Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Right (5-4)

[Vitalis]

It is great news for now, but I don't like the fact that it was such a close vote (5-4). It won't take much for the vote to be 5-4 against in the near future...

[Hirudinea]

Your right, Supreme Courts aren't constrained by the rulings of previous Supreme Courts (they are a force unto themselves), and it seems that you will have a democratic president in the coming year, so this could be changed. Also you have to remember as I said in another post licences aren't affected by this ruling so cities could simply make it impossible to get a firearms licence.

[Anformula]

I would like to be happy about the outcome, and I am, but it is ominous at the same time...

What it tells us, is that 4 out of the 9 justices will gladly disregard the constitution and thus the principles and rights on which this country was founded, in order to further their private left wing agendas. The question of whether or not the second ammendment was intended to be an individual right is ludicrous. Everyone, including Bader-Ginsberg, knows damn well it was intended to protect the rights of individuals and to be the "option of last resort" against a tyrannical government. So we now know beyond any doubt whatsoever that the dissenting justices are more than willing to place the constitution behind their personal left wing political agendas. That is truly terrifying, and it is terrifying to realize how close we came to losing the right that is the basis of all of our other rights.... Those four can kiss my ass....I wish there was a way to boot them.

On the other hand, if past practice is any indication, it will be difficult for the supreme court (intentionally not capitalized) to revisit this issue any time soon. They have made a basic interpretation of the constitution, and I believe this decision cannot be revisited unless there is a profound real (not political) reason to do so.

So that at least, is good news.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

IF I am correct what was at issue was what constituted a militia. {Was the individual a indivisible component of a militia or was a body of men in concert with a given authority a militia?}

We all (should) know exactly what the 2nd states. - It's a damn good debate. Imagine trying to take the opposing view?

[Vitalis]

I don't think it would be all that difficult for the supreme court to revisit this issue in the not so distant future. Think about it, all they need is extensive news coverage of some horrible event like a school shooting and a few highly publicized lawsuits by the grieving families.

Within a decade we could lose this right and the bogus polls they show on the nightly news would indicate that the majority of the brainless population actually supports the destruction of our Constitutional rights.

[Anformula]

I suppose it "could" happen, but it would be highly irregular. When the supreme court rules on an issue, that is supposed to be the final word unless there is some dramatic change in society that provides a compelling reason to look at it again.....

Maybe I am being ridiculously naive though.... After 4 or 8 years of Obama in the White House, who knows what might happen?

[tmp]

In order for the court to revisit the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be
another challenge to an existing law. How many of us would step up to the
plate ? That D.C. citizen certainly did and I'm sure at considerable legal
expense. This is what truly defines a principled person. This is what I liked
about Ronald Reagan so much. Politicians often have to horsetrade for what
they want but Reagan did little. Granted, in his later years after he left
office, and possibly attributed to his Alzheimer's disease, he softened his
stance on gun control. In office, even as victim, he didnt't bow to the
antigunners.

George The First helped the antigunners by resigning his NRA lifetime
membership I believe after Congressman Dingell, a Democrat no less,
referred to the ATF as "jackbooted thugs". This, IIRC, came on the heels
of the Ruby Ridge fiasco.

George The Second, despite all his problems, did gun owners a favor by
getting 2 conservative judges, Roberts and Alito, on the Supreme Court.
There is no question, and the vote proves it, that these 2 justices played
a pivotal role in the decision. No doubt, for good or ill, we'll feel their
influence on our rights as long as they live. If Obama, wins the White House,
let's hope the progun justices outlive his presidency.

Oh BTW, let's hope that Justice Alito lives an extremely long time. He doesn't
care for the law on machineguns either !

[LibertyOrDeath]

Your right, Supreme Courts aren't constrained by the rulings of previous Supreme Courts (they are a force unto themselves), and it seems that you will have a democratic president in the coming year, so this could be changed. Also you have to remember as I said in another post licences aren't affected by this ruling so cities could simply make it impossible to get a firearms licence.
I think you're right that this decision doesn't create a binding precedent, but precedent still plays an important role in the US legal system.

