U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court Rules 5-4 that Second Amendment Protects Right to Own Guns
Posted Jun 26, 2008, 08:15 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Updated: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun, apart from service in a militia, SCOTUSblog reports.
As predicted, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller.
Scalia writes in the decision (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog) that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for protection within the home, a traditional lawful purpose.
While the decision strikes down a District of Columbia handgun ban, it emphasizes that many gun regulations are valid. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia writes.
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Scalia notes that the D.C. gun regulation bans handgun possession at home and requires any lawful firearm kept at home to be outfitted with a trigger lock or rendered inoperable. He says the need for self-defense is most acute at home, and the restrictions are unconstitutional.
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
Scalia looks to history as he parses the words of the Second Amendment, which 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.” At issue is whether the amendment protects firearm ownership only for militia members, or whether the right extends to individuals.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
Scalia says the amendment could be rephrased this way: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
He concludes that a review of history shows the introductory phrase was not intended to limit gun ownership to militia members only. Instead it announced why the right was being established—as a reaction to fears the federal government would disarm the people. "History showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents," he said.
Scalia dismisses arguments that the Supreme Court’s 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller holds that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. “We … read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,” he says.
The court applied the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia, but did not address whether it also applies to state gun regulations, according to SCOTUSblog. Scalia said the incorporation issue was not before the court.
Dissenting from the decision were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley reacted angrily to the opinion, calling it "a very frightening decision," the Chicago Tribune reports. He said he was sure mayors nationwide would be outraged.
ABA President William H. Neukom issued a statement saying the ABA "is gratified" that the opinion recognizes the public safety interest in regulating firearm ownership and use. "This is not a signal to rescind regulation or ignore legitimate restrictions on gun ownership and use that are grounded in reason and practicality," he says.
Updated throughout the morning to add detail and at 1:27 p.m. to add statement from William H. Neukom.
Related Stories
- Bush and Pardon Recipients Share Trait: They’re Supporters of Right to Bear Arms
49 minutes ago - Wash. Justice Now Admits ‘Tyrant’ Outburst During Mukasey Speech
Nov 26, 2008, 06:05 am CST - Does Constitution Bar Clinton from Secretary of State Job?
Nov 25, 2008, 12:37 pm CST - Appeals Court Allows Vatican Suit for Alleged Abuse Cover-Up
Nov 25, 2008, 11:21 am CST
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by J - 5 months, 6 days, 5 hours, 31 minutes ago
MEANWHILE, anyone who has ever read the Constitution said: “Duh.“
Posted by associate - 5 months, 6 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
I still can’t beleive that it took 157 pages to affirm the existence of the Bill of Rights.
The majority especially (even though they used half as many pages) went on to say things that were just totally irrelevant to the decision but that are sure to cause ridiculous numbers of follow on suits.
I still don’t understand the need for quite so much dicta in any opinion. A clear and concise opinion addressing the matter before the court seems to muddy the waters much less.
Posted by Tracy Parris - 5 months, 6 days, 5 hours, 15 minutes ago
Finally, some semblance of rational interpretation of a right guaranteed hundreds of years ago. That it was such a battle highlights the strenuous attempts by liberals, socialists and communists (including many attorneys and judges) to rewrite history and misinterpret law. Throughout history, leftists have relied on disarming political opponents to ensure their ability to trample freedom. As the war of independence and stopping a robbery or rape in progress equally prove, sometimes natural rights (e.g. freedom, property rights and self-preservation) can only be sustained by force of arms. The keeping and bearing of firearms provides a counterbalance to those, whether they be government officials or street thugs, who would seek to steal rights from others. All the Supreme Court did is state what has been obvious for hundreds of years, but no doubt leftists will not give up their efforts to disarm people.
Posted by J - 5 months, 6 days, 4 hours, 12 minutes ago
The battle NOW turns to the First Amendment. The fascists and socialists are hard at work on gov’t regulation of free speech:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185&s=rcme
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080626e.html
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” a reporter asked the House speaker.
