Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment NOT about militias

[Drudgewire]

From the Scotus Blog:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

And so there is no ambiguity:

Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

And from The Hill

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, ruling the restrictions do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

The 5-4 decision handed down Thursday is the Supreme Court’s first major Second Amendment ruling in nearly 70 years. It declared unconstitutional a D.C. law on the books for more than 30 years.

The District since 1976 has restricted handgun ownership to former or current law enforcement officers who registered their guns before 1977. The law permits shotguns and hunting rifles in homes but requires them to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled D.C.’s gun ban unconstitutional last year. Dissatisfied with the ruling, lawyers for the District appealed the decision, and in November the Supreme Court agreed to consider the case. Arguments were heard in March.

Dozens of lawmakers in almost every Congress have put forward amendments and bills to revoke the D.C. gun ban, all of which have failed.

Critics of D.C.’s law say it infringes on their right to bear arms, while D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other supporters of the ban argue that restricted gun ownership is a tactic to battle gun violence in the city.

157 page ruling

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Thank you, SCOTUS!

 

[Demigorgon]

Nice to see there's still a bit of sanity left in this world.

 

[billydkid]

I'm with you! Let's hope this settles it for a while.

 

[billydkid]

Thank you, SCOTUS!
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1116844e60fc01caf2.jpg[/URL]

RB - that is just mean!!! It is clear your intention is to torment old farts like me.

 

[BPSCG]

Thank you, RenaissanceBi... Hey, wait, that's my sister, you !!!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

From the majority decision:

Scalia, J.: Well, we were really torn, but the exhibits from RenaissanceBiker were very compelling.

 

[BPSCG]

The Hill:

Mayor Adrian Fenty and other supporters of the ban argue that restricted gun ownership is a tactic to battle gun violence in the city.

Emphasis mine.

I believe that's a misstatement of the District's position. Nobody argues that the District doesn't have the right to restrict gun ownership. But the District was arguing it had the right to ban it outright.

Now the District has to decide what restrictions it wants to put in place. Felons, mental patients, minors, would all be a good place to start. They also need to decide what kind of firepower people should be allowed to have. I suspect Abrams tanks won't be permitted.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The Hill:

I suspect Abrams tanks won't be permitted.

Not a firearm.

In Texas the open carry law is now being bandied about, and for my money, is a good start. I'd like to see everyone in DC packing an 1873 Colt Peacemaker, openly. Let the distinguished ladies and gentlemen of Congress harken back to the days of Andy Jackson and Sam Houston, when Congress was wilder and woolier, which of course was a bit pre 1873.

Let the duels of Burr and Hamilton resume their rightful place in American politics.

DR

 

[BPSCG]

Another compelling argument:

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not a firearm.

The second amendment doesn't mention firearms. Just Arms.

Let the duels of Burr and Hamilton resume their rightful place in American politics.

Because killing people over insults is what we want to encourage, just look at the inner city youth, they have got it so right.

 

[Complexity]

I'm delighted.

It is important to remember that the right to bear arms is there in part, and I think most importantly, to resist an unworthy government.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The second amendment doesn't mention firearms. Just Arms.

Do you take the position that subsequent legislation passed since the Constitution's original drafting is not binding? Do you hold the laws the ATF tries to enforce as non binding? Do you hold that the distinction made between firearms in various act and elements of the US code to be non binding and invalid?

Because killing people over insults is what we want to encourage, just look at the inner city youth, they have got it so right.

How are these inner city youth you cite American politics? Please explain.

Please explain how you equate a drive by with a duel.

@ Complexity: *tips cap*

DR

 

[Garrette]

The second amendment doesn't mention firearms. Just Arms.

I say let the man who can bear an Abrams have an Abrams.

Just don't complain about my stock of depleted uranium.

Because killing people over insults is what we want to encourage,

Absolutely. That's exactly what the 2nd amendment says; it's exactly what SCOTUS has said; it's exactly what Darth Rotor said; and it's exactly what every supporter of gun ownership rights is thinking. You nailed it, PT. Well done.

just look at the inner city youth, they have got it so right.

Give a few of 'em an Abrams and watch the internecine murder rate drop right off. After an initial upswing, of course.

 

[volatile]

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

 

[Giggywig]

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

Because it says "the right of the People", not "the right of the People who are part of a well regulated militia." Or maybe I'm just not sane.

 

[BPSCG]

I say let the man who can bear an Abrams have an Abrams.

Just don't complain about my stock of depleted uranium.


Absolutely. That's exactly what the 2nd amendment says; it's exactly what SCOTUS has said; it's exactly what Darth Rotor said; and it's exactly what every supporter of gun ownership rights is thinking. You nailed it, PT. Well done.


Give a few of 'em an Abrams and watch the internecine murder rate drop right off. After an initial upswing, of course.

Let me repeat,

 

[LTC8K6]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

Yes, the word is there, but the amendment is clearly about the individual right. Particularly when it's put into historical context.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you win the argument that it's about the militia, well, the militia was the people.

 

[Garrette]

So even though the amendment specificially mentions militias, it isn't actually about militias? That's some crazy cognitive dissonance y'all got there, America!

I don't really want another gun thread, but seriously... let's have a semantics thread. How can any sane person read the sentence "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" and not interpret it as being about militias?

All arguments about the rights of people to bear arms or not aside, trying to pretend that a sentence which includes the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not really about militias is just weird, isn't it?

I also note the utter disdain groups like the NRA have for those "well-regulated" words in the Amendment, too.

Speaking just semantically and not legally or philosophically, I think there is a legitimate case for exactly the position you deride.

"A well regulated militia being necessary" is the reason.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the means.

Reasoning being this:

If ever the state requires a militia, it will be unable to raise or keep one if the populace from which it is to be raised is unarmed. Therefore, the practical implication is that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms separate from any actual service in the militia.