I've skimmed over the text of the decision, and Scalia goes into some depth to answer the question of precedent: i.e., are there any past Supreme Court decisions that have established a precedent that it would be improper for a current Supreme Court to overturn? He concludes:

We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.

If a future Supreme Court tries to go faggot on us and overturn this decision, it will be a flagrant violation of legal precedent. I'm not saying it's impossible for such a thing to be done, but it will be awkward for them to do it.

Of course most who post on this board aren't sheep: we need no one to tell us that we have the right to effective, modern weapons. We know we have that right just as much as anyone who wears a badge or a uniform. But let's face it: unless you're some kind of underworld crime figure who has big time connections, good legal weapons are a lot less hassle to buy than crappy illegal weapons. It's not that I feel constrained by the law; it's just that it's so much easier to buy guns in a gun store and order parts and ammo over the Internet than to try to make risky underground deals for weapons and ammo of questionable quality.

As for how this decision might affect future gun laws, I don't see much change there. It's certainly likely that other highly-restrictive bans on weapons in some areas will be relaxed, just as in D.C. The SC could have gone further, however, and emphasized the point that the Second Amendment isn't primarily about self-defense against common criminals, but about waging a guerrilla war against a tyrannical government.

The way I see it, this decision shouldn't be viewed as a final victory, but as a huge relief. Just think of how many headaches we'd have if the court had ruled the other way! We would have had to start buying up everything we could afford before new bans were passed, and then we might have even had to start thinking about using those guns to...make a point.

[shooter3]

Judge Scalia nailed it. He did a textual analysis of the whole amendment and contrast it with the absurd conclusions of Stevens and Ginsburg. The arguments are impeachable.

Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights is more of a warning track than anything else. There have been many grotesque desisions the past couple years, that literaly stole our country (the real killer was the eminent domain case).

Let's keep it simple, "Death to Tyrants!" Thanks to this case, we definatly aren't there yet!

[shooter3]

The decision and dissents; http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[Nickth3great]

Your right, Supreme Courts aren't constrained by the rulings of previous Supreme Courts (they are a force unto themselves), and it seems that you will have a democratic president in the coming year, so this could be changed. Also you have to remember as I said in another post licences aren't affected by this ruling so cities could simply make it impossible to get a firearms licence.

Something I've wondered about for a long time is how most people in this country would embrace a system that allows the courts to pass judgment on the meaning of a law numerous times, and yet at the same time are generally supportive of the 5th amendment. To me, it doesn't make any sense that people wouldn't want to give the courts power to judge someone for any given crime more then once, while at the same time have little problem with the high court judging the meaning of a, 'written', law on more then one occasion. It is in essence the same as saying "I don't care how you interpret or reinterpret the law, as long as you don't try to charge me for breaking any of those laws more then once." :confused:

[Hirudinea]

I think you're right that this decision doesn't create a binding precedent, but precedent still plays an important role in the US legal system.

I've skimmed over the text of the decision, and Scalia goes into some depth to answer the question of precedent: i.e., are there any past Supreme Court decisions that have established a precedent that it would be improper for a current Supreme Court to overturn? He concludes:



If a future Supreme Court tries to go faggot on us and overturn this decision, it will be a flagrant violation of legal precedent. I'm not saying it's impossible for such a thing to be done, but it will be awkward for them to do it.

I'm not to sure about that, at the beginning of the 20th Century the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of the "Seperate but Equal" doctrine, and sixty years later they struck it down, you could argue that was a total reversal of the previous precedent, but since it was in line with the beliefs of the powers that be it stood, if, in the future anti-gun forces manage to get control of the Supreme Court, well they could reverse this decision just like "Seperate but Equal".