“Yes,” replied Nancy Pelosi, without hesitation.
Posted by 2CommonSense - 5 months, 6 days, 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
An outraged Mayor? When has some mayors/leaders really cared about the people?
Politics is power. Power to the people = less power to some politicians, typically.
Look at gangs in the news, BAD. Look even at police being gang members. Deterrence is the only option. Gun rights are central to all other rights. Australia, lost its gun rights, then a lot of other rights.
Bill of rights being validated now? Wow, better hope the 14th admendment is included in todays righteous society!
America needs leadership. Not just tapping a lower idiot, to preserve your stupid status and cover your mistakes and allowing of stupidity.
Posted by William Garland - 5 months, 5 days, 10 hours, 31 minutes ago
Were this opinion to have addressed another of the protections in the Bill of Rights would the ABA’s president’s reaction express gratification at the opinion’s recognizing grounds for limiting the right?
Posted by Jack - 5 months, 5 days, 10 hours, 31 minutes ago
Is not the controlling clause in the 2nd Amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . “? Does not the comma and the clause that precedes it mean something? If so, is this truly an individual right, or is this judicial activism of sorts? Is it unreasonable to read the 2nd Am. and come away thinking that this is a civic right (a la Saul Cornell), as opposed to a collective or individual right?
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 46 minutes ago
Hey Jack, read the opinion and your question will be answered. Also, if you had read the voluminous scholarly legal analyses of the Second Amendment publshed over the past 20-30 years, you’d see that the answer to you question is no, the “militia” clause does not restrict or identify the nature of the right guaranteed. The operative clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.“ The “militia” clause states *A* purpose or reason for the guarantee of the right; it does not define the right or state *THE* purpose for the right.
How about this - “A well-fed population, being necessary for the health and well-being of society, the right of the people to grow vegetables and livestock shall not be infringed.“
Does this mean that the only reason to be allowed to grow your own food is to be “well-fed,“ or “healthy”? So you can’t grow or eat food that is “unhealthy”? And what if you grow food not for your own consumption, so you’re not growing it to be “well-fed;“ you’re growing it to sell to others.
Maybe not the absolute best analogy, but you get the idea.
And “judicial activism”? Please. Only someone who has not read anything about the history of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and what those who were around at the time wrote about it. The “judicial activism” occurred in the past 50 years, by all those judges who wrote opinions that the 2A is a so-called “collective” right (which is a nonsensical term, by the way - how do you exercise or defend a “collective” right?). What other rights that are guaranteed to “the people” in the Constitution are “collective?“ Pure B.S.
Read the opinion.
Posted by Chris - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 41 minutes ago
Jack-
God bless you for pointing out that reasonable people can disagree. Too often dissent to the majority opinion takes the form of railing at the tyranny of the system and loses focus on the issue.
Fundamentally I agree with your proposition that the first clause was meant to have some effect on the second. A serious look at the events surrounding the founding seems to indicate a more civic interpretation of the amendment. I still think the decision came down properly however, given the weight of historical light shed on the issue.
A good deal of reason never hurt any discussion.
While all but the least reasonable would suggest individuals should have no right to possess and indeed use firearms for target shooting, self defense, hunting, or merely as a collectible hobby; I’d assert the polar opposite position that unfettered access to the most advanced small arms (corner-shots, vaporizers, etc.) is equally unreasonable.
Some middle ground compromise between a nation incapable of stopping a simple assault and a citizen bristling with military weapons patrolling his neighborhood streets looking for trouble should be our goal.
Healthy debate on the topic and steadfast resistance to name-calling and lowest common denominator discussion seems the best way to get there, and stay there, from here.
Posted by Justin Woods - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 28 minutes ago
Jack-
The framer’s of the Constitution were well-versed in the Latin way of phrasing their words. In the Latin form, the first clause would have simply been an introductory clause that sought to clarify, but not limit or expand, the scope of the second clause.
