Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Gun Rights

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I've never even fired a real gun, but Alito's interpretation of the Second Amendment seems true to what's written, my wishes to the contrary notwithstanding.

maybe now you can get a carry permit without bribing a judge...

Interesting and ironic combination of news events this morning:

1) Murder at the Y with handgun
2) Supreme Court affirms rights to own handguns

Yes, I'm pretty sure the handgun used at the Y was licensed.

*rolls eyes*

What I never understand about this issue is why the 2 sides are so far apart. We all agree that we don't want criminals and idiots getting their hands on illegal guns - yet we argue about every detail in every law trying to prevent just that.

I agree with Steve regarding the likely hood of this being a legal handgun.

A more ironic series of events:

NJ bans the death penalty and less than a year later a murder is committed in cold blood in front of numerous witnesses (including the poor victim?s now traumatized for life daughter).

Everybody gets the relationship between the death penalty and the murder rate backwards. The higher the murder rate, the more likely a state is to use the death penalty. New Jersey has generally had a lower murder rate than many other states and has not used the death penalty in over forty years. Texas by comparison has a higher murder rate and uses the death penalty quite often.

Hell, you can get the death penalty for walkin' on the grass in Texas. But you can carry concealed.

Let me correct that for your:

you can get the death penalty for walkin' on someone elses grass in Texas

The reason our founding fathers granted us the right to own guns, was to enable the public to protect itself from the government, and, if need be, overthrow said government. That is why the amendment was written! I don't think anyone figured we would be quite as gun crazy as we are these days. This change is law, while probably "just", is kinda' scary.

Brendan, yep. But they have changed the laws recently: you can only carry concealed if you have no outstanding public library fines. That sounds like a pretty good check on villians and pre-verts to me. (Sorry, watched Dr. Stranglove again last night.) :)

somecloud: what makes that statement even more amusing is that question #30 on form SS-33 (application for fpid card) reads:

"Are you presently, or have you ever been a member of any organization which advocates or approves the commission of acts of violence, either to overthrow the government of the United States or of this State, or to deny others of their rights under the Constitution of either the United States or the State of New Jersey?"

Wanna bet that would get you denied?

Yeah, When I applied for my FID card I kind of did have to fib a little on question thirty.

People shouldn't be afriad of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

and english lovers should be afraid of my typos.

Brendan,

Well hey, nobody ever claimed the letter of the law was hypocrisy-free!

I don't know that I would get denied (not that I want a gun). I mean, does "US citizen" count as being part of such an organization?

Thank God for the ruling...time to lock and load.

Iceman,

Your comment, tonugue-in-cheek though it may be (I hope), is precisely the reason I'm not exactly jumping up and down about this ruling.

And yes, all of you out there should fear MY typos as well! Haha!

What I find interesting is that the four dissenters find a right to an abortion in the constitution when the word isn't anywhere in the document while it finds no right for an individual to carry arms when it is there in black and white.

What I find thrilling (to date) is the wisdom of the Bush appointees to the Supreme Court. Justices Roberts and Alito are standouts.

And for those worried that suddenly hordes of fully armed and bandoliered would-be assassins will roll through their streets, the issue of how firearms get ito the hands of gang bangers and assorted other miscreants is much more complicated than that. Few legally registered handguns are stolen and subsequently used in crimes. But many weapons go missing from National Guard armories and, sometimes, military stocks. Others are smuggled in from Mexico, usually by bike clubs, or via porous port security in container ships. And the few manufacturers still active in the production of "Saturday night specials," cheap handguns, are notorious for lax security procedures at their plants. The availability of guns on the street is a very complex issue, down a very winding trail. But it is not much linked to the yearning of some for their own Colt-based home defense systems, despite the nonsense spouted by too many politicians.

That responsible others (meaning nobody with priors, for example) will now possibly be able to obtain handgun permits should not fan any latent hysteria out there. And for an example of THAT, check Frank Lautenberg's remarks of yesterday about the Supreme Court decision - not only is the man verging on senility, he clearly will say anything, no matter how outrageous and stupid, to garner himself some attention. Lautenberg did indeed conjure up legions of wild-eyed pistoleros in his statement; the only consolation there is that he'd likely himself never be able to hear these phantasms actually fire their guns off were they to actually appear in the streets.

