Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vagabond6542]

From the questioning during orals something like this was expected to be the decision.  It was also almost certainly going to be a 5-4 decision.  Nearly all the cases released this late in term are.  The longer the debate the later the decision. 

Just finished reading the decision about a half hour ago.  It went farther in a couple of areas than most expected.  Since the 2nd Amendment has never really been touched by the court since ratification back in '91 it was interesting to see how much they relied on contemporary reasoning and how much historiography was used. 

Aside from the ruling itself the biggest thing to come of it, however, is that even though it's a 5-4 split it's a decision that should hold up over time.   It's also not so specifically written to just the Washington DC statute that brought the case initially that the ruling will be applicable nationally.

The good part is underlined, Pandora's Box here we come.

[Special_Ed]

The most amazing part is that they voted on the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment of the constitution.  They voted on the fact we are already allowed to do this and it only passed 5-4! WTF!

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals. It also refers to a "well-regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms." The meaning of the Second Amendment is among the most contested of any amendment contained in the Bill of Rights.

One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from infringement and whether the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this right. In United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment only limits the power of the federal government, but it has been contended that it extends to state jurisdictions by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Another major point of contention was whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court adopted the individual rights view in, by a 5-4 vote, District of Columbia v. Heller.

Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause and the meaning of infringement; specifically, the point at which regulation or prohibition of firearms constitutes infringement. All federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright firearm ban was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller."

[VAZHOG]

THE 2ND AMENDEMENT

AMERICA'S ORIGINAL
HOMELAND SECURITY 

[Twolanerider]

The most amazing part is that they voted on the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment of the constitution.  They voted on the fact we are already allowed to do this and it only passed 5-4! WTF!

For much of what will be the wiggle room that lights the now future debate check out Souter's dissent.

[vagabond6542]

The real victory, if there is one, is that the long tauted 2nd Amendment is finally being up held.
Everyone will have to go back to square one on the gun laws. This means Federal and State laws.
Being the U S Constitution is the "Law of the Land". It would take a lot to change that. A Revolution? Maybe?
That will not happen. It would be Supreme Stupidity to do so.

[Special_Ed]

For much of what will be the wiggle room that lights the now future debate check out Souter's dissent.

I find it very disheartening that someone with the education level, understanding of law and constitutional wherewithal would interpret the 2nd amendment in that fashion. The dissent does leave a lot to discuss for the future.

[Twolanerider]

I find it very disheartening that someone with the education level, understanding of law and constitutional wherewithal would interpret the 2nd amendment in that fashion. The dissent does leave a lot to discuss for the future.

Souter's separate dissents are often that way.  While still on the bench O'Conner's dissents when she was in the minority often had the same effect the other way.  It's a bit ironic that a good dissent often does as much to frame the future application of Constitutional guidance from the Court as does the majority opinion itself.  The dissent begins to frame not just what can be done but what is close to the edges.  It defines the wiggle room that everyone will try to work from.

[Special_Ed]

Part of the Main dissent:

"Justice Stevens authored the main dissent which is basically predicated on the premise that the 2nd Amendment does not grant individual rights, but grants collective rights for militia purposes.

    The question presented by this case is not whether the
    Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
    “individual right.”  Surely it protects a right that can be
    enforced by individuals.  But a conclusion that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
    anything about the scope of that right. . . . . . .

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the
    right of the people of each of the several States to main-
    tain a well-regulated militia.  It was a response to con-
    cerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution
    that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias
    and create a national standing army posed an intolerable
    threat to the sovereignty of the several States.  Neither
    the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced
    by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limit-
    ing any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian
    uses of firearms.  Specifically, there is no indication that
    the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the
    common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Part of the second dissent:

Justice Breyer authored the second dissent whereby he agrees with Justice Stevens first point but also states that:

    The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent
    reasons.  The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE
    STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects
    militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.  These
    two interests are sometimes intertwined.  To assure 18th-
    century citizens that they could keep arms for militia
    purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep
    arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. 
    But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related
    objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
    The second independent reason is that the protection
    the Amendment provides is not absolute.  The Amendment
    permits government to regulate the interests that it
    serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—
    whether they do or do not include an independent interest
    in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct
    unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unrea-
    sonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms.
    This the majority cannot do.

[Special_Ed]

Souter's separate dissents are often that way.  While still on the bench O'Conner's dissents when she was in the minority often had the same effect the other way.  It's a bit ironic that a good dissent often does as much to frame the future application of Constitutional guidance from the Court as does the majority opinion itself.  The dissent begins to frame not just what can be done but what is close to the edges.  It defines the wiggle room that everyone will try to work from.

Don there is a lot of truth in that statement. The power that is wielded at that level reverberates down through the legal system for years. It's as if trying to access the collateral damage from the dissents when the vote appears to go the right way. In a strange way it's as if both sides of the vote prevail to some degree and gain something.

[LRebel]

 

[TN]

i do see there point about the ban but geeez.
like the criminals would honor the ban....


i would like to see it mandatory to carry....


don't leave home without it.



TN

[hunter]

I like Georgia's law, You're allowed to carry gun as long as it's not concealed.  I heard there is a town in Georgia that every one has to learn to use a hand gun and everyone carries a gun.
But then again they use AK47 for deer hunt also (very scary).

[Special_Ed]

THE 2ND AMENDEMENT

AMERICA'S ORIGINAL
HOMELAND SECURITY 

Very True!

[BigR55]

As others stated. 5-4 means ONE Justice decided the fate of the whole country.  
8-1 or 7-2 would have been a safe margin.  

Yesterday, right across the bridge in Henderson, KY. An employee of a plastics plant killed five people in different areas with a .45 handgun. How different would this have been if any one person of the 35-40 employees or just the plant manager been able to stop this guy as he moved from the break room out into the plant? The same with all of the school shootings.

If the gun is the problem, then there never could have been any old cowboys. How easy it would be to eliminate a majority of the accidental deaths where children get hold of someones gun?

[hunter]

Drunk drivers kill people every day.  You don't hear any one asking for Ban on alcohol, do you?