Posted by Jack - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
Justin—Thanks for pointing out that the Founders were well-versed in Latin and cautious with their words. And, I know that the prefatory clause is not the operative one. That is precisely why the prefatory clause could leave a reasonable person asking: “Why have it there in the first place?“
Posted by Jack - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Chris-
Our goal and that of the Supremes are two different things, or so I thought. They enjoy their positions contingent upon “good behaviour”, while we are “living in the real world” and can be removed from or positions quite quickly (or at least most folks can be). The Supremes are there to interpret the Const. and not legislate from the bench. What I am driving at here is that the wording leaves one wondering why that prefatory clause is there in the first place. And, since it is here, I would reckon had a controlling element to the meaning off the clause, lest it either be set apart with a period or semi-colon or left out entirely.
Posted by Mike - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
William Garland reminds me again why my annual ABA renewal payment typically corresponds with a donation to the NRA and/or Gun Owners of America.
Posted by JT - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 6 minutes ago
Jack,
Who brought the guns to arm the militia? It’s not as if the Continental Congress or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts armed the men at Lexington & Concord. These guys showed up with their own firearms. We were a nation of riflemen then. I am pleased that the Court saw fit to declare that the state cannot disarm an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
Posted by ABC - 5 months, 5 days, 9 hours ago
Folks, this election is all about the judges, as they have all been for approximately 50 years. If you want the kind of silly, yes silly, legal analysis by the Supreme Court that gave us Roe v Wade and other such nonsense, vote for Obama. If you don’t, it’s McCain.
Posted by Jonathan Edwards - 5 months, 5 days, 8 hours, 37 minutes ago
I always believed that primarily the 2nd was about ensuring that if the people needed to do either of two things, they would be able to do it. The first is to respond in a time of emergency. For that purpose, our personal weapons should be compatible with our military weapons, so we can be resupplied with the unit we join with. The second reason for the amendment is for the prevention of tyranny in our own government. Our founding fathers revolted against the King, they recognized that sometime in the future Americans might have to revolt against the government again. In that case, we need to be able to defend ourselves against any force the government can throw against us. It was never about hunting, target shooting, or collecting. You could throw in self defense as a third reason, I suppose, and I do carry, but I don’t think that was in the original thoughts. Handguns at the time were not sufficient for that, it was better to have a short sword. I really liked the comment that the 2nd does not give a right, it presumes a pre-existing right that the Constitution or future laws are simply not allowed to touch.
Posted by William A. Wheatley - 5 months, 5 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes ago
There are several points to consider in this issue:
1. A “militia” (as used by the Founding Fathers) consisted of all the able-bodied men of a community, bearing their personal weapons, gathered on an ad hoc basis to defend the community against criminals, against invasion by violent, armed outsiders, and against the tyranny that a central government might try to impose. Thus, the right is of necessity an individual right, for the purposes of the citizens being able to form a militia when they need one, separate from government control. Unspoken, but implied, is the right of the People to armed revolt against a tyrannical government.
2. In combination with Amendment IV, it also implies is the right of a person to defend himself, his family, his property, and his friends.
3. The right is independent from, prior to, and supersedes the Constitution. In the constitution and its amendments there is wording that creates or establishes rights (“. . . shall have the right. . . “ There is also wording that guarantees rights already possessed by the people, which the Constitution simply guarantees (“. . . right . . . shall not be infringed”. The Second Amendment recognizes the natural individual right to keep and bear arms and guarantees that government in the United States (local, state and federal) shall not infringe that right.
3. No government entity has the right to infringe my right to keep and bear arms for my own protection.
—Bill Wheatley
Posted by Valentin - 5 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes ago
Dear Gun Advocates,
Let me point out that we live in the 21st century now. Militias? Armed resistance? Tyranny? C’mon, let’s grow up already. The facts are that most people who own weapons, especially in urban areas, endanger themselves more than they do criminals. Easy availability of guns also greatly endangers our law enforcement forces and all of us.
The Constitution is a living document. It has to be, because no society can be successful if forever stuck with a constitution that is hundreds of years old. Constitutional amendment is much to blunt as a tool of policy-making.
