2nd Amendment Ruling

[Trooper 8]

The problem I have isn't the basis or outcome of the decision, but that it is arrived at through the Supreme Court. If there is a clear problem or issue with the Second Amendment there is course for further amendments, not for a court to interpret the extant amendment. I could really care less about gun laws.

I have no idea why you have an issue with this. The did EXACTLY what they are supposed to do and do all the time, determine if a law is constitutional and explain why. Just about all of the amendments have been subject to this clarification at one time or another. They also determine at times the level of scrutiny that is to be applied in the future.

You basically say your fundamental problem is that the Supreme Court did their job and I'm at a loss to understand it.

[Chadd 916]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

Someone has to decide what it means and it should be people with actual knowledge of the law, not uninformed people off the street. I read some of the decision, not focused enough to read all 157 pages, and the decision is very logical. I really have no idea where the dissent is coming from logically or legally. Some of the positions taken only make sense if the justices are working backwards from their desired outcome as opposed to considering the merits of the arguements and applicable law.

The problem I have isn't the basis or outcome of the decision, but that it is arrived at through the Supreme Court. If there is a clear problem or issue with the Second Amendment there is course for further amendments, not for a court to interpret the extant amendment. I could really care less about gun laws.

There was no problem with the extant ammendment, there was a question as to whether a law enacted violates protections granted by said ammendment. The only way to determine the legality of the law is to have someone compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent ammendments. Without the supreme court doing the comparison, congress would be able to pass unconstitutional laws without any way to to protest them short of armed revolt. Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

[troy 12]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

Someone has to decide what it means and it should be people with actual knowledge of the law, not uninformed people off the street. I read some of the decision, not focused enough to read all 157 pages, and the decision is very logical. I really have no idea where the dissent is coming from logically or legally. Some of the positions taken only make sense if the justices are working backwards from their desired outcome as opposed to considering the merits of the arguements and applicable law.

The problem I have isn't the basis or outcome of the decision, but that it is arrived at through the Supreme Court. If there is a clear problem or issue with the Second Amendment there is course for further amendments, not for a court to interpret the extant amendment. I could really care less about gun laws.

There was no problem with the extant ammendment, there was a question as to whether a law enacted violates protections granted by said ammendment. The only way to determine the legality of the law is to have someone compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent ammendments. Without the supreme court doing the comparison, congress would be able to pass unconstitutional laws without any way to to protest them short of armed revolt. Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

Yes, I was speaking more generally on the over-reaching of courts currently. But from what I've read regarding this decision I have no issues about the SC presiding over such a matter.

I've been reading Ron Paul lately so I have been feeling pretty rebellious.

[Chadd 916]

Yes, I was speaking more generally on the over-reaching of courts currently. But from what I've read regarding this decision I have no issues about the SC presiding over such a matter.

I've been reading Ron Paul lately so I have been feeling pretty rebellious.

That dude is nuts. I'm a big fan of small government and minimal intrusion into the lives of the people, but his proposals would destroy the economy and result in near-total anarchy within five years.

[Rylake 0]

You guys just do me a favour, and keep that mess below the 49th parrallel.

[troy 12]

Yes, I was speaking more generally on the over-reaching of courts currently. But from what I've read regarding this decision I have no issues about the SC presiding over such a matter.

I've been reading Ron Paul lately so I have been feeling pretty rebellious.

That dude is nuts. I'm a big fan of small government and minimal intrusion into the lives of the people, but his proposals would destroy the economy and result in near-total anarchy within five years.

I agree, some of the schemes he renders can not be construed at all as serious governmental proposals but it's interesting to learn about something so far from what is presented in mainstream media.

[Trooper 8]

You guys just do me a favour, and keep that mess below the 49th parrallel.

As long as you agree to keep the gun registration debacle up there, we have a deal!

[gxc999 7]

I'm not particularly surprised, as the Court has divided strictly along political lines on big issues lately with the exception of the terrorism detainment ruling last week. Personally, I'm not against reasonable gun ownership for honest citizens, however read in accordance with its plain meaning, I fail to see how "well regulated militia" translates to "individual". IMO, this is a slight bit of (unsurprising) judicial activism although it is based on precedent so maybe not...

Kennedy crossed over from the Habeus Corpus decision on this one. I have no idea how it was 5-4, it should have been a much larger margin given the opinions they have published.

