Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-26-2008, 08:09 AM   #1 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Supreme Court Strikes down DC handgun ban..

Quote:
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.

But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.

"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," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, who decided to issue the ruling on the final day of the court's annual term – a dramatic gesture that reflected the intensity of the nation's gun debate, and the potentially sweeping implications of a case that pitted public safety concerns against the right to bear arms.

At issue was whether the District of Columbia – and by extension, any city or state – could invoke public safety to ban the ownership of handguns within its jurisdiction. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Second 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.''

Gun-control advocates argued the idea of common defense, not merely protecting oneself or one's own property, is at the heart of that text.

The case was filed by Dick Heller, a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center who was refused permission to keep his handgun at his home in the nation's capital, reviving a decades-old debate that quickly became a cause celebre for both sides of the gun control issue.

In March 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Mr. Heller, ruling that the ban was both unreasonable and unconstitutional. The city appealed.

Mr. Heller's lead attorney, Alan Gura, called it a blockbuster ruling. "Because private gun ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, politicians cannot ban or regulate guns out of existence," he said.

Washington has long had some of the nation's toughest gun-control laws, a response to a nation-leading murder rate and rampant inner city violence. The case decided Thursday involved three ordinances, one that generally bars the registration of handguns, another than prohibits carrying a handgun without a license, and a third that requires any firearm in the home to be unloaded and kept either disassembled or with a trigger lock.

Even if the court found that the constitution provides for an individual right to self-protection, justices still confronted more gnarly questions regarding the limits of governmental regulation, depending on how they decided the case: Would a ban on firearms in schools or on public transportation still pass muster, or bans on assault weapons never envisioned by 18th Century lawgivers?

Texas was one of 31 states urging the court to embrace the right to keep and bear arms. State Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a brief, joined by 30 other states, calling on the court to strike down the D.C. handgun ban.

The U.S. Solicitor General, representing the Bush administration, weighed in urging the court not to tamper with federal restrictions on machine guns – angering some gun rights groups.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in February, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, argued that the term "militia" wasn't meant to reflect merely a collective right. Rather, she argued, the Framers meant to recognize an individual right to possess firearms. Fifty-four other senators joined her brief, along with Vice President Cheney – in an apparent break with the administration's own policy. Some 250 U.S. House members, including all the Texans except for seven of the 13 Texas Democrats, also signed onto the brief.

Ms. Hutchison called the ruling "a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed."

Advocates of gun control and of gun rights have long argued over the precise meaning of the Second 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."

The case could have implications in presidential politics, as well – by underscoring the president's power to shape the courts through nominations, and by emphasizing the wide gap between the contenders on gun control policy.

The GOP's pick for president, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, was one of 55 senators who signed the Hutchison brief. While some gun rights advocates distrust him – he supports background checks for buyers at gun shows, and championed campaign rules that crimped some political efforts by the NRA and other groups – they find him much more palatable than Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

At a May 16 speech to the NRA, Mr. McCain touted his support for the Second Amendment, noting that he had long opposed efforts to ban guns and ammunition or to "dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group." Mr. Obama, by contrast, says he favors ''common-sense gun laws so that we don't have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago," and he did not sign the Hutchison brief.

The ruling will leave intact many of the restrictions in place at the federal and state level – bans on felons' right to keep guns, for instance, and on M-16 military weapons or sawed-off shotguns, and laws that make it illegal to rob a bank while armed.

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the four dissenters, argued that the ruling leaves to future courts the task of defining the actual contours of the right to bear arms. Clearly, law abiding citizens will be allowed to keep guns at home for self-protection, or for hunting, but that doesn't begin to address the myriad ways in which state legislatures might wish to regulate or restrict gun ownership.

He noted that in the last major gun case, settled in 1939, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the Second Amendment only applied in cases with some "easonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." And he criticized the majority for arguing, in essence, that gun rights were frozen in time. Handguns were in use in the 18th Century, so they cannot be denied now to law abiding citizens. Military-assault rifles had not been invented, so they can be restricted.