[Anformula]

I'm not to sure about that, at the beginning of the 20th Century the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of the "Seperate but Equal" doctrine, and sixty years later they struck it down, you could argue that was a total reversal of the previous precedent, but since it was in line with the beliefs of the powers that be it stood, if, in the future anti-gun forces manage to get control of the Supreme Court, well they could reverse this decision just like "Seperate but Equal".


That is a good point, and I worry about the same thing, but I think this assessment of the second amendment is (hopefully) slightly different....

Essentially, all this decision did was examine the wording used in the second amendment, and rule as to whether it conveys a group "militia" right, or an individual one. In order to reverse the decision, a future left leaning court would have to have an excuse to examine the logic again, and come to a different conclusion. Since the wording is more or less timeless, I think it would be difficult.

What infuriates me is that the whole debate is completely disingenuous. The dissenters know damn well the second amendment spells out an individual right to be armed, they just don't like it. The fact that there were dissenters tells us the bad shape this country is in, and how the left only support the portions of the constitution they "like".

So, if things in the future go so far wrong that this decision is overturned, I think this country's slide to Western European/Canadian style socialism will be almost unstoppable. That is terrifying.

[Hirudinea]

That is a good point, and I worry about the same thing, but I think this assessment of the second amendment is (hopefully) slightly different....

Essentially, all this decision did was examine the wording used in the second amendment, and rule as to whether it conveys a group "militia" right, or an individual one. In order to reverse the decision, a future left leaning court would have to have an excuse to examine the logic again, and come to a different conclusion. Since the wording is more or less timeless, I think it would be difficult.

What infuriates me is that the whole debate is completely disingenuous. The dissenters know damn well the second amendment spells out an individual right to be armed, they just don't like it. The fact that there were dissenters tells us the bad shape this country is in, and how the left only support the portions of the constitution they "like".

Well as you point out four judges did interperate the admendment as not applying, change one judge, have one more similar case and they could change it, the fact is who could stop them? No one. I've always thought Supreme Courts have far to much power for an unelected body (a reflection of the Canadian experience there) and the fact is most judges are masters of reading things into laws that aren't written in them, so if there is a will to overturn your second amendment, the Supreme Court, with the right left judges, will find a way.

So, if things in the future go so far wrong that this decision is overturned, I think this country's slide to Western European/Canadian style socialism will be almost unstoppable. That is terrifying.

You think that's terrible, try living under Socialism! :mad:

[FlamingPope]

Ah apple sauce. Seriously how many of you could careless about the supreme court rulings? This forum is only possible because you defy the courts. Even if the supreme court placed an all out ban on firearms for the "individual militia" There would still be plenty of unregistered guns and people simply saying "lost it." Walk into any grocery store now and I bet half of the people in there will have firearms on them without holding a license.

[FUTI]

I'm European. I'm not even English speaker. I also do not own any firearm (legaly or in any other way). But I have an opinion on this. When needed it wouldn't take me more than a day to find a way to purchase a gun/rifle since it is centuries old tradition in my country. People here love guns. In the crisis time when crime and other stuff shoot through the roof and shit hits the fan, it is good to have one. That keep those stuff little more in control.

Lets look the issue from the other point of view. UK is one of the English speaking countries that have most prohibitive laws regarding guns as I concluded from reading posts on this forum. Forgive me for using the this simplification taking only English speaking countries in consideration. I'm doing it just to narrow the scope of this matter in relation of cultural differences (they will still exist as those caused by geography factors etc., but I find that people among English speaking countries are much more related then people from USA and China for example). Did that made it's crime rate lower then other English speaking countries? Hell no. They are I think on the second place by the number of violent crimes among those countries. So the less guns less crime is false. Also I have read a news yesterday that in UK there is a sharp rise in teenage crime with the use of cold weapons / knifes. They are debating among police forces what to do about that, since they have 18th murder among teenagers this year with knifes involved ( other crimes mentioned but no figures given). Teenagers (10 to 16 years old!) admits that they carry knifes with them on a daily basis in school (10 to 20% depending of the age group). As far as I know these numbers are usually 3 time higher. This leads us once again to the fact that most dangerous weapon is men itself. Knifes don't have will, guns don't choose targets, men does.