Rather than fight over whether the Founders wanted militials to be armed (of course they did!), we should have reached a compromise policy solution. States, and even municipalities, should be able to regulate gun ownership on the local level. If you grow up in a rural area where from a tender age you are taught to hunt and handle guns responsibly, than by all means keep your guns. If you grow up in an urban area where police and people on the streets get shot on daily basis, than your legislature should be able to take the handguns off the Walmart shelves.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Valentin
Posted by Pete - 5 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes ago
Valentin - The “living document” argument is utter nonsense. What would you think about a decision that the “living document” no longer required a trial by jury, or the free exercise of religion excluded Judaism? How about a “living document” that decides that warrantless wiretaps of US citizens are OK because the world has changed.
The Constitution provides a procedure for amendment, and it does not say that a majority of the Court can change the Constitution whenever they feel like it. If you don’t like the Second Amendment, amend the Constitution.
Posted by Clyde - 5 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
No honest lawyer could believe the “milita” interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Constitution IS a living document, in that it contains a mechanism for its amendment. If you don’t like what it says, amend it. But let’s not play pretend about what it says because it contains an UNPOPULAR RIGHT that does not fit into your utopian (read “urban elite”) wordview. The constitution exists to protect unpopular rights, ESPECIALLY when they come under assault by bandwagon majorities.
Valentin’s suggestion that our rights should be scaled back because “armed resistance” and “tyranny” are not currently occuring/necessary is specious. The same logic supports obliterating every individual right in the constitution. There is no tyranny BECAUSE we have these rights.
Further, when is the last time you stood in the DMV for 4 hours to renew your license. In the face of such government incompetence (any lawyer knows there are many other examples), do you really want to give away your ability to defend yourself and your family to the GOVERNMENT? Are you kidding?
Posted by Kevin - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 59 minutes ago
Dear Valentin -
For every person who thinks that there exists no possibility of future government tyranny, that no need exists to arm oneself ‘just in case’, I buy one extra weapon. Because if it ever *does* happen, and you show up at my front door, wide-eyed and disbelieving that the government you so trusted has turned on its citizens, you’re going to want to borrow a gun, and if you’ll stand by my side I’ll gladly loan you one. Sometimes it takes an actual event to open one’s eyes.
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 53 minutes ago
Well, thank God we can still use our pistols to defend ourselves in case the tyrannical government wants to take over using stealth bombers, tanks, smart bombs, flamethrowers, and nuclear weapons!!!
Posted by Kevin - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 46 minutes ago
Bill -
You’re right: after all, look how well all that advanced weapons technology has quelled all resistance in Iraq.
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 35 minutes ago
Yes, Kevin, and those Iraqi Dirty Harrys were quite successful at using their .38 Specials to prevent a foreign government from invading and overthrowing the government of their country, right? (I’m assuming Scalia will address whether the 2nd gives one the right to blow oneself up, or if only militias can blow themselves up, in a later opinion.)
Posted by MO - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 28 minutes ago
Valentine: Lest you think that tyranny is a quaint eighteenth century notion, need I remind you of the horrific tyrannies in Europe of the century in which we were born. For example, if Russians had guns perhaps it would not have taken seventy-four miserable years (a lifetime) to throw off the tyrannical yoke of Communism. Perhaps they may not have succeeded, but at least they would have had a chance. Our world is replete with tyrannical dictatorships lording over helpless, defenseless citizens. Grow up indeed.
Posted by Valentin - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 12 minutes ago
Pete,
I disagree that the “living document” argument is nonsense. As I said, a society cannot forever be stuck in the past. You mention Judaism, which has survived for millenia not because of its rigid adherence to the Torah, but because of the constant reinterpretation of the law to adopt to the current living conditions.
Of course I am not advocating that judges rewrite the Constitution every time they feel like it. Judicial power should be exercised responsibly and we should hope that those who become high level judges are by and large responsible folks. If a reinterpretation of a law is necessary, it should always be in step with society and its prevalent values. Abolition of a trial by jury would not be in step with our society. Giving localities the ability to regulate gun ownership would be.