"The court 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," Justice Stevens wrote.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....3eef7ac3.html

I think this is absolutely awesome, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court finally ruled on such a contentious issue. I think there will be predictably a liberal outrage at the "Supreme Court writing the laws", but it's only fair in that the conservatives were outraged in the same way by the Supreme Court's ruling about habeas corpus for Gitmo detainees.

I wonder if LA, etc, will have to follow suit. I also wonder if there is any liability lawsuits in the works for all of the people who had their weapons seized, paid fines, and even spent time in jail for their "illegal" possession of a firearm.

I imagine the state has some sort of immunity, but frankly I think they should (at the very least) return the fees accessed and pay people who spent in time on weapons possession charges alone an "apology" sum for time spent.

Also, you can read the Justice's opinion here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 06-26-2008 at 08:12 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:30 AM   #2 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
The gun ban probably was unconstitutional, but I'd like everyone to take special note of what Scalia wrote: "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."
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:34 AM   #3 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The gun ban probably was unconstitutional, but I'd like everyone to take special note of what Scalia wrote: "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."
That doesn't matter as much as you may think. The ruling reinforces the Second Amendment as an individual right, not a silly state-militia-right as every gun control nut on this board argues.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:36 AM   #4 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by seretogis
That doesn't matter as much as you may think. The ruling reinforces the Second Amendment as an individual right, not a silly state-militia-right as every gun control nut on this board argues.
I'm pretty much the only one that argues that, actually. But regardless, the statement Scalia (who tends to rule conservatively for whatever reason) made is quite clear and flies in the face of what most gun proponents claim.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:42 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm pretty much the only one that argues that, actually. But regardless, the statement Scalia (who tends to rule conservatively for whatever reason) made is quite clear and flies in the face of what most gun proponents claim.
Quote:
“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
That's pretty clear.

As for "flying in the face of what most gun proponents claim" you're also irrevocably wrong. No reasonable gun owner believes that it is "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I don't think that recently convicted felons should own firearms. I don't think that mentally ill individuals should own firearms. I don't think that firearms should be allowed in federal buildings. I don't think that fully automatic weapons should be available to anyone but an active-duty military personnel.

Any reasonable gun owner knows that it should be subject to some regulation.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:42 AM   #6 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
It's a very strange decision on a very strange issue, and no amount of puffery by either side is going to convince me that they're correct about the 2nd Amendment. It's a miserable mess of grammar with an anachronistic purpose. The DC gun ban by any standard of judicial review was unconstitutional simply because it wasn't rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Given the latent ambiguity and anachronism inherent in the amendment itself, I think the justices should have dealt with the issue less directly, striking down the ban as unreasonable and unjustifiable but not within the framework of making it a clearly individual right.

So it goes.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:44 AM   #7 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn
That's pretty clear.

As for "flying in the face of what most gun proponents claim" you're also irrevocably wrong. No reasonable gun owner believes that it is "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I don't think that recently convicted felons should own firearms. I don't think that mentally ill individuals should own firearms. I don't think that firearms should be allowed in federal buildings. I don't think that fully automatic weapons should be available to anyone but an active-duty military personnel.

Any reasonable gun owner knows that it should be subject to some regulation.
Then you're calling the most vocal gun proponent on TFP an unreasonable gun owner?
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:45 AM   #8 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
It's a very strange decision on a very strange issue, and no amount of puffery by either side is going to convince me that they're correct about the 2nd Amendment. It's a miserable mess of grammar with an anachronistic purpose. The DC gun ban by any standard of judicial review was unconstitutional simply because it wasn't rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Given the latent ambiguity and anachronism inherent in the amendment itself, I think the justices should have dealt with the issue less directly, striking down the ban as unreasonable and unjustifiable but not within the framework of making it a clearly individual right.

