US Supreme Court uphold 2nd Amendment

[Blind_Io]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.


Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
(Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.
Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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."
The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.
"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.
A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.
Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.
This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.
In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.
"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said.
Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.
"There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.
On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.
Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.
While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

Discuss.

[klutch]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Discuss.

No.












Fine....



As cool as handguns are to play with and shoot shit up at the range, I'm wholeheartedly in favour of a ban on handguns for civilian use. Lookit Canada; we have a far higher ratio of gun ownership, but its mainly shottys and rifles - then take a look at our death-by-gun rate. Nearly all the incidents are from handguns, and almost all of those handguns are coming up from the US, mostly through Detroit-Windsor and here in Vancouver from Asia and Washington. Shotguns and rifles have a use, other than killing people, and they're notoriously difficult to conceal, hence their legality.

I say this all with a touch of hypocricy, as I'm soon to be issued one of them fancy Beretta PX9's...

[klutch]

Now, blind, its your turn to get all libertarian on us...then the guys from Europe will come in and call the Yanks a bunch of gun nuts, followed by you and No-Boss spouting statistics about gun use and...

[Blind_Io]

While it's true that I think gun ownership reduces crime rates, this is a matter of legality - not morality. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.

For those of you who aren't from the US, the exact wording of the second amendment is:

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.

While this could devolve into another pro-gun vs anti-gun debate and then into a US vs The World debate, I would like to keep this one on the topic of the ruling itself and the ramifications both in DC and the rest of the nation. Remember, this is a domestic political issue, so let's leave the rest of the world out of it.

I hope that we can all accept that firearms are a way of life in the United States and as much a part of our culture as baseball and pickup trucks - and that this is not going to change any time soon.

[klutch]

Yes, but certainly you realize the implications of an increasinly partisan Supreme Court and the effects it has on its rulings.


And in terms of the Constitution, I find it amazing you guys still cling to that outdated rag as much as you do; I'm even more amazed you interpret it like Pat Robertson interprets Genesis.






And the shit-pot is stirred....

[Blind_Io]

The Constitution is not a static document - there is a process for amending the text for a changing world and this has been done many times. The process is, by design, long and difficult to prevent any one party or group from easily manipulating the foundation of the government.

For example, if one wanted to outlaw gun ownership entirely they could do it, but it would take an amendment to the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Founding Fathers of the United States understood that the Constitution and the nation itself would have to adapt and change. This is reflected in their language and the rather short length of the document. The entire structure of our government is succinctly encompassed in this single document. Why would we discard something that has served us so well for over 200 years and been the foundation for a number of other governments around the world?

But I digress. Why we continue to use the Constitution is not the issue, we use to decide matters such as this because that is the way the Constitution was written and we have neither the reason nor the desire to dissolve our current government and form a new one simply because the Constitution is "old." We would have no need to do so, in any case because of the built-in ability to amend the document.

On a more personal note, stop trying to be a troll. I have done you the service of responding in a reasonable and civilized manner and did not stoop to calling The Constitution of Canada an "out dated rag" or liking the highest court in Canada to a pompous evangelist. Please stop trying to incite a flamewar so we can discuss a monumental political and legal decision like adults.

[argatoga]

I agree the constitution is an important check on our government, it limits what it can and cannot do and it does this in an easy to understand and public manner.

[klutch]

Not trying to be a troll, just make things interesting. I tend to use colorfull language this late at night with essay deadlines looming; trying to keep my fingers working.


But....if you think the constitution was intended to be interpreted as loosely as you say, why so steadfastly strict on your interpretation of the 'right' to bear arms?

[Blind_Io]

I never said it was to be loosely interpreted, simply interpreted within it's own established scope.

I stand by the right to bear arms because that right is granted to me in the Constitution, until that document is amended to remove that right I will oppose any unconstitutional attempts to abridge that right.

The way I read the Second Amendment is this: Because a well trained and disciplined militia is necessary to secure the nation's territory, the citizens shall be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Remember that the US was technically a territory in revolt against the crown and one of our major grievances was the quartering of royal troops in colonial homes. The idea behind the right to bear arms was initially to give the people the means to rise up against an oppressive government. The Founding Fathers didn't know how the democratic experiment would turn out and they wanted to guarantee the people the ability to rise up again against unjust rule.

Now is the time the nay-sayers pop in and start saying that such an uprising could never happen because the military would crush such an attempt. I disagree. I grew up on military bases all my life, my grandfather was a Lt. Colonel, my father a Colonel and my brother is currently a Lieutenant. If the population rose up in rebellion even the military would have a very hard time keeping everyone under control, assuming you could convince them all to fire on their neighbors and relatives.

Finally, there is the cultural aspect. The gun is an important part of US history and our collective culture. It was with the gun that we won our independence, it was with the gun that we carved our way west. The gun is as much a symbol of our nation as the flag, and like it or not, Americans love their guns. Most the anti-gun movement comes from the coastal population centers. Once you get away from these areas you find a different attitude. People don't wait for someone else to come help them or pass a law, they take care of themselves. There is a more "can-do" attitude and a sense of independence. This goes back to when ranches were isolated and days or weeks away from the nearest town or railroad. As much as we lament the loss of this sense of independence, there are many places where it is alive and well. What does this have to do with anything? Think of a person who started this sense of independence and self reliance. A cowboy, a rancher, a miner, whomever he or she is, they probably have a revolver or a lever-action winchester not far away. We may not all be riding fence or trying to carve a ranch out of nothing, but we still want to be connected to that way of life. I own a Henry .44 Magnum lever-action rifle and a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver - and every time I pick up that rifle or pistol I think about what it must have been like for the cowboy who spent a year's wages on it; the man who prized it above all other possessions, not because of it's cost, but because of what it meant to have. It was a tool, a means of defense, a symbol of status, and ultimately a symbol of a free man. This idea is not new, I can't remember if it was the Celts or the Goths, but they were known for carrying a single-bladed knife that was both a tool and a weapon. Carrying this long knife wasn't just for protection, but showed the owner to be a free man, as slaves were not permitted to have weapons.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by klutch

But....if you think the constitution was intended to be interpreted as loosely as you say, why so steadfastly strict on your interpretation of the 'right' to bear arms?