Yes. The Supreme Court gets it right this time.

(Good luck this weekend M(rs). Martta, yes?)

What, is she running guns or something?

Great. Now the murder rate in DC can rise to new levels.

Great. Now the individual liberty rate in DC can rise to new levels.

Oh jerseygurl, you're really so predictable. That knee jerks up at the slightest hint of something "to the right," doesn't it?

I also note that no one here has dared comment on Cato's brief but exceptionally eloquent observation above.

Oh Cathar, not any less predictable than you. It's all about context. The actual words in the second ammendment are "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." Most people seem to forget the part about the well regulated militia and the fact that these words were written after we had just fought a war to gain our freedom from the English. It's clearly open to interpretation, and clearly the context in which those words were written has as much meaning as the words themselves. Clearly, if one has a history of committing violent crimes, the right to own a gun should be not be an option in the same way one who has a history of driving while intoxicated should not be permitted to have a license. The world is not black and white and context plays an important role in how and why we diecide to change and amend laws. In an area in which people were murdered daily - including children - the community took a drastic step to try to combat a drastic situation. There is no knee jerk reaction in trying to view our world in the context of time, place and situation. Were DC a place full of genteel citizens wishing to hunt and protect themselves from the outside threat of those English rascals then of course they should have the right to bear arms. In a desperate situation in which deaths by gunshot were spiraling out of control - perhaps desparate measures were needed to keep innocent kids and citizens out of the crossfire. Ah- but the knee jerk reaction of those who only read those few words literally and out of the context of when they were written took care of that.

Out of wedlock births are out of control too. Should DC require sterilization?.... I don't think so either- personal liberty and all.....

That DC finds itself in such a bad way, it does not allow it to re-write the constitution.

There are better ways to combat crime.

Silly argument prof. How about providing easy access to birth control and education to start? And again, the second ammendment is open enough to interpration that the Supreme Court decision was not unanimous. Not exactly a rewrite.

Silly, but what you suggested is what DC should have tried first-- a reasonable and measured approach.

Instead they went with an all out (unconstitutional) ban.

(See how the "silly" argument makes the point?)

I'm reminded on when I was in law school, a classmate would sometimes raise his hand and simply say "Look at the scoreboard people-- your side lost. The Court has spoken."

That seems about right concerning your thesis on whether or not the 2nd Amd. grants an individual right or not.

prof, your hand raising classmate would do well to remember that the courts have spoken over the history of this country, and then spoken again years later. One need only look at Court decisions rendered that defined human beings as property in order to conclude that decisions are made, as gurl said, in context. This is how the court has ruled, and so that is the end of it. For now. If you believe that the issue cannot and will not be revisited at some point in the future, I believe you are mistaken.

You and I both know the Court is loath to overturn recent decisions.

If, like here, your "future" is within the next 68 years (that being the last time the court ruled on the meaning of the 2nd Amd.), then perhaps you are correct.

However, the idea that this will change in the foreseeable future is not correct.

The other issue ignored here is, did the ban curb violence in DC?

And the answer is NO.

The murder rate has risen almost every year since the ban was passed.

Kinda like money and education.

Ok, so where do we draw the line? Can I get a machine gun? If it is my right to have a hand gun, why not a right to carry it?

MMM,

The Heller decision does not stop "reasonable" limits to ownership.

As for carrying, I don't have an opinion on it- I can see both sides. (Remember, bad guys can always get guns).

But the real answer to you question is that you can "get" whatever type of weapon you want.

It just might be illegal.

The Court ruled re: abortion a scant 30 years ago, and they are one justice away from possibly ruling again. You may think you know the future prof, but my guess is that it is as much a mystery to you as it is to the rest of us.

cro,

The "one justice away" argument is weak and has been made since the Roe decision came down. (Remember when Bush I's choice of Souter was going to overturn it?)