So it goes.
But it IS a clearly individual right. It's about time they made it clear. I think they would've done a tremendous disservice by failing to identify this, once again.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:45 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
it's interesting that people characterize Scalia as conservative on bill of rights issues. He actually is pretty damn absolutist on the scope of most of the rights in the first ten amendments, including some rights that a lot of people don't consider sexy, like sixth amendment confrontation rights, right to trial by jury, and things like that. He said people are allowed to burn a flag under the first amendment and there's not a damn thing the govt can do about it.

Yet another reason why conventional political bean counting as applied to the Supreme Court makes very little sense.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:45 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Then you're calling the most vocal gun proponent on TFP an unreasonable gun owner?
I assume you're talking about dk. I don't believe even he thinks it should be subject to no regulation, just less than you I.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 06-26-2008 at 08:48 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:48 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
I really don't see this as a win for the 2nd amendment. There were basically 3 outcomes possible, it's an absolute invidivual right, it's an individual right that can be restriced, or it's not an individual right.

Basically what this outcome says is that the current trend of tax and license and regulate guns to non existence will continue. Rarely are there laws or changes in legislation that protect gun owners, usually it's the other way around. This decision allows that trend to continue.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:49 AM   #12 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
it's interesting that people characterize Scalia as conservative on bill of rights issues. He actually is pretty damn absolutist on the scope of most of the rights in the first ten amendments, including some rights that a lot of people don't consider sexy, like sixth amendment confrontation rights, right to trial by jury, and things like that. He said people are allowed to burn a flag under the first amendment and there's not a damn thing the govt can do about it.

Yet another reason why conventional political bean counting as applied to the Supreme Court makes very little sense.
I wasn't trying to open that can of worms again. I was simply expecting a slightly different response from him. I'm happy with what he said, as I see it as responsible.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:50 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
actually, Samcol, they left open whether licensing is constitutional. Didn't decide it.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:51 AM   #14 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn
But it IS a clearly individual right. It's about time they made it clear. I think they would've done a tremendous disservice by failing to identify this, once again.
YOU think it is a clearly individual right. I read the amendment and see something that made sense in 1776 and makes no sense anymore. It's like reading a regulation on horse drawn carriages or gas lamps.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:51 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Although this decision confirms an individual right, the USSC got so many things wrong with this opinion.

1) the fundamental balance of power is now firmly weighted towards the government. The 'people' being the soveriegn power of the USA rests on the ballot box only and if the govt believes its in its best interest to override the will of the people, so be it. The people are no longer soveriegn. I'm sure the pro-gov political body appreciates that.

2) no basis of scrutiny was decided upon, therefore each and every new case will have to work it's way through the court system. public policy by judicial fiat.

3) Because the phrase 'in common use' has been used, all it would take is for congress to limit the types of weapons available to 'the people' to eliminate it from common use, and viola, instant ban. constitutional.

4) This decision very subtly reverses Murdock v. Commonwealth of PA. By specifically stating that this decision does not rule out licensing, any body of government can now require a license, fee, or tax (subject to judicial approval to make sure it's not 'destructive') to exercise a right protected by the US constitution.

hooray for the people that demanded rights be regulated, that no right is absolute.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:56 AM   #16 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
See, Jinn? As soon as I read this, I knew DK wouldn't be happy with it because it is a compromise from his perspective.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:59 AM   #17 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Yet another reason why conventional political bean counting as applied to the Supreme Court makes very little sense.
I've said it once, but I'll say it again: I love you.