I honestly expected this as a 6-3 or 7-2. I haven't had time to read over the latest opinions, but am very familiar with the work of Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg. Kennedy very well may became the new "Swing Vote" on most critical issues. He's been off the reservation for a while now. Edit: Remember that many appellate courts had already come to the same conclusion so the S.C. can merely argue an extension of precedent. And even if precedent was lacking, they could just come up with something ala Undue Burden, because the Constitution is a living document <_<

[Chadd 916]

I'm not particularly surprised, as the Court has divided strictly along political lines on big issues lately with the exception of the terrorism detainment ruling last week. Personally, I'm not against reasonable gun ownership for honest citizens, however read in accordance with its plain meaning, I fail to see how "well regulated militia" translates to "individual". IMO, this is a slight bit of (unsurprising) judicial activism although it is based on precedent so maybe not...

Kennedy crossed over from the Habeus Corpus decision on this one. I have no idea how it was 5-4, it should have been a much larger margin given the opinions they have published.

I honestly expected this as a 6-3 or 7-2. I haven't had time to read over the latest opinions, but am very familiar with the work of Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg. Kennedy very well may became the new "Swing Vote" on most critical issues. He's been off the reservation for a while now. Edit: Remember that many appellate courts had already come to the same conclusion so the S.C. can merely argue an extension of precedent. And even if precedent was lacking, they could just come up with something ala Undue Burden, because the Constitution is a living document <_<

It's much more black and white than that. The majority opinion actually gives background and basis for their understanding of the way the ammendment was worded. The short version is that because they say the people and not the states in the second ammendment that the intent was to recognize the right of the individual and not of the federal or state government.

Just read an interesting book last week that is somewhat related to this topic, it's fiction but the second ammendment is one of the devices used to frame the story. It's called the lost constitution and isn't too bad. Better editing would have been nice and I hate the alternating present/past thing, but it's somewhat entertaining.

[lawryde 0]

Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

To think that a bunch of citizens armed with hand guns, rifles and maybe even a few automatic weapons could revolt against a government backed by a technologically advanced army, and in many cases police, is ludicrous. And you can't equate what the founding fathers did against the British. Our current military is training in guerrilla and city fighting techniques. If a US president wanted to squash an in house rebellion it would be a slaughter.

[Chadd 916]

Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

To think that a bunch of citizens armed with hand guns, rifles and maybe even a few automatic weapons could revolt against a government backed by a technologically advanced army, and in many cases police, is ludicrous. And you can't equate what the founding fathers did against the British. Our current military is training in guerrilla and city fighting techniques. If a US president wanted to squash an in house rebellion it would be a slaughter.

Gee, I thought the little winky guy would have been a tip off that I was joking.

[DavidT 11]

Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

To think that a bunch of citizens armed with hand guns, rifles and maybe even a few automatic weapons could revolt against a government backed by a technologically advanced army, and in many cases police, is ludicrous. And you can't equate what the founding fathers did against the British. Our current military is training in guerrilla and city fighting techniques. If a US president wanted to squash an in house rebellion it would be a slaughter.

There's so many variables to a situation like this you couldnt debate it. If the movement was strong enough, most soldiers and cops are your average citizens. You cant do much when the voluntary army and police force quits. Of course vice versa could happen and all would be slaughtered. Odds are we'll never have to experience it, but I wouldnt under estimate the power of the people.

[Spreedizzle 1]

I'm just happy to exercise my rights as in the morning I am going to the club outdoor range that I am a member of.....complete with a 600yd max outdoor range.

[Monty22 821]

I'm just happy to exercise my rights as in the morning I am going to the club outdoor range that I am a member of.....complete with a 600yd max outdoor range.

Judging from your location, you may have seen first hand how important the 2A is.

[chippa13 1844]

Regardless of the decision, who's to say the Supreme Court even has the right to rule on the matter. People appointed to a court shouldn't have any sway over what the Constitution stipulates.

Someone has to decide what it means and it should be people with actual knowledge of the law, not uninformed people off the street. I read some of the decision, not focused enough to read all 157 pages, and the decision is very logical. I really have no idea where the dissent is coming from logically or legally. Some of the positions taken only make sense if the justices are working backwards from their desired outcome as opposed to considering the merits of the arguements and applicable law.

The problem I have isn't the basis or outcome of the decision, but that it is arrived at through the Supreme Court. If there is a clear problem or issue with the Second Amendment there is course for further amendments, not for a court to interpret the extant amendment. I could really care less about gun laws.

This goes back to the principle of checks and balances. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial interprets the laws.

