Guns and the Supreme Court

Certain, more important, tenets of the Constitution have not been a constraint on the actions of THIS government.
They still have a core, though shrinking, support.

I wonder if "gun control freaks" are outnumbered by "gun owning freaks".

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

roger wrote:
Personally, I think it a crying shame that we have to depend on the Supreme Court being liberal, conservative, or whatever, to produce a valid intrepretation of the constitution.

Or instead of an attempt at "interpretation", simply suggest a form of words which would have relevance today. I suppose that would be an amendment.

Something like "in recognition of the fact that there are no legal militias any more, and since we need to move on from the 18th century, the right of private individuals to bear arms is hereby withdrawn".

They could knock that into a suitably sonorous legal-sounding phrase.

You have a problem, McTag. In the first place, in all other cases in which the Supreme Court has alluded to the Second Amendment, including the single case in which they have directly "visited" the amendment, they have asserted that the amendment only binds the Federal government, and not the states. This case will be different, because, as has been pointed out, the District of Columbia is not a state.

However, you are in error to assume that there is no longer a militia. The Dick Act of 1905 created the modern National Guard (now comprised of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, the Air National Guard and the Reserve components of the uniformed services)--and in the process, acknowledged the existence of "an unorganized militia." In law, the militia to which you allude as an 18th century anachronism has never ceased to exist. Therefore, for the Court to allege that there are now no legal militias would be false.

This Court could, of course, screw the pooch. But in Presser versus Illinois (1886) most notably and in a few other decisions, the Court stated and re-affirmed that the Second Amendment binds the Federal government and not the Several States. In The United States versus Miller (1939), the only direct challenge to a law (The National Firearms Act, 1934) regulating firearms based on the Second Amendment, the Court found in favor of the government, effectively uphold the National Firearms Act.

It is foolish to assert that the militia as it was once understood, and as it is now desperately alleged to exist by gun control opponents, ceased to exist. Clearly from those occasions upon which the Supremes have alluded to the Second Amendment, and from the language of the Dick Act, the "unorganized militia" continues to exist. It is also foolish to assert that neither the Federal government nor the governments of the Several States have no right to regulate firearms. The decision in The United States versus Miller was one which upheld a Federal gun control law; and the reference to the amendment in Presser and other cases make it clear that, to this date at least, the Court does not consider that the amendment applies to the States, who are therefore inferentially entitled to regulate firearms.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Basic reality, if there was any one of those amendments which had to be there before anybody would have ratified the constitution, it was the second amendment.

Gunga Din once again demonstrates his breathtaking historical ignorance. The Constitution was ratified without any amendments--and in fact, it could not have been amended until it was ratified, give that the formula for amendment was contained within the document.

The United States Constitution was ratified in 1789--and the Continental Congress passed a resolution to put the Constitution into effect in September, 1789. The First Congress adopted twelve proposed amendments, and sent them to the states. The last ten of those twelve proposed amendments were ratified by eleven states as of December 15, 1791. The fourth amendment proposed was the second amendment ratified, also as of December 15, 1791. The second proposed amendment was not ratified until May, 1992, becoming the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

As usual, Gunga demonstrates that he doesn't know squat about history.

0 Replies

bookmarking....will add to discussion later...

But I'm in favor of the USSC overturning the DC gun ban, because as the numbers tell us, that ban has done nothing to curb violence in our capital, and has served to leave the population defenseless in the event something violent would happen to them.

Even our congressmen's guards carry guns, contrary to the law.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

bookmarking....will add to discussion later...

But I'm in favor of the USSC overturning the DC gun ban, because as the numbers tell us, that ban has done nothing to curb violence in our capital, and has served to leave the population defenseless in the event something violent would happen to them.

Even our congressmen's guards carry guns, contrary to the law.

"In the event that something violent would happen to them"

Isn't that what it's all about? Is two parties having a gun less "violent" than one party having a gun? Is the likelihood of guns being present in a given situation not the very reason for the worst of the violence?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

maporsche wrote:
bookmarking....will add to discussion later...

But I'm in favor of the USSC overturning the DC gun ban, because as the numbers tell us, that ban has done nothing to curb violence in our capital, and has served to leave the population defenseless in the event something violent would happen to them.

Even our congressmen's guards carry guns, contrary to the law.

"In the event that something violent would happen to them"

Isn't that what it's all about? Is two parties having a gun less "violent" than one party having a gun? Is the likelihood of guns being present in a given situation not the very reason for the worst of the violence?

You left out my part about "being left DEFENSELESS".

What it's about is having the ability to defend yourself if you're so inclined.

And please, where is the evidence that the DC gun ban has reduced the "likelihood of guns being present".

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Anyone unfamiliar: the "gun ban" in DC has only led to DC's record highest numbers of deaths by handgun in most years over the past several decades.

A classic causation-correlation logical fallacy.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Anyone unfamiliar: the "gun ban" in DC has only led to DC's record highest numbers of deaths by handgun in most years over the past several decades.

A classic causation-correlation logical fallacy.

In some cases two variables which appear to correlate strongly to eachother will both be rising and falling with some third factor: in this case, the missing variable is degree of demoKKKrat infestation, which causes both gun bans and murders.