Kevin, thank you very much for your offer to lend me a gun, but I’ll pass. I wouldn’t know from which end to shoot it, and I’ll be a threat to myself and you, rather than anyone else. Besides, there may be a lot of things I don’t like about what our government is doing, but objectively and realistically, tyranny is the least of my worries.
Forgive me for being such an idealist, but I believe that what’s holding back tyranny in our society is not the force of arms, but our ability to debate policy in a publc and civilized manner, as we are trying to do here. If you live in Myanmar, on the other hand, you will not hold back tyranny even if you have 20 guns.
Valentin
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 7 minutes ago
#24 - Plenty of citizens believe that George W. Bush is becoming a tyrannical dictator. So you’re saying…...
Posted by sb - 5 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 1 minute ago
I am surprised, even now, that four Supreme Court justices can’t read “the right of the people” and say “yep, that’s an individual right.“ Why would “the people” mean one thing everywhere else in the Constitution and mean something completely different in the 4th Amendment? Read the dissent, read the opposing briefs, read any of the anti-gun rhetoric out there with an open mind, and you will see the circles they spin.
What exactly is a “collective” right?? Do I have a “collective” right to a fair trial, due process, speech, religion, to vote, etc.? If so, I guess the government can deny me those rights unless I’m a member of the militia, too. Saying I have the right to bear arms as a part of a militia is like saying I have the right to practice my religion as long as I’m a Catholic.
And everyone who thinks that guns are the reason for violence: what about ski masks? Robbers have used ski masks to rob people for years; maybe we should impose waiting periods for sportswear. I, personally, prefer to have my guns as long as the criminals out there have them, because I know that even if I have time to call 911, I could be dead by the time the cops get to my house.
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 56 minutes ago
Valentin- I grew up in a rural setting where I was taught to handle guns responsibly while target shooting and hunting. Now, however, I live in an urban area. Why should the municipality be able to take away my firearms?
As Scalia pointed out, there are restrictions that are constitutional that prevent those who have proven they can’t abide by societal mores (i.e. felons) or those who would be deemed incompetent to own weapons (i.e. mentally ill). However, the Constitution secures my right to keep and bear arms no matter where I live. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.
Posted by Valentin - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes ago
MO,
Have you considered that if Russians did not have guns before and during the Russian Revolution, than the tyrannical yoke of Communism would not have been established? Trust me, those who organized the Russian Revolution were also convinced they were fighting against tyranny and oppression. It’s a good lesson at how good guns are in implementing political ideologies . . .
Posted by sb - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes ago
Valentin—I understand your opinion, and you are free to express it. I personally think they should take child molesters and cut their manhood off and stick them all on an island in the south Pacific. However, that would violate their 8th Amendment rights. Still, by your logic, I could do that as long as society decides that is the best thing to do. The Constitution, fortunately, protects us from the tyranny of the majority by preventing a majority of the citizens from taking away certain rights held by all but practiced by a few. And it applies to everyone equally, whether they live in urban or rural areas. Simply put, you cannot say that cities and states can infringe upon rights to vote or practice religion or to a trial by jury, because these are Constitutionally-protected rights. Well, like it or not, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution has yet to be repealled, and it applies to the states and municipalities, and it protects a pre-existing right to self-preservation.
In other words, if you don’t want to own guns, fine; I do, so keep your hands off them.
Posted by sb - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes ago
Well, that’s a first: I misspelled “repealed”. Sorry.
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 17 minutes ago
I’m far from a 2nd Amend scholar, so forgive me if I’m ignorant, but it seems to me like a fundamental issue is the definition of “arms.“ Nobody argues that the 2nd guarantees you the right to own a bazooka, missile launcher or howitzer. So why do you people think the 2nd Amend guarantees you the right to own HANDGUNS? I see no problem with restricting anybody’s maybe Constitutionally protected “arms” to rifles. Or, if you want to follow the framers’ original intent, black powder muskets. Because, sorry people, THAT is all that the framers had in mind when they gave your militia the right to bear arms.