[chippa13 1844]

Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

To think that a bunch of citizens armed with hand guns, rifles and maybe even a few automatic weapons could revolt against a government backed by a technologically advanced army, and in many cases police, is ludicrous. And you can't equate what the founding fathers did against the British. Our current military is training in guerrilla and city fighting techniques. If a US president wanted to squash an in house rebellion it would be a slaughter.

Not for nothing, but there are a bunch of folks in Iraq with little more than what you described making things real tough for our military to squash things there. And that is without the factor of soldiers knowing their shooting fellow citizens.

[Trooper 8]

Fortunately, the supreme court holds that we are entitled to weapons if we are forced into rebellion. ;)

To think that a bunch of citizens armed with hand guns, rifles and maybe even a few automatic weapons could revolt against a government backed by a technologically advanced army, and in many cases police, is ludicrous. And you can't equate what the founding fathers did against the British. Our current military is training in guerrilla and city fighting techniques. If a US president wanted to squash an in house rebellion it would be a slaughter.

Probably, although I wouldn't worry about the police, as most are pretty inept with firearms. But the intent was to allow the citizens to hold the government accountable, and that points to an individual right.

[chippa13 1844]

It's a tough call, I think the idea was that a citizen could belong to a well regulated state militia and as such a member, that citizen would have the right to bear arms.

[Spreedizzle 1]

I'm just happy to exercise my rights as in the morning I am going to the club outdoor range that I am a member of.....complete with a 600yd max outdoor range.

Judging from your location, you may have seen first hand how important the 2A is.

I have my concealed permit for this state, and unfortunately with good reason. Thankfully I live in a very nice area of Baton Rouge where some of the "demographic" issues don't prevail, but that doesn't keep me from driving through some questionable areas from time to time. My XD .40 is always with me during such instances.

On a better note, for my hunting and target rifle just bought a new Nikon Monarch scope, 5x20, 42mm objective, 1/8 moa's, with a heavy duplex, etc etc. Brilliant clarity. It will be tested on our 600 yard range on Friday. ;)

[Monty22 821]

Nice glass Spreedizzle- what are you putting it on top of?

[Spreedizzle 1]

Nice glass Spreedizzle- what are you putting it on top of?

Tikka M695, .280 Remington. Better accuracy than my 700's, and that is saying a LOT!! And the .280 is a great round to shoot and do hand loads on.

[gxc999 7]

After reading through excerpts of it, I'm not at all surprised to see that the Scalia majority used historical perspective and original intent as deciding factors. However, I think the Breyer dissent scores a few points attacking the common use test invoked by the Majority, based on Miller. The Stevens dissent is equally worthwhile to me, and surprisingly enough acts as if Stare Decisis means anything these days with a right-wing packed court. The Breyer dissent provided something of a historical refutation or atleast a historical perspective. Gun Control advocates cannot be completely disappointed because the court did cite registration of guns as constitutionally acceptable. This wasn't a pure win for the NRA, nor was it a complete loss for the gun regulation groups. Edit: their Exxon-Mobil decision really sticks in my craw, but that's another topic I suppose...

[Jason Harris 31]

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.

This is one of the few amendments where the language gets in the way and it isn't really clear what exactly the Founding Fathers really meant.

You can logically come to either conclusion, and in most cases you're personal opinion takes you to whatever decision you really want.

The lift still only covers having a handgun in your own home. You still can't carry in DC.

When you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is very clear what it means.

You're making it sound like the Founding Fathers were all in agreement on this issue, and that the waffling has only occurred over time, but, as with any group of people, even the FF didn't agree amongst themselves. The 2nd Amendment evolved over the course of three months with about six versions. The original version....

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

...clearly granted gun rights to the individual, but the original version didn't pass. Who knows how the debate went? It probably wasn't dissimilar to how the debate goes today, although I suspect more people were in support for the individual's right to bear arms than compared to today, since muskets and rifles were probably more tools than weapons to 18th Century Americans.

(I also suspect that if the Founding Fathers were transported to today, there would be some among them who would be less likely to pass the 2nd Amendment as it's written, since handguns and murder rates change the equation. If that assumption is correct, it's fairly ironic, since it's the "will" of the FF that has driven this debate for 230 years.)

Back to the passing of the 2nd Amendment, one proposal was to include the words "for the common defence" after "right of the people to keep and bear arms." That appears to be leaning more towards the militia clause being more of a collective right. It didn't pass, of course, but it illustrates the debate has been waging for years and will continue to wage, regardless what the Supreme Court decided this week.

[Monty22 821]

Nice bolt gun Spree. I've been meaning to pick up something like a 700 but it hasn't made it's way up the list yet.

[DavidT 11]

My latest purchase :D