A justice is only as "liberal" or "conservative" as his last decision.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:59 AM   #18 (permalink)
Winter is Coming
 
Frosstbyte's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
2) no basis of scrutiny was decided upon, therefore each and every new case will have to work it's way through the court system. public policy by judicial fiat.
Yeah, it definitely seems like a major oversight to not slot gun regulations into some form of cognizable judicial review, or, if not to make it part of one of the existing categories, to at least make it its own category like abortion. Given how hot the issue is, if they were going to address it in a 140 page opinion, they should have at least taken a paragraph to decide how we should deal with regulations going forward.
Frosstbyte is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:01 AM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
I'm reading quickly through Scalia's opinion now, and am pleased to see that he raises the post-Civil War disarmament of blacks in the South as one of the first major infringements of the newly freed former slaves' rights. History would have been quite different in the Jim Crow South if the blacks had been able to shoot back, don't you think?
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:02 AM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
See, Jinn? As soon as I read this, I knew DK wouldn't be happy with it because it is a compromise from his perspective.
I actually don't see this as a compromise. This was more like a bone thrown to the public that told us 'you can have handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns', but the real reason behind the 2nd Amendment is null and void. We (the gov) will not allow you to be as equally armed as our military/law enforcement no matter what the framers/founders desired.'
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:06 AM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I actually don't see this as a compromise. This was more like a bone thrown to the public that told us 'you can have handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns', but the real reason behind the 2nd Amendment is null and void. We (the gov) will not allow you to be as equally armed as our military/law enforcement no matter what the framers/founders desired.'
So yes, you see it as a compromise, albeit one where your side gave more. You must admit, though, that there will now be guns in the hands of civilians in DC. Can't you see that is something you wanted? Yes, yes, the rest of it pisses you off to no end, but isn't that fact alone at least a small victory for what I see as your side?
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:15 AM   #22 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
We (the gov) will not allow you to be as equally armed as our military/law enforcement no matter what the framers/founders desired.'
If we allowed the general public to arm themselves equivalently to the military, average citizens could own RPGs, anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, tactical nukes and 1000 lb JDAMs. Is this really reasonable?
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:17 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
So yes, you see it as a compromise, albeit one where your side gave more. You must admit, though, that there will now be guns in the hands of civilians in DC. Can't you see that is something you wanted? Yes, yes, the rest of it pisses you off to no end, but isn't that fact alone at least a small victory for what I see as your side?
No will, it is NOT a compromise. we got one step forward, they took us 3 back. I dont' see how gaining a ruling on a right we already had to begin with, but losing the spirit and intent of the 2nd is a compromise.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:18 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Jinn, the opinion deals with that. Basically, the right protects keeping and bearing the category of weapons that individuals kept in 1790: personal firearms. That's an oversimplification but a useful one.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:19 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn
If we allowed the general public to arm themselves equivalently to the military, average citizens could own RPGs, anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, tactical nukes and 1000 lb JDAMs. Is this really reasonable?
is it reasonable to think that the gov would use nukes, RPG's, and tanks against citizens on their own soil? This effectively shuts down any future machine gun ownership because they are not 'in common use' by the people anymore. Military weaponry of all sorts is effectively prohibited and that wasn't the intent of the founders.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:29 AM   #26 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
No will, it is NOT a compromise. we got one step forward, they took us 3 back. I dont' see how gaining a ruling on a right we already had to begin with, but losing the spirit and intent of the 2nd is a compromise.
They could have ruled to maintain the ban, dk. That was your victory. Try to enjoy it.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 10:10 AM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
DK, your reasoning is circular. Like all rights in the bill of rights, the Second Amendment doesn't create or confer a right but rathern assumes the right is already in existence and prohibits the govt from infringing it. That tells you precisely zero about what the scope of the right is, only that you have it. The scope of the right - what its outer boundaries are - gets defined through custom, practice, legislation and case law. You are assuming as a premise that the scope of the right is what you think it is - that's why you think this is a bad decision. But you can't assume the conclusion, DK.

FWIW, I never have even tried to own a gun. I have gotten some training and been at shooting ranges but never sought to have one. To some extent it's because I live in NYC and the gun laws are very very strict - basically you need a good reason to be permitted to own a gun - and I never wanted it enough to be willing to go through what you need to go through to get a gun. However, it pissed me off that even though I'm about as plain vanilla a citizen as they come - pays his taxes, not deep in debt, not addicted to any substance, no criminal record, owns his home (well, the bank does, but you get the idea) - I still couldn't get a gun without having to show some good reason and get some bureaucrat's approval. It wasn't that I needed one or (most times) wanted one, but it annoyed me that if I did I still couldn't get one. But then, I generally bristle at infringements on my liberties...........

