More "rights" for you

[Gob]

The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.

The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in the city of Chicago was unconstitutional.

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the 50 US states.

The amendment reads: "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."

Two years ago, the court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional - declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defence in the home.

But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.

A defining moment in the history of gun ownership in America? Or a symbolic ruling with limited practical consequences?

As always, when it comes to guns and the law, it depends on where you stand.

In one sense, the Supreme Court's ruling is quite narrow. It upholds the right of individuals to keep handguns at home for the purposes of self-protection.

The ruling makes it clear that this does not mean that all laws governing gun ownership in America are now in doubt.

But for the first time, the US Supreme Court has offered a clear definition of national significance of 27 much debated words written in 1789.

Supporters of gun ownership, who've long argued that this strangely worded and punctuated statement means that individuals should be allowed to carry guns, have hailed today's ruling as a victory.

The Supreme Court signalled its intentions two years ago, when it struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia.

Coming on the very day that confirmation hearings began for a moderate replacement for a retiring liberal justice, its latest gun control ruling serves as a reminder that the current Supreme Court is one in which conservatives hold sway.

In Monday's ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states".

Correspondents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.

The justices seen as the more liberal - Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor - voted against the latest ruling.

The case was brought by four Chicago residents as well as local firearms rights activists and the National Rifle Association.

The latest Supreme Court decision does not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, but it orders a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling - leaving little doubt that the laws will eventually be overturned.

The NRA welcomed the "landmark decision" of the court.

"The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision," said NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent proponent of gun control, said the ruling allows cities "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens".

The Supreme Court's decision follows a weekend in which 29 people in Chicago were shot, three of them fatally, according to local media.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that 54 people were shot, 10 of whom died, the previous weekend as well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and ... 438332.stm

.

[Lord Jim]

Three cheers for the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate that four judges apparently have serious difficulty reading the Constitution.

[Scooter]

Come on, what the 2nd Amendment actually means in a modern society has been debated by people with good faith opposing views for decades. You believe it includes the right to own at least certain classes of handguns; others disagree. Do you agree that it includes the right to own automatic weapons? There are some that agree, and some that disagree. Most people agree that it permits the ownership of non-automatic long guns (for hunting, etc.), a minority disagree. Most people agree that it doesn't permit the ownership of rocket launchers and other such weapons, a (hopefully very small) minority disagree. Obviously the first clause in the sentence (the "well-regulated militia" part) means something, what relevance does it have to attempts to restrict the possession of handguns? I would say "quite a lot" since it appears to put weapons ownership in the context of events in whch a militia might be active (invasion, insurrection, revolution, etc.) as opposed to individual defence against criminal activity. Others would obviously disagree.

I do agree with the majority in at least one sense: whatever meaning the 2nd Amendment has, it should apply whether the "infringement" comes from the federal gov't or from state or local gov'ts. I have never bought into this notion that the 14th Amendment made some parts of the Bill of Rights binding on states, but not others. And some commentators have said that the implications of this ruling, whether the majority realizes it or not, stretch far beyond gun control.

[dales]

And everyone knows how well laws banning gun ownership in the US have worked fo the past 80 years.

[Scooter]

It's hard to know how well they might have worked if they had been uniform and not varied from state to state, without any practical way of preventing guns from moving from states with more liberal gun laws to states with more restrictive ones.

[loCAtek]

From Wiki

In its original sense, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".[48]

In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.[49]

Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past.[50] There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.

[rubato]

And everyone knows how well laws banning gun ownership in the US have worked fo the past 80 years.

Actually we saw a huge increase in gun crimes when Reagan liberalized the gun laws, $100, no background check and no requirement that you have a business license and you're a gun dealer!; and then an even larger decrease when Clinton made it harder for people to get an FFA license and starting prosecuting people for transferring hundreds of handguns directly to criminals.

And there is the further fact that the 'gun-nut' red states hive by far the highest rates of gun deaths.

And of course there is the shining examples of the "one Kalashnikov per family member" rules in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.

Yes, that's one theory, although it's hard to see how a militia of one can either be "well-regulated" or capable of maintaining "the security of a free state".

[Andrew D]

Three cheers for the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate that four judges apparently have serious difficulty reading the Constitution.

I have only skimmed the opinions, so I refrain, for the moment, from commenting directly on them. But Lord Jim's aspersion of the dissenters is unfair.