Posted by Ashtar94 - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago
I understand the “protection against tyranny” argument: Although this law did not establish a tyranny by itself (obviously), it takes away one or our protections against a tyrannical government. If a law makes it easier for the government to establish tyrannical control over its citizens, that law will inspire outrage and opposition.
By the same token, I hope that those who ascribe to the “protection against tyranny” argument are just as outraged by the actions taken by our federal government that are making it easier for a future leader to establish tyrannical power over us.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 5 days, 5 hours ago
What about state and municipalities infringements (regulations) on gun owner’‘s pre existing rights (second clause) as an interference with the Federal Government’s right to call upon the militia (first clause)?
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 48 minutes ago
Bill- If we limit the 2A protection to just black powder muskets, shouldn’t we also limit the 4th Amendement’s protection to just someone eavesdropping on a conversation? Certainly the framers did not think of wireless phone taps or tracking devices, right?
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 5 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
Anyone that thinks thei lawful shotguns, rifles or semi-automatic weapons will protect them from any government is as delusional as David Koresh was. The “home protection against criminals” argument for personal weapons ownership makes some practical sense. The “defense against tyrranical boogeymen in Washington, D.C.“ argument does not.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
Andy the Lawyer, good argument for the people having access to mor capable military weapons.
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 25 minutes ago
Andy- the rifles the framers had protected them from the tyrannical boogeymen from Great Britain, are you saying that they were delusional? Maybe they had in mind that the 2A gives to the citizens the right to keep and bear the types of arms that are sufficient to protect them against such a government. Thus, nowadays the 2A protects our right to keep and bear nuclear weapons and assault rifles, right? Sounds good to me.
Posted by Clyde - 5 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 20 minutes ago
## 21 and 37: I agree that small arms not going to be effective against than the weapons in the hands of the standing army, but (1) it’s better than nothing, and (2) fighting any armed (albeit ill-armed) populace creates extraordinary costs to a tyranical government (in public relations terms, and in casualties—even if they are limited). In fact, some historians believe that an armed populace is one of the reasons that the US has not ever been invaded by a foreign government, even in times of war.
You suggest that the ineffectiveness of small arms against standing armies means we should have no small arms. This is ridiculous. Under this logic, if the seatbelts in my car do not help me if I drive into a lake or get hit by a semi, I should never wear a seatbelt. Ridiculous . . .
Further, you ignore the other (and in my opinion, more relevant) justification for the right to bear arms; to wit, self-defense against criminals.
Posted by JPB - 5 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes ago
Having once deposed a robber at Waupun, a Wisconsin State Prison, who was the leader of a small gang that robbed a large restaurant on a New Years’s Eve in rural Wisconsin, and hearing the robber explain why he was looking out of the back window of the car the entire time as they made their getaway, I was both surprised and heartened to hear the response: “You never know when a nut waiving a gun is going to come out of nowhere”. So from a hardened criminal I take that as an affirmation that at least some may be dissuaded from violent crime by that very knowledge, that someone may defend him or her self. Of course the 2d Amendment is personal. And no country has ever lost an unconventional guerrilla war against an invading army, at least in the last century, but you cannot fight without guns.
Posted by Dennis - 5 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 38 minutes ago
Trevor
While the minutemen at Lexington and Concord used their own rifles (as did many members of the various state militias), let’s not forget that Congress raised a continental army of over 200,000 soldiers and purchased rifles for them. My point is that we did not rise up and and beat the British because farmers had their own muskets. We did so because our new government created an army and navy, and persuaded the French to assist us. I am not against individual gun ownership, I just think this tyranny argument is not supported by history.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 23 minutes ago
For a reason to fear tyranny in this government, look no further than the four justices of the supreme court that just stated that in their opinion the Governments of the United States (servants of the people) have the right to disarm the people (masters of our government) thus reversing their relative positions and returning the people to a position as subjects of the government, a counter revoluntionary position . That view was defeated by only one vote.