It's not interpreted loosely it is extensible. As Blind Io said, the US's founding fathers knew that things changed over time and the constitution will need to be changed.

Even though I have never owned a gun I support the right. If there where no guns in the late 1700s America would not have been able to declare independence. It is hard for an oppressive government to crack down on people with guns.

[essentialatom]

You're all a bunch of gun nuts.

[/obligatory British comment]

[klutch]

If the military would find it so hard to fire on its own members' families, why even bother arming the population?


That writ of the constitution was intended for what you say it was...arming militias to fend off an imperial power propping up an oppresive government. You now have your own government with no imperial intervention from a foreign power. You have no need for militias, and no real need for guns; none of us really do. And please don't rely on the "we need guns to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments" argument; you know just as well as I do that ain't valid, and hasn't been for 200 years. Especially not to justify ownership of handguns.

[argatoga]

Militias are still handy. When you and your warmongering comrades decided to invade us peace loving Americans our militias will defiantly slow down the advance. A well armed nation is a bitch to conquer.

[Blind_Io]

You have it backwards, we didn't arm the people so we could have armed militias - we armed the people because of armed militias. The militias (the military of the day) are necessary to secure the borders from invasion - the armed populace is there to ensure the militias are not used against the population.

The reason we have the right to bear arms is that, although it would be difficult to convince the military to fire on Americans, it would be fairly easy to convince the military to use their presence of arms to terrorize and manipulate the population through fear. You can't do that to an armed population, or at least you can't do it easily.

Anyway, you must have missed that whole bit about the gun being a symbol and cultural icon.

Point of Interest: After the fall of the USSR, the US allowed many Soviet military leaders into the US in exchange for intelligence. Once general revealed that the greatest fear the Soviets faced when planning conventional-warfare scenarios of a ground invasion of the US was that of the armed population.

[klutch]

A militarily well-armed nation with projection capabilities is a bitch to conquer. A poorly trained contingent of hicks clinging to their 1911's and a consitutional right won't do much to fend off a Russian Bear. The Russians never seriously planned a ground invasion; not before they turned the CONUS into a field of glass, anyways.


As far as 'cultural remnants' go, I'd be willing to let handgun ownership slide into the history books, along with public stoning and slavery.

[Blind_Io]

Well, you are Canadian, so go for it.

And if you doubt the effectiveness of an armed insurgency take a look at Afghanistan (both the US and Soviet campaigns), Vietnam, and Iraq. No conquering nations wants to destroy the land and resources they are trying to take over - and the USSR did have plans to invade the US in conventional warfare, with the help of tactical nukes and following a strategic nuclear strike. The US had the same plans for the USSR, we both had contingencies on top of contingencies.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

You have it backwards, we didn't arm the people so we could have armed militias - we armed the people because of armed militias. The militias (the military of the day) are necessary to secure the borders from invasion - the armed populace is there to ensure the militias are not used against the population.

I always thought militias were a civilian armed force opposed to a standing army which was the standard at the time in The Western World.

Originally Posted by klutch

A militarily well-armed nation with projection capabilities is a bitch to conquer. A poorly trained contingent of hicks clinging to their 1911's and a consitutional right won't do much to fend off a Russian Bear. The Russians never seriously planned a ground invasion; not before they turned the CONUS into a field of glass, anyways.

I wouldn't dismiss a couple hicks with a rifle so easily. Even with all our fancy technology invading and controlling a city is not easy, and it only takes one bullet to kill or seriously injure a man. Also those hicks are highly likely to have had a lot of practice with those rifles as there is nothing better to do in the South on a farm.

Oh and as for the USSR, don't forget about MAD.

[klutch]

I thought we were going to try to keep this one on topic...I'm not trying to argue against gun ownership; I'm far from the type of person that wants to get rid of them alltogether. I used to love shooting cans and birds as a kid - my dad had/has a 'collection' of at least 5 guns at any given time. Handguns are an entirely different animal. So...


"Handguns, the Constitution and You"

[Blind_Io]

Not exactly, argatoga. As a member of a militia, one can be called to service so they are "citizen soldiers" much like today's National Guard. The US had no standing army at the time of the Constitution's drafting and there was no plan to form one or a standing Navy at the time. Not everyone with a firearm was a member of the militia.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by klutch

I thought we were going to try to keep this one on topic...I'm not trying to argue against gun ownership; I'm far from the type of person that wants to get rid of them alltogether. I used to love shooting cans and birds as a kid - my dad had/has a 'collection' of at least 5 guns at any given time. Handguns are an entirely different animal. So...


"Handguns, the Constitution and You"

I like to believe in the idea of a living thread topic. At least when we aren't in the Gear forum.