From the inception of the Republic until well after the Civil War, the entire Bill of Rights applied only to the US government; nothing in it restricted the behavior of the States at all. Only after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was application of the Bill of Rights to the States even an issue.

And how the constitutional provision that "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" means that the Bill of Rights (or any of its provisions) applies to the States is not immediately obvious. Indeed, it is not at all obvious. Whether it is even intelligible is a matter of considerable dispute.

So whatever one may think of the result in this case -- with which I happen to agree -- it does not follow from simply "reading the Constitution."

[@meric@nwom@n]

And there is the further fact that the 'gun-nut' red states hive by far the highest rates of gun deaths.

The bees have gone to your brain.


Indiana has one of the highest if not the highest number of gun permits in the country. Gun ownership is through the roof and sky high. Yet, oddly enough, we are no where near Chicago and DC for gun violence.




Love from the red state gun nutters.

[liberty]

Three cheers for the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate that four judges apparently have serious difficulty reading the Constitution.

I disagree with you Jim the four to five ruling means that we have four unqualified communist /fascist that have no respect for the bill of rights or the constitution as a whole and should be removed for the sake of our freedom. As they see it, the only rights we have are those rights that think we should have.

No matter how one wants to see the militia clause the is no escaping the fact that main clause is clear: The people have a right to keep and bear arms, but why should people like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin care about rights.

Kagan is no better she is just another Communist. According to Rush she equated the NRA to the Klan.

[Scooter]

So do you have the right to bear your own personal rocket launcher? Armoured tank? Atomic weapon?

[Lord Jim]

unqualified communist /fascist.....Kagan is no better she is just another Communist.

Well, you're entitled to say whatever you want to Lib, but I have to tell you that in my opinion, that type of verbiage and those sorts of characterizations are another good example of what I was talking about in my post in rube's "failed ideology" thread.

I just don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful or illuminating....

As for her equating the NRA with the Klan, I'd really like to see a quote on that...

I've followed a little of the hearings, and from what I've heard and read, if I were in the Senate, I would at this point probably be leaning against voting for her. (Though I've learned nothing so far that would lead me to think a filibuster on the nomination would be called for.)

But a "communist"?

Please....

Come on....

[Guinevere]

What specifically makes you think you'd vote against her, LJ?

[Sue U]

The fact that Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing bloviators have convinced yokels like liberty that four Supreme Court justices are "unqualified communist/fascist" says a lot about the state of both politics and education in this country, and it's pretty depressing in both cases. And calling Elena Kagan "just another communist," while patently ludicrous, shows that hyperbolic fantasy has now replaced any kind of reasoned discourse for what I suspect is a sizeable percentage of the population.

Andrew's point is well-taken; constitutional law -- especially at the level of the Supremes -- involves using highly developed legal constructs to select among legitimate competing public policy alternatives with complex social ramifications, and it is neither simple nor obvious. A good rule of thumb: Anyone who tells you the answer is to "just read the Constitution" is either lying or trying to take advantage of your ignorance -- probably both.

In another thread I expressed my dissatisfaction with Elena Kagan as a nominee, I won't reiterate it here. But suffice it to say, it would be laughable that Jeff Sessions is trying to make her out as some sort of closet communist if only people like liberty weren't actually buying into it. Apparently, you can just say anything these days. Whipping "the base" into a hot lather is all that matters.

[Big RR]

Whipping the base into a frenzy? You betcha.

[loCAtek]

So do you have the right to bear your own personal rocket launcher? Armoured tank? Atomic weapon?

That's where 'well-regulated' applies. The populous, in the interest of self-defense, should be allowed to carry 'personal firearms'; the operative word being defense. Larger armaments are designed to be used offensively; not to ward off attack from an individual but to inflict as much damage on a group, such as an army during armed conflicts. The regulation defines the line between being defensive and aggressive.

[Scooter]

In my universe a handgun is an offensive, not a defensive weapon.

Alternatively, in my universe, a rocket launcher, a tank, and an atomic weapon are defensive, not offensive, weapons.

Based on the definitions you have provided, either can be true.

[loCAtek]

Granted, a can handgun be used offensively, but that is not covered by the OP.

Included in my definition, was 'personal firearms' meaning small arms that can be carried on your person. If you need greater personal defense than that, you're living in a war zone.

[Lord Jim]

And there is the further fact that the 'gun-nut' red states hive by far the highest rates of gun deaths.

Yeah, like that well known "red state" the District Of Columbia.....