It is clear that problem USA and UK are faced right now have nothing to do with having or not having the means but that it is sociological problem since there is obviously a need for weapons. Society is ill in some way. Since I don't live there I don't know what it is that is wrong there. To be honest I can assume something based on the values that they try to impose here. Nevertheless I won't say that since I find rude to speak someone how to run things in its own house (which is also the very same thing that piss me off when USA do that here). You must clean up your house yourself....you have the pen and the vote, use it. Lobby in Congress or whatever. Point the story in the right direction, since when it comes to gathering votes for election, no politician will admit that bad state society is has anything to do with the way they lead the country, but will search (and grab for) for the lame excuses like "guns are to blame" (hell I expect to wake up one morning just to find out that birds are the bad guys that made the ozone hole because they fly to fast through the clouds :-P ). I wish you luck on that task.

[Jacks Complete]

FUTI does it again. Another top post.

You are exactly right that it matters not that you ban every means of killing another man (woman, child, dog, cat, wildebeest) because they are still available. Even on an aeroplane in these times of taking off your shoes and showing much ID, everyone here with a post count worth a damn could find a way or two of killing a few people or even bringing down the 'plane, armed with nothing more than pocket lint and a stale baguette to hand.

What matters is that we don't kill each other most of the time. And that's not because beating people with pillows is a slow way to do it, but because we aren't trying to kill!

The knife debate? I've carried at least one knife on me for the past 20 years or so, nearly every day. Into nightclubs, pubs, bars, churches, houses, cars, in fact, everywhere! I even brought one into the court one time, despite the pat-down and walk-through metal detector archway. Yet, perhaps weirdly to those who do not trust anyone, not even themselves, I've not stabbed a single person. I've got it out once, when I was young, to get a bigger kid to back the fuck away, and once when I prevented three kids from mugging me with a cheeseknife (I'm not kidding! It was a sharp cheese knife!)

I've not shot anyone, either, despite having ready access to guns of all sorts of types of them for the past 20 years as well.

Yet I know punks who would love to be able to "off" someone, but they haven't the brains nor ability nor means. So they beat each other up and sometimes someone gets cut. More often, they end up brain damaged after being kicked into hospital or the morgue.

Why am I so different to them? Self-control? Upbringing? Intelligence? I'm not sure I know, but it is the only answer... Find out how to instil a basis respect for human life in these scumballs, and do it soon.

[gaussincarnate]

The most disturbing facet of all of this is, as several people pointed out earlier, that this case ever even came to court. This country has survived for as long as it has simply because the leaders of the past had the maturity to respect the Constitution and the processes of governing described therein enough to put aside political differences in favor of stability and sensibility. Unfortunately, this time appears to have passed.

At least we can take solace in the fact that the only justice that appears to be in danger of keeling over within the next fifteen minutes is Stevens (he is 88, after all). Even if Obama wins, he will not want to risk completely alienating the pro-gun crowd. As one of the most intelligent people I ever knew pointed out, politicians are great at what they do: they get themselves elected. After that, they are worthless. If he loses all of the pro-gun (or at least "anti-anti-gun") people, he will be taking a rather large gamble and putting his second-term chances at risk.

On the bright side, most justices, even the most liberal amongst them have at least some respect for stare decisis, which should protect our right for at least a while longer.

Is it just me, or is it rather amusing that it took Alzheimers for Reagan and a bullet through the brain for Brady to soften their stance on gun control? The moral: brain damage and severe neurological complications may cause people to become more liberal.

By the way, Jacks Complete, in my humble opinion, stale smores are more effective stabbing weapons than baguettes.