As I'm sure you know, the Court has several chances to declare Roe dead. It has not.

And while I don't understand your knowing the future comment, I never claimed to know the future (although I'm sure your gonna get to the name calling soon enough....).

As for Roe, who knows its future.

(If overturned however, remember, the decision would fall back to each State to decide whether to allow an abortion or not.)

"The other issue ignored here is, did the ban curb violence in DC?"

The reason that the ban did not do much to reduce the amount of crime is that handguns are easily available in Virginia, a 10 minute drive away. At the very least, the handgun ban gave prosecutors and additional charge against criminals who committed a crime with a handgun.

Good point.

But the fact is, the ban did nothing to curb violence in DC because bad guys are smart enough to go to VA (or the local playground...).

The obvious question is what to do about the violence.

Same with education.

At some point, the great idea is going to have to be that something must be done about the "family" structure in our inner cities.

Until that gets settled, guns will be used and kids will not be educated no matter how much we spend......

...those who only read those few words literally and out of the context of when they were written...

Careful there, jerseygurl. A lot of other words very dear to us were written back then. If the context changes for one word it changes for another. That would be an argument for throwing the entire Constitution aside, and I don't think we want to go there.

Of course the interpretation is open to debate--the ruling was 5-4. The operative phrase, to me, is not the preceding clause about the militia so much as "the people." In the context of this document, this pretty clearly includes not only those members of a regulated militia, but everyone.

prof, no need for name calling. Though it does seem odd that you say you don't know what I mean by my read the future comment, and then you proceed to read the future by saying I'll get to name-calling soon. You're nothing if not predictable.
You dismissed the possibility that the court will revist the issue, pointing to the 60 odd years since the last time they did. I feel that it will be revisited within 15 years. Be sure to stay in touch so that I can say I told you so.
And the very fact that the Court has had opportunities to overturn Roe, but has not, is proof that there is plenty of action on the part of those who want it overturned. There will be just as much action on the gun issue. We'll see where it goes.

(yawn.....)

cro, having a hard time understanding you today friend.

And my interest in all this gone......

I'm not surprised that you're having a hard time, prof. That's a given.
I'm on my way out anyway, to talk to some grown-ups. I'll let you know how it works out.
Peace out.

Jerseygurl, the more you post, the more you really only seem to affirm your stupidity. I suppose it's a matter of pride on your part?

I am betting the Founding Fathers, and almost all other members of the American population circa 1785 or thereabouts, were familiar with firearms. With both using them wisely and fruitfully as a means of putting food in the pot.

Today, it is not the "community" which has taken steps to. in your narrow view, "control" deaths by violence via firearms. Rather, it's been a number of self-serving, attention-seeking politicians who've steadfastly ignored the wishes of, yet again, a MAJORITY of the population to have reasonable access to guns.

And reasonable basically means for purposes of hunting and home defense. It does not at all mean diddling with assault weapons (or illegally converting them to fully automatic status), machine guns or sawed-off shotguns. That Montclair's residents may opt not to choose weapons for home defense, as opposed to the equally worthy and good citizens of, say, Binghamton or Sioux City, is of no matter. The point is that, to satisfy urban political schemes, so many have been to date, to some extent, denied their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This, hosanna, may now no longer be the case.

The militia, too, is closely tied to the concept of the citizen soldier, to the idea of Cincinnatus leaving his plow as necessary for the defense of his country. Something like this still exists in Switzerland, of all places, where all able-bodied male citizens do in fact belong to a "militia" and are required by law to keep firearms in their chalets, no matter that Switzerland hasn't been under threat of invasion since the 17th century (and no matter, too, that it actually has 2-3 Hells Angels chapters today).

The concept of a militia may strike you as mere verbal convenience, jerseygurl, a construct behind which NRA members hide. But others, quite often others a good deal smarter than your post above seems to mark you, believe that the right to own firearms imparted by the 2nd Amendment goes well beyond the necessity today for a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, and reflects upon both our heritage and the recognition by the framers of our Constitution that possession of firearms (barring criminal records, etc.) is in fact a fundamental freedom.