Posted by Clyde - 5 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
Well put, Roger . . . I couldn’t agree more.
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
Dennis- thanks for the historical clarification. However, I believe that when the Bill of Rights was adopted several years after the war, the framers certainly believed that the right of the citizenry to own guns would contribute to both the mindset of the people that they would have some means of protection against tyranny and to the mindset of the government which would be more skeptical about attempting to control the people with force.
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 50 minutes ago
Trevor (#36), you’re right, and thanks for demonstrating that judicial interpretation involves line-drawing. This whole issue is not about the right to bear any arms whatsoever. It is where the line is drawn. So why is it SOOOOO wrong and SOOOO unconstitutional to draw the line at handguns, rather than just a little higher up, ie. machine guns, as it is right now? All of you people are just arguing about what types of arms the govt can prohibit you from possessing, not whether or not they can prohibit you from possessing them. THE GOVERNMENT DOES INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!! It is not an absolute right! You can’t bear a bazooka. This issue is about your right to bear handguns, and I don’t see that word anywhere in the Constitution.
Posted by Dennis - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
In 1794 a large group of settlers in western Pa. angered by a new tax levied against distilled spirits, rebelled against Federal tax collectors, firing on many and tarring and feathering another. President Washington personally lead (along with Alexander Hamilton) an armed force into PA in order to crush what became known as the Whiskey Rebellion. The rebels that could be found were disarmed, arrested and charged with treason against the new Federal Government.
So Roger, apparently some of the Founding Fathers believed in the Government’s right to disarm the people, especially when the “people” were using those arms against the Government.
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Clyde: “In fact, some historians believe that an armed populace is one of the reasons that the US has not ever been invaded by a foreign government”
And some historians believe the earth is 6,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs. So what?
Posted by Bill - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
JPB: “explain why he was looking out of the back window of the car the entire time as they made their getaway”
Umm, as they made their ***getaway*** Doesn’t sound like he was very deterred by the fear of a nut waving a gun, does it?
Posted by john - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
I’m with Bill. Muskets only. Now, I don’t really believe that but hear me out… If you’re a strict constructionist, then you must look to framers’ intent at the time of ratification. Trevor’s comment (#36) stating that using that logic, you wouldn’t extend 4th amendment protections to electronic communications shows exactly why the “traditionalist” or “strict construction” views are untenable. The Constitution is and must be a living document whether one likes it or not. Particular words and phrases must be reinterepreted every so often when societal norms and technological advances require it. Otherwise, we would have to pass an amendment every time something new came along that could be construed as an “arm” or “a document” (for 4th amendment purposes), or “the press.“ Would we say blogging and internet news reporting would not be the “press” b/c it is not done by printing press or it was at the time of ratification? Of course, not, we reinterpret those terms as we progress. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the constitution doesn’t evolve and at the same time say that the second amendment allows you to have the types of weapons available today.
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 13 minutes ago
Bill (#46)- of course judicial interpretation involves line drawing, and of course the Constitution doesn’t include the word handgun (much like it doesn’t include the word “wiretap”). But I agree with the Court’s decision that handguns fit within the right to bear “arms.“ Like john (#50) says, you can’t take a “strict constructionist” view and only give the words the meanings that the framers may have had in mind when drafting (i.e. “arms”=muskets; “press”=printing press; etc.), but courts also shouldn’t take away enumerated rights or create new ones on their own. Thankfully, yesterday’s decision did neither.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Dennis, quite right about the Whiskey Rebellion that and other uprisings of the people were put down by the governbment for better or worse. Washington and Hamilton were sucessful in their armed rebellion against what was then their government, the south was not.
Very often the simple act of the resistance to government successful or not has led to restraint on the governments future acts or changes in policy. See the difference in government policy after the miners strike in 1914 in Ludlow Colorado or on confronting armed groups after Waco.
Was it Jefferson that said the tree of Liberty sometimes needs ...