Last edited by loquitur; 06-26-2008 at 12:49 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 03:01 PM   #28 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
i haven't read the full opinion, but one other unresolved issue is this decision's appears to be its exact effect on states and municipalities. the district of columbia is unique in that it's administered (primarily) according to federal law. there is the issue of "incorporation" of a right... whether the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution apply as barriers to federal or federal AND state infringement.

so, under this opinion, the states may still be able to enact laws just as draconian as DC's struck policy.

this poses an interesting question for conservatives. do we continue to favor states rights, decentralized power, and local autonomy? or, should we argue for extending the federal gov's mandate over state sovereignty?
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 03:26 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
irateplatypus, I don't see any way this right doesn't get incorporated in the fourteenth amendment and then applied against the states. What would the logic be to justify treating this amendment different from the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth? Yes, the 7th isn't incorporated, but that's an anomaly. And the third isn't incorporated because it just never came up - soldiers haven't been quartered in homes since the founding, I think.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 03:39 PM   #30 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
I wonder what the consequences of this law will be in 10 years? I am just as torn on this issue as the court is, but I'm still for pre-banning certain people from owning guns. True, they may be able to get a gun from the black market, but the less likely criminals, psychopaths and drugged-addicted people will have guns, the better.

I would like to see what the DC metro police does to protest. If I were running the police, I would have all officers wear riot gear and carry the large guns tomorrow.

So, who knows if this ban had any effect on crime? Or did it have any effect on non-drug related crime I should say.



And there is no way a group of people would ever be able to fight against the US military, FBI, local/state police, and intelligence agencies with the guns you can buy legally and illegally. Just look at Iraq. They had plenty of weapons, but nothing is working.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 03:54 PM   #31 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I doubt the police will protest. A lot of them believe, like many gun proponents, that the gun ban added to crime.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:06 PM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
maybe, Will. Or not: remember, if possessing a gun is a crime (as it is in NY), then by definition a gun ban increases crime so long as people keep guns. The gun ban also gave cops a basis for raising their productivity statistics by hauling in citizens who the found keeping guns in their homes. The more laws there are, the more power cops have.
loquitur is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:15 PM   #33 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Warning, speculation:
Yeah, but if, like I say, many DC cops believe that the high crime rate is somehow caused by the gun ban, then in their minds they're in less danger now. While I'm sure many of them enjoyed the power, they'll enjoy the idea of it being more likely they'll be coming home to their families safe and sound. All my cop friends are pretty clear that's the most important thing to them.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:29 PM   #34 (permalink)
Warrior Smith
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Location: missouri
I live in missouri, not D.C. , but for the record, of the dozen cops I know, not a single one believes in gun bans - they are, according to them, ineffective... about half of said cops have stated at one time or another in my presence something along the lines that if a citizen wants to be safer, they should get and train with a gun... my favorite statement from a cop, (my business partner btw) is that "when seconds count, we are only minutes away" All of the security people that I work with are pro gun, and several have CC permits and carry regularly... But then this is certainly not D.C.- so I would think beliefs would be different there.....
__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens
Fire is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:58 PM   #35 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
It's great not having to worry about whether to own a gun.

The story in Toronto these days is that the mayor and others want a gun ban. I don't think it matters either way. Not in my eyes. There have only been 27 murders in the city so far, which isn't too bad considering that Toronto's record year was 2007 with 84 murders, half of which were gun-related. I don't think a gun ban would do much.

(As a reference point, Chicago, a city of similar size, had 435 homicides in 2007.)

