Supreme Court Upholds That The 2nd Amendment Is An Individual Right.

[Spamity Calamity]

[url="http://www.nraila.org/heller/"]http://www.nraila.org/heller/[/url]

So the supreme court has finally taken a stand and declared what I and many others have said for a long time. The right of the people to keep and bear arms IS and individual right. This is a major blow to the gun control folks what few there are.

Here is a direct link the Supreme Court opinion in PDF

[url="http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf"]http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf[/url]

Edited June 26, 2008 by Spamity Calamity

[Spamity Calamity]

I also find it hilarious that Obama is backtracking on previously stating that the DC gun ban was "reasonable".

[kujo]

There's like 3 of these threads....

[Didymus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1584091' date='Jun 26 2008, 06:20 PM']There's like 3 of these threads....[/quote]

one of the mods needs to shoot some of 'em down


get it? like shoot with a gun? haha, I am so funny

[kujo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1584093' date='Jun 26 2008, 07:22 PM']one of the mods needs to shoot some of 'em down
get it? like shoot with a gun? haha, I am so funny[/quote]

Haha. I thought about making some joke, but I chose not to. I'm glad you did!

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='kujo' post='1584091' date='Jun 26 2008, 06:20 PM']There's like 3 of these threads....[/quote]

Really? I dont see any other threads in the debate table. Isnt this the most appropriate place to post this thread?

Besides I posted here because I was hoping that the fellow who so vigorously defended a collective right in the "I got a call from the NRA thread" was going to chime in...

Edited June 26, 2008 by Spamity Calamity

[kujo]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1584109' date='Jun 26 2008, 07:39 PM']Really? I dont see any other threads in the debate table. Isnt this the most appropriate place to post this thread?

Besides I posted here because I was hoping that the fellow who so vigorously defended a collective right in the "I got a call from the NRA thread" was going to chime in...[/quote]

There are a bunch in Open Mic.

[Spamity Calamity]

ah yeah i found the one with rkwright talking---that was his name

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81970"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81970[/url]

okay mods kill this thread!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1584093' date='Jun 26 2008, 06:22 PM']one of the mods needs to shoot some of 'em down
get it? like shoot with a gun? haha, I am so funny[/quote]

From what I can gauge of this joke, your sense of humor is clearly of a different caliber than most of us, even if it is on target. Some may find it an assault on their range of senses, but others may find this new round of humor to be just what they need to come out of their shell.

[kujo]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1584128' date='Jun 26 2008, 08:00 PM']From what I can gauge of this joke, your sense of humor is clearly of a different caliber than most of us, even if it is on target. Some may find it an assault on their range of senses, but others may find this new round of humor to be just what they need to come out of their shell.[/quote]

Wow....I actually LOL'ed there.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='kujo' post='1584131' date='Jun 26 2008, 07:03 PM']Wow....I actually LOL'ed there.[/quote]

Barrelled you over, eh?

[Didymus]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1584109' date='Jun 26 2008, 05:39 PM']Really? I dont see any other threads in the debate table. Isnt this the most appropriate place to post this thread?

Besides I posted here because I was hoping that the fellow who so vigorously defended a collective right in the "I got a call from the NRA thread" was going to chime in...[/quote]

haha yes... that was me...

I still think that in the past, especially in the Miller case, the courts in the US looked at it as a collective right. Though I am a fan of Scalia and I think he did his research well enough to prove that it is an individual right.

I'll repost my criticisms of the current opinion since this is the debate table...

I'd just like to post a short criticism on one part of the opinion...

[quote]It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.[/quote]


Thoughts on this part of Scalia's opinion?

I would say he is applying his originalism so strictly that it reads out part of the amendment. He is saying on one hand people in 1780 had the same weapons as the militia required and thus we have an individual right to bear arms and then at the same time saying we don't today have a right to the weapons a militia would require today.

Secondly, no address of the Federalism issue??? I understand the facts don't permit a holding relating to Federalism, but still thats the major issue here.

More parts from Scalia's opinion...

QUOTE
[quote]“Some general knowledge of firearms is important to
the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in
case of war, to organize promptly an efficient force of
volunteers unless the people had some familiarity
with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a
citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious pre­
cautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in
due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his
individual right. No doubt, a person whose residence
or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for
prudent self-defence.” B. Abbott, Judge and Jury: A
Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law
of the Land 333 (1880) (hereinafter Abbott).[/quote]


He used the above as evidence of an individuals right to bear arms. So in today's terms, where can I get my RPG?

QUOTE
[quote]Miller stands only for the proposition that the
Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends
only to certain types of weapons.
It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more
than what it said, because the case did not even purport to
be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.[/quote]


Miller was a case that stated sawed-off shotguns were not protected under the 2nd Amendment. If what Scalia says is true, then what types of weapons are protected? Obviously handguns after this case... but what others and why? Scalia answers...
QUOTE
[quote]We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi­
nary military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolu­
tionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.”[/quote]


Scalia answers this objection by looking to what is commonly available. Certainly a machine gun in 1939 was not common, but what about today? Fully Automatic weapons can easily be purchased today; the only barrier to purchasing one is the Government. Cart before the horse? Scalia is saying that we have an individual right, and the Government cannot restrict it, to whatever is commonly available; yet what is commonly available to us today is only available because the Government hasn't regulated it.

For example one can go to many third world countries and pick up 'commonly available' weapons including bombs, machine guns, RPGs... I've heard you can buy tanks in some countries!

I don't really wish to get into an individual rights discussion, for I think Scalia has provided an adequate amount of evidence and proves his point on this. But it leaves us in a practically speaking odd position. I know we had a huge discussion regarding if the 2nd amendment protects an individual right before, and I admit that I am in the dissent (my contracts professor always says 'Why cite the dissent? Who cares about them, they're the losers!), so I don't want to raise that issue again. I just want to see how this plays out.

[Socrates]

Looks like this news triggered quite a few of the stock gun-puns! While most of them hit the mark, humor on such a loaded topic is bound to occasionally misfire.


Anyway, while for now I'll leave the legal fine-points to the law students, but I'll say that I definitely agree with SCOTUS's decision that the second amendment right to bear arms is indeed an individual right. (I've always believed the "collective rights" talk was nonsense). Rkwright and I (among others) had a lengthy debate on this on here in the past, if any one cares to try to dig it up.

Anyway, good Supreme Court decision!

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if it's an individual right though.... i'd say it's still something contingent on the militia,,,, not about self defense in the sense of stopping murderers etc. and so, if there's a militia existant, through individuals, why can't people generally be banned?
not that it's a big deal, i like the idea of gun rights with many restictions, as is the law now. it's just that the amendment itself leads on to the conclusion that it's all about the militia.

i woldn't necessarily disagree if you thought i was doing an end run around using the collective right... by putting it in terms of individual rights though..

Edited June 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c