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
Dennis (#47)- you are correct that some of the founding fathers believed in the right of the government to disarm the people. However, the 2A was proposed by Anti-Federalists because of the fear that the Federalists, including Hamilton, would take such an action as occurred at the Whiskey Rebellion. Just like people have different opinions today, the framers disagreed on some points of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. But the 2A was adopted and ratified securing the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. The fact that the government has, in the past, disarmed the people does not make the 2A any less applicable today. If that were so, the government’s frequent violation of the 4A would have completely obliterated our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by now.
Posted by R - 5 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
Justice Scalia is a socialist, liberal activist judge.
What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t he understand? If it’s an “arm,“ you have the right to bear it - PERIOD - with no “infringement” at all. Because that’s what the Constitution says.
I have the right to have a bazooka at my house, if I want. Or to bring a fully automated machine gun to a city council meeting. Or to build a nuclear missile in my garage.
That’s what the Constitution says! My right to keep such arms “shall not be infringed.“
Scalia, that communist, says that “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.“ My response to that is: Where does he get off saying that? All such laws are obviously INFRINGEMENT on my right to bear arms. There’s no two ways about it!
Posted by Dennis - 5 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Trevor and Roger—It’s a pleasure to debate with two people who know their history. I don’t necessarily agree with you, but you both make solid, defensible arguments. That’s much more enjoyable than some of the name calling one sees here. Have a great weekend.
Posted by john - 5 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Scalia doing exactly what he rails against the “liberal” members of the court for doing in order to get the result he wants? And going against his purported “strict constructionist” ideology in the process??? No!!! Can’t think of the last time that happened…. although Bush v. Gore comes to mind.
Posted by Trevor - 5 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Thanks, Dennis. I agree completely (with the part about the sensible debate being more enjoyable than name calling, not with your arguments).
Posted by roger - 5 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Back at you Dennis, have a good one.
Posted by Clyde - 5 months, 5 days, 54 minutes ago
#46: I don’t see the word “bazooka” anywhere in the constitution, either, genius!
Posted by Clyde - 5 months, 5 days, 50 minutes ago
I love all you guys . . . Really!
Posted by Jack - 5 months, 5 days, 38 minutes ago
JT (#14): You are correct in saying that, “Who brought the guns to arm the militia? It’s not as if the Continental Congress or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts armed the men at Lexington & Concord. These guys showed up with their own firearms.“ The critical of WHY must be answered: to protect solely themselves or their community? Thus, I still go with the civic-duty argument. There is a reason “being necessary to the security of a free state…“ is included in the Again, read Saul Cornell’s clause. _A Well Regulated Militia_ for e a solid history of the evolution of the Amendment’s interpretation.
Posted by Miranda Hobbes - 5 months, 5 days, 4 minutes ago
Forgive my ignorance, but I’m curious. Is there any other country where citizens are supposed to be prepared to collectively rise up in rebellion against the state? It seems to be unique to the United Sates, but there are plenty of other free societies where people do not have the right to bear arms.
Posted by Barry Cundiff - 5 months, 4 days, 23 hours, 24 minutes ago
I was offended that the ABA saw fit to write an amicus brief in support of the DC gun ban and this article includes comments from the ABA’s president expressing his happiness that gun restrictions of some sort will still be considered lawful. No wonder the organization is accused of being political rather than professional.
Posted by David Gibbs - 5 months, 4 days, 22 hours, 52 minutes ago
Barry: I agree with you 100%. Although I have wavered over the past 10 years, I think it is time to vote with my feet. I’m outta here.
Adios, amigos.
David Gibbs
Posted by roger - 5 months, 4 days, 22 hours, 2 minutes ago
Barry Cundiff #63, I totally agree. The ABA’s amicus brief and the presidents comments were and are out of line and contray to the spirit and the law of the land. That’s no way for a professional organization of lawyers to behave and it is indicative of much of the ABA’s behaviour of late. ABA we need to check ourselfs out and straighten up.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 4 days, 21 hours, 29 minutes ago
Miranda #62, Welcome