U.S. Supreme Court rules against D.C. Handgun Ban

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled against District of Columbia's ban on handguns, the first ever qualification by the high court on the second amendment since its passing in 1791. The arguments presented revolved on the following issue:

Does the second amendment unconditionally protect an individual's right to own a firearm, or is it to apply specifically to state and federal authorities (ie, law enforcement) and the military?

The amendment states:

"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."

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that "...an individual's right to bear arms is supported by the historical narrative both before and after the adoption of the amendment."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,588 • Replies: 104

No top replies

In general I think Scalia is an idiot. But I agreed with this particular decision of the court.

0 Replies

It is the Supreme court's job to interpret the Constitution. This decision is well-reasoned.

There is a certain irony of Conservative Judges, whose supporters are always complaining about "activist" judges overturning the will of the elected legislatures (and the people), making this particular decision.

0 Replies

Is an individual gun owner really part of a "well regulated militia"?

Should the government be allowed to call up gun owners in the case of national emergency?

The National Guard is a well regulated militia. Should gun owners carry the same duties and responsibilities as Guard members? Should we be able to send them to Iraq?

I'm not making a judgement because I really don't know. It does seem that if you want to strictly interpret the Constitution that you can't just read the part about "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but have to include the "well regulated militia" part too.

0 Replies

Boomerang, you misquoted the amendment... it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This phrase you happened to leave out is interesting. It was part of the rationale for the decision.

0 Replies

boomerang, the question you bring up was quite thoroughly answered by yesterday's ruling. The right of the individual, unconnected with any militia, to bear arms, was supported by the USSC. It wasn't ambiguous either.

0 Replies

By the way, polls like this are running across the nation and are about 9-1 in agreement with the court. The fact that the poll here on A2K doesn't reflect that doesn't surprise me, and is the source of most of my frustation and anger with this site.

0 Replies

Ooops. Sorry. You're right.

I'm certainly not a Constitutional scholar but it still seems to me that "well regulated militia" seems to be central to the right.

I know that a lot of people who cite the 2nd A. (at least on A2K which is really the only place I run into them) don't think there should be any sort of regulation regarding gun ownership.

Would requiring membership in a well regulated militia that the government could call upon infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

By the way, polls like this are running across the nation and are about 9-1 in agreement with the court. The fact that the poll here on A2K doesn't reflect that doesn't surprise me, and is the source of most of my frustation and anger with this site.

You do know the difference between a scientific poll and an unscientific one, right? (Just a hint... scientific doesn't mean it agrees with you.) Polls on websites are never scientific... and who cares anyway. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and every group will have different mixes.

Scientific polls taken recently say that Americans are 2-1 (not 9-1) in favor of gun ownership as a constitutional right. Consistently, about a third of Americans say they would ban handguns outright. Most Americans are in favor of restrictions on guns from background checks to waiting periods.

Using unscientific polling to validate your beliefs is silly. (Getting frustrated and agry at a group of people you have chosen to hang out with is even sillier.)

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

I'm certainly not a Constitutional scholar but it still seems to me that "well regulated militia" seems to be central to the right.

I am and have always been pro-gun for individuals, but I agree with you boomerang that what you quoted seems to be central. That is why I disagree with the Supreme Court on their decision. I don't agree that our founding fathers meant every individual should have the right to bear arms.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Ooops. Sorry. You're right.

I'm certainly not a Constitutional scholar but it still seems to me that "well regulated militia" seems to be central to the right.

Going into detail here could fill an entire book but yesterday's decision covers the highlights of this fairly well.

Quote:

I know that a lot of people who cite the 2nd A. (at least on A2K which is really the only place I run into them) don't think there should be any sort of regulation regarding gun ownership.

In reality they are a small minority. There are many (on A2K as well!) that support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right but still see a need for regulation.

Quote:

Would requiring membership in a well regulated militia that the government could call upon infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

In theory at least, you and I already are. "Well regulated" in the sense used in the 2nd Amendment refers to "well trained".

The current Federal law breaks the militia into the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The National Guard serves as the Organized Milita and the Unorganized Militia is defined as all able-bodied males etc... who aren't members of the National Guard. If other Constitutional provisions/laws are applied it is conveivable that prohibitions on gender and age discrimination as well as equeal protection concerns could force the law to be read as applying to women as well. If that is true then technically, YOU would be a member of the unorganized militia which is under the control of your state. It'd be up to your state to "well regulate" (train) you.

The State of MA still has fairly extensive laws governing the militia:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-33-toc.htm

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Is an individual gun owner really part of a "well regulated militia"?

Should the government be allowed to call up gun owners in the case of national emergency?

The National Guard is a well regulated militia. Should gun owners carry the same duties and responsibilities as Guard members? Should we be able to send them to Iraq?

I'm not making a judgement because I really don't know. It does seem that if you want to strictly interpret the Constitution that you can't just read the part about "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but have to include the "well regulated militia" part too.

The right for the individual[/] to bear arms was upheld by this ruling, but I believe I understand the source of your questions. Here is the final version of the amendment (as given in 1789):

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.

To me, your question pertains to the following: Does this translate into '...right to bear arms for the individual apart from the necessity to secure the free state'? It is questionable, at the very least. The tug of war between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is long gone and so is the 18th century.

The amendment does declare something; namely, the conclusion that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But this is to follow from the fact (or premise) that "...a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

Hmm...

0 Replies

And the need for some type of regulation stems from the ambiguity of the scope of the amendment.

0 Replies

In general I think those that voted against the ruling are idiots, and they should be removed from the bench.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

boomerang wrote:
I'm certainly not a Constitutional scholar but it still seems to me that "well regulated militia" seems to be central to the right.

I am and have always been pro-gun for individuals, but I agree with you boomerang that what you quoted seems to be central. That is why I disagree with the Supreme Court on their decision. I don't agree that our founding fathers meant every individual should have the right to bear arms.

Why not? And please clarify "every individual"?

0 Replies

Is it just me, or is the second amendment not written very well? No matter how I read it, it's always unclear exactly what they meant. It's almost like there's a word (or words) missing or something. It just doesn't flow very well.

Do you think it was intended that way, or does it have something to do with how the English language was used back then?

0 Replies

There was no standing army, so unless they gave folks the right to keep guns at home, they weren't going to be able to defend the place very well. And, as the USSC pointed out, it still holds true. The police cannot protect you, in your home, or anywhere else for that matter. Most of the time our brave men and women in blue are doing cleanup operations. You are responsible to make yourself as safe and secure as possible. How you do that is up to you.

0 Replies

Quote:

There was no standing army, so unless they gave folks the right to keep guns at home, they weren't going to be able to defend the place very well.

This is true and adds support to the degree of ambiguity in the second amendment as applicable in this era. But at that time there was in fact no standing army.

Quote:

And, as the USSC pointed out, it still holds true. The police cannot protect you, in your home, or anywhere else for that matter. Most of the time our brave men and women in blue are doing cleanup operations. You are responsible to make yourself as safe and secure as possible. How you do that is up to you.

What a dangerous precedent! Shocked

Fashion that, a nation full of gunslingers packing heat on the basis of the argument 'You are responsible to make yourself as safe and secure as possible, and how you do that is up to you; and this follows from the inadequacy of the state police, FBI, and national guard/army to adequately protect its citizens'.

0 Replies

Well, it does make sense if you secretly are waiting for the opportunity to kill someone.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Is it just me, or is the second amendment not written very well? No matter how I read it, it's always unclear exactly what they meant. It's almost like there's a word (or words) missing or something. It just doesn't flow very well.

Do you think it was intended that way, or does it have something to do with how the English language was used back then?

The answer is both, which is to say that the educated- especially lawyers- communicated as some Victorians did, and this amendment underwent many revisions before it was ratified.

0 Replies

U.S. Supreme Court rules against D.C. Handgun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know