0 Replies

Set appears to be ignorant of A14, which extends application of A1-A10 to state and local governments.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
High Seas wrote:
Anyone unfamiliar: the "gun ban" in DC has only led to DC's record highest numbers of deaths by handgun in most years over the past several decades.

A classic causation-correlation logical fallacy.

In some cases two variables which appear to correlate strongly to eachother will both be rising and falling with some third factor: in this case, the missing variable is degree of demoKKKrat infestation, which causes both gun bans and murders.

You're a true original, gungasnaKKKe, I'll give you that.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Set appears to be ignorant of A14, which extends application of A1-A10 to state and local governments.

Only on a selective basis. The supreme court has never applied the second amendment to the states by means of the fourteenth amendment. Set, I'm sure, is not ignorant of that salient fact -- but you appear to be.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Set appears to be ignorant of A14, which extends application of A1-A10 to state and local governments.

The Fourteenth Amendment only impinges on the States to the extent that an appellant can claim to have been denied due process of law. You need to read the case law surrounding gun law challenges, and take especial note of the consistent statement by the Supremes that the Second Amendment binds only the Federal government and not the Several States, all in cases reviewed by them subsequent to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Then you go tell the Supremes of their ignorance.

0 Replies

I might expand upon what Joe has written by pointing out that in Presser versus Illinois (1886), the defendant who appealed to the Court, cited both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as invalidating the Illinois Military Code under which he had been prosecuted. The Court rejected Mr. Presser's appeal. With regard to the Fouteernth Amendment argument, the Court responded:

The argument of the plaintiff in error that the legislation mentioned deprives him of either life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or that it is a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, is so clearly untenable as to require no discussion.

As for a claim about a violation of the Second Amendment, the Court held:

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. (emphasis added).

From the majority opinion in Presser versus Illinois, 1886, (116, U.S. 252).

Equally, in Cruikshank, the Court stated with regard to the Second Amendment that it:

" . . . has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

From the majority opinion in The United States versus Cruikshank, 1875, (92 U.S. 542).

Advocate, read the decisions at Findlaw. Educate yourself.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Life member of the NRA here watching the case very closely but trusts Chief Justice Roberts and most of current members of the SC to do the right thing - and btw only in its federal status is DC's (not a State, so not entitled to militias to begin with) gun ban at issue (a narrow point) not the Second Amendment to the Constitution per se.

Gotta start somewhere.

Future cases can expand the enforcement of the right. Just think of this case as a first step.

0 Replies

Re: Guns and the Supreme Court

au1929 wrote:

Guns and the Supreme Court

Published: November 21, 2007

au1929 wrote:

At issue is a 2-1 ruling last March by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

Not sure what sort of radical organization you are quoting, but I question the notion that "violating the Bill of Rights" is spurious grounds.

au1929 wrote:

Opponents of gun control sometimes claim a constitutional prohibition on any serious regulation of individual gun ownership. But a lot has changed since America's founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Fortunately, the first clause does not stand in the way of an individual right, so no editing is required.

au1929 wrote:

What is your opinion will the supreme court rule to uphold the Washington gun laws or for continued mayhem in the streets of the US proving that justice and reason are truly blind

I doubt they'll do either.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

roger wrote:
Personally, I think it a crying shame that we have to depend on the Supreme Court being liberal, conservative, or whatever, to produce a valid intrepretation of the constitution.

Or instead of an attempt at "interpretation", simply suggest a form of words which would have relevance today. I suppose that would be an amendment.

Something like "in recognition of the fact that there are no legal militias any more, and since we need to move on from the 18th century, the right of private individuals to bear arms is hereby withdrawn".

They could knock that into a suitably sonorous legal-sounding phrase.

They don't have the power to withdraw a right, and the notion that freedom is obsolete and should only have existed in the 18th century is not likely to be a popular one in America.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

If lawmakers are guilty of tiptoeing around gun control issues, it is because the NRA and other gun rights groups wield an enormous amount of influence in Washington. The source of that influence is money.

Don't discount those of us voters who use NRA endorsements as a voting guide. Very Happy

The NRA's ability to tell moderate politicians in weak districts that they can get them voted out of office in the next election has a bit of influence.

0 Replies

Set, there is nothing in those cases that says a state or local govt. can infringe on a person's right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. The fact is that, because of A14, they cannot.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Set, there is nothing in those cases that says a state or local govt. can infringe on a person's right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. The fact is that, because of A14, they cannot.

What supreme court case says that?

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

McTag wrote:
roger wrote:
Personally, I think it a crying shame that we have to depend on the Supreme Court being liberal, conservative, or whatever, to produce a valid intrepretation of the constitution.

Or instead of an attempt at "interpretation", simply suggest a form of words which would have relevance today. I suppose that would be an amendment.

Something like "in recognition of the fact that there are no legal militias any more, and since we need to move on from the 18th century, the right of private individuals to bear arms is hereby withdrawn".

They could knock that into a suitably sonorous legal-sounding phrase.

They don't have the power to withdraw a right, and the notion that freedom is obsolete and should only have existed in the 18th century is not likely to be a popular one in America.

The freedom not to be shot full of holes by somebody's kids is popular everywhere.

0 Replies

Guns and the Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know