That you mulishly cannot understand this does not do you intellectual credit. But then, no post of yours I've ever read here does that, now that I think of it.

Spicoli:
"The reason that the ban did not do much to reduce the amount of crime is that handguns are easily available in Virginia, a 10 minute drive away. At the very least, the handgun ban gave prosecutors and additional charge against criminals who committed a crime with a handgun."

So what you are saying is that the "no guns in DC" law was only keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns? Gee whiz... Nobody ever saw that coming.

No Brendan - what I am saying is that lax laws like the ones in Virginia virtually guarantee that any criminal can get a gun easily through black or gray market channels. The states with the lowest common denominator laws are the ones that have the most influence over safety of law abiding individuals across the country.

Oh, I see... So how easy is it to get a gun in Mexico? Because if you can get people across the border, is guns that big a stretch?

My point (from a while ago) is that like it or not, guns are going to be here... The laws only prevent honest people from getting them. Not that I have any problem with it being more difficult to get a gun, I have a problem with how hard it is to carry that gun (especially in NJ). Everybody loves to say that "legal guns are used in crimes too!", but how many legal guns are being carried legally when they are used in these crimes?

Brendan,

You might ask where the illegal guns come from. Guns leally purchased in one state - say Virginia - are sold in New Jersey. Is it unreasonable to limit the number of gun purchased to prevent smuggling? Or a waiting period of a couple of days to do back round checks?

None of that is unreasonable at all... Keeping normal, law abiding (qualified?) people from buying and carrying a gun is unreasonable... I'll say it again, my problem is not with the laws regarding the purchase of a gun! It isn't a "nothing" process, nor should it be. My problems are with the laws regarding carrying a gun.

"Oh, I see... So how easy is it to get a gun in Mexico? Because if you can get people across the border, is guns that big a stretch?"

Are you actually comparing smuggling something (person, weapon, drugs,e tc.) across the US/Mexico border to driving a car across the Potomac River? Pretty silly comparison.

I was delighted last night to renew my acquaintance with the "Show Us Your Guns!" sketch during the re-broadcast of the premiere episode of Saturday Night Live, from October 11, 1975, with George Carlin hosting.

It's reassuring, even heartwarming, to see that thread of continuity in our culture. Collar sizes and the widths of pant legs may grow and shrink with the passing years, but by God, we'll always love our guns!

i'm now convinced i should be allowed to possess and carry not just one but several firearms. maybe one day i'll even learn to use one safely.for now, i'll be happy to have my own private arsenal just in case.

"Are you actually comparing smuggling something (person, weapon, drugs,e tc.) across the US/Mexico border to driving a car across the Potomac River?"

Do you honestly think it's any more complicated than that?

"i'm now convinced i should be allowed to possess and carry not just one but several firearms. maybe one day i'll even learn to use one safely.for now, i'll be happy to have my own private arsenal just in case."

glad to see you succumbed to reason.

although, many states which allow you to get a ccw permit require you to demonstrate that you do indeed know how to use a gun. they also require you to take classes on how to not use a gun in a confrontational situation, and teach you about the laws regarding the use of deadly force and when it is applicable.

Jerseygurl, with your above remark you've surpassed even your own usually low standard for dumbness. You have my congratulations. But of course not my corresponding admiration.

Then too, you shoot yourself in the foot daily here with just words. Imagine the fun you'll have using firearms.

The bottom line is that whatever laws we have in place, criminals will ALWAYS be able to get illegal firearms. That's why they call them criminals! Tightening gun laws will only make it more difficult for law-abiding folks to obtain them. so where does that leave us? With well-armed criminals and a helpless general population.

The bottom line is that law abiding citizens can get firearms, if they simply had to follow similar procedures as they do for owning a driving a car,it's possible it would be more a little more difficult for criminals to get "illegal" guns. The illegal kind start out as the legal kind.

Sorry for all the typos, my wireless keyboard is sticking like crazy today. Time for a new one I guess.