I'm generally ambivalent on gun bans.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:02 PM   #36 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Toronto is about 2.5 million people. 2,500,000/84 = about 1 murder per 30,000 people. San Jose has about 1 million people. We had 32 murders last year. 1,000,000/32 = 31,000. So about the same. Toronto... the cold San Jose.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 03:25 AM   #37 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
So about the same. Toronto... the cold San Jose.
Except when it gets over 40 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit) with humidex about this time of year....

I don't know much about San Jose except for a bit about hockey. I'm intrigued. I'm sure that's an interesting murder rate compared to your national average. What would be the attributing factors? You have a lot of Canadians living there or something?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 05:14 AM   #38 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
about half of said cops have stated at one time or another in my presence something along the lines that if a citizen wants to be safer, they should get and train with a gun... my favorite statement from a cop, (my business partner btw) is that "when seconds count, we are only minutes away"
Likewise.. in my CCW class one of the instructors was a city police officer, and he said the same.. with the additional mention that their average response time to a 9-11 call in the city is 14 minutes. That's enough time for someone to get in, do whatever they want, and leave.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 06:34 AM   #39 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
this is kinda interesting.
scalia seems to be caught in a strange little loop: does the right to form a militia presuppose another, unspoken right to have guns around? presumably, it would, yes? but since there's nothing stated, and since we read scalia assembling a (quite curious) historical case, it would follow that what is really at issue is custom as it obtained around the 1789--and i would imagine that you'd have found exactly the same rural/urban split that you have now at the level of custom--if you are living in a city, you probably aren't doing a whole lot of hunting, so you probably dont have a gun.

what i don't really see is the inferential jump from what is not stated to some assumptions about 1789 context as if it were a single thing. i think that has more to do with stuff like one of the most irritating rhetorical quirks in american history writing, the tendency to use the phrase "americans think..." or "americans reacted to x..." as if there is this Unified Subjectivity called "americans"...which exists only in the phantasmagoria of nationalist ideology.

but it's a problem, yes, moving from a sequence of statements concerning negative rights (pre-existing rights that the state cannot infringe---upon [do you have to use "infringe upon" or can you just say "infringe"?]) to a negative negative right, which is one that is not stated at all but which you may or may not be able to infer is presupposed by what is stated.

this seems to me a problem with the notion of "original understanding"---which is also a problem for "strict construction" as an interpretive posture---when you get down to it, this is a speculative game, bounded by evidence in the way that "authentic" re-enactments of 17th century daily life are bounded by clothing.


stevens opinion seems more strict in the sense that it does not make the move scalia does in disconnecting the clauses and trying to infer some set of assumptions that inform the operative clause.

i guess what makes this interesting is its uncertainty, its ricketiness as argument, despite its status as ruling.


btw: on the issue at hand, i favor local control over guns. there is no reason why a city cannot exercise a different and far more stringent type of control than would a rural area. chicago is not a big hunting area. neither is boston or nyc. and i don't really buy the self-defense arguments in an urban context--at least not as powerful enough to justify abrogating the right of communities to determine what does and does not happen within their boundaries. and i dont see scalia's decision as saying anything that runs against that--what i see it as basically saying is that a city cannot enact a wholesale ban on all guns. but i think they can, nonetheless, make it as difficult as possible to own one. and i think it is the right of the citizenry as a whole to enact such law.

like it or not, even libertarians live in a society.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 07:55 AM   #40 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I don't know much about San Jose except for a bit about hockey. I'm intrigued. I'm sure that's an interesting murder rate compared to your national average. What would be the attributing factors? You have a lot of Canadians living there or something?
It's several things, I think. For one, our police force is well funded and pretty well respected. And it's been that way for a while. San Jose has had low crime rates for over 20 years. We also are suburbia, only kinda interesting because we're ginormous and have a lot of interesting things to do. I'm not sure how much it effects crime, but we're rated consistently as one of the healthiest cities in the world very often. Maybe we're better at chasing down criminals.
Willravel is offline  
 

Tags
ban, court, handgun, strikes, supreme

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:06 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360