| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Supreme Court: Right to bear arms in INDIVIDUAL right. | |
| 2008-06-26 | |
| |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #22 "But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Did you miss the last part there Deac? Scalia is raising the "limitation" and military weapons reasoning the anti-gun people use, specifically to demolish it as unimportant and inapplicable. Basically the clause I posted above means that future courts CANNOT go back and use the "military" weapons and "fit" of the militia clause to abrogate the INDIVIDUAL rights that this ruling very clearly establishes as primary - the right to use guns "to defend self, family and property". You read the set up as if it was the point - its not - it was a setup for teardown. Be sure you read it carefully - lawyer-ese can sound just the opposite of what it is. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-26 22:56 |
| #21 both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. (Paging Jethro Bodine, Jethro Bodine to the Ciphering room) Let's see now 2008 minus 1776 is 232 Years "Precedent" They want to ignore in favor of a much lesser 70 years of "precedent" I translate this as we done it, and you can't do nothin about it, What do you mean "Yes you can", Just because we broke the laws, doesn't mean that you can fix it now, Nope, Nope gotta leave it the way we want it, NOT what the Constitution says (Very plainly)(Squeal of stuck Pig) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-06-26 22:46 |
| #20 As a resident of DC, I was very pleased with this ruling, although it really should have been a 9-0 decision. The notion that the framers of the Bill of Rights were somehow only referring to the states' right to arm a militia and not the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is totally insane. Whoever believes such nonsense has no idea what our Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, which is a shame as there are plenty first person accounts of exactly that. Unfortunately, given current federal gun laws (as I understand them) that make it illegal to carry a firearm over state lines and require you to provide proof of residency in the state in which you purchase a firearm, I think it will be quite some time before I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right in the nation's capitol. I have no doubt the Fenty administration and the DC government will drag their feet on all of this and set-up as much red tape as humanly possible to impede and restrict legal gun ownership here. And that really chaps my ass. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2008-06-26 22:12 |
| #19 Why not LH? |
| Posted by: Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6 2008-06-26 21:04 |
| #18 Under Common Law - which still is of reference in US precedent case applications - governments promoted an armed populace. In England, given a criminal complaint, a local Justice of the Peace would raise "Hue and Cry" (Hetusium et clamor) and that would mobilize everyone in compulsory service until complete efforts were made to find the culprit. Professional policing didn't really exist until created in England's Peel administration. His reform efforts were widely copied throughout the world. Currently cops think they should have a monopoly on arms, even though they can't be everywhere and conduct very little crime prevention. In criminal law, Self Defense is an absolute right. However, having an instrument to effect that right must be relative, because the issue of potential abuse rises. Restriction of gun possession by felons, mental defectives, persons under protection orders, etc, is essential. But, the law as it is, requires that the state bear the onus of proving that restriction is warranted. It is time to settle this issue once and for all, and then place a constitutional prohibition against judicial review. If SCOTUS can't settle law, then they are worthless. |
| Posted by: Whatle Lumplump1686 2008-06-26 17:28 |
| #17 This passage is very interesting. It verifies P2k's remark. "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”… 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 limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Wankers. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-06-26 15:47 |
| #16 From the decision: The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Thats pretty damn big - makes "home is your castle" and "no duty to retreat" laws the norm, instead of an affirmative defense. That is, if someone is in your house and threatening you, your family, or your property (robbery), you have no duty to retreat and you have every right to shoot and kill them. This is a huge change in many places where you are assumed to have committed a crime by shooting that burglar (usually "use of a firearm" type charges), and must defend yourself against charges. Since you have the RIGHT to defend your self, family and property. you cannot be charged with a crime and be forced to defend yourself with "self defense" unless they police can first prove you were outside of your rights. This is a very important part of the decision, one that will provide the basis for a lot of legal challenges of overly gun restrictive laws. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-26 15:12 |
| #15 Amazing. The language of the second ammendment is probably some of the clearest language of a fairly clear document, and yet 4 out of 9 SCOTUS justices can't figure it out. Sure gives me confidence in the rest of their decisions. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-06-26 15:09 |
| #14 Yeah, and you want to know about crime in DC? It's all about drugs. Secure the damn border and the crime rate goes down. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-06-26 14:44 |
| #13 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. 'I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. An interesting anecdote on DiFi. When she was Mayor of San Francisco there was a big Grab-the-Guns™ effort. I called the Mayors office and spoke with one of her minions about "gun facts" and The Constitution! The minion coldly informed me that DiFi was not interested in facts or the Constitution, she was interested in outlawing all gun ownership. The day we can exercise our Constitutional right to remove these cretins won't happen soon enough for me. First the traitors, then the enemy! |
| Posted by: One Eyed Ulese1266 2008-06-26 14:43 |
| #12 I keep wondering why the people of Zimbabwe don't get rid of Mugabe or why the people of Myanmar don't get rid of the generals who shot their monks and would not allow international relief workers to help them after their cyclone. Then I think, oh, right...their constitutions don't give them the right to bear arms. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-06-26 14:42 |
| #11 I dont like this decision any more than I like the Gitmo one. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-06-26 14:40 |
| #10 I just talked to a local in DC. He approved but there is no indication how this is going to affect the horrendous crime there. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2008-06-26 14:37 |
| #9 She valued Plessey and Dred Scott quite a bit too. But she'll get over it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-26 14:28 |
| #8 'I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window...' Wow. Just wow. "Precedent" trumps a Constitutional amendment in her world? |
| Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Spart5363 2008-06-26 13:45 |
| #7 Best comment: "This 157 page SCOTUS decision is going to be argued worse than if you put 1000 Civil War buffs in a room and asked them to decide how Lee could have won at Gettysburg." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-26 13:20 |
| #6 we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation� � in other words, for self-defense. Wrong, it was based upon keeping those who are entrusted with government in line. This takes away from the intent of the founders to give the people the means to alter or abolish that government which becomes destructive of their rights. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-26 13:11 |
| #5 Way Kool... Ima glad the court ruled that the US Constitution was OK with them. Leftist may see this as a victory of sorts.. all they have to do is get TWO More Ruth Badr Ginsberg on a Usurper Supreme Court and our 2nd amendment rights will be take away. Immagine the fucksticks that Obama will appoint.. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — |
| Posted by: RD 2008-06-26 13:05 |
| #4 So we can have guns, but we cant shoot child rapists with them Sure we can. But in case of confrontation, not as a sentence imposed after conviction in court. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-26 12:53 |
| #3 And it shouldn't have been anywhere near that close of a vote either. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-06-26 12:50 |
| #2 So we can have guns, but we cant shoot child rapists with them. Got it. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-06-26 12:36 |
| #1 Should be on Non-WOT, sorry - and we have about 5 people posting heh. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-26 11:57 |