases. There is no reason one could not classify weapons and ammo by their effective range or their ability to penetrate armour and masonry, for example.

[Mr. Coffee]

The idea of classifying weapons by their danger level is not inherently flawed. It is merely implemented badly in most cases. There is no reason one could not classify weapons and ammo by their effective range or their ability to penetrate armour and masonry, for example.

Problem with that is that a lot of very common hunting cartridges are more than capable of penetrating body armor and masonry and have very long effective ranges. I know for a fact my new favorite deer cartridge, .376 Steyr, will shatter a cider block out past 200m. I use it because it kills the deer quickly and cleanly, but if we started banning cartridges based on performance vs body armor, masonry, and/or range, I'd have a damned hard time finding anything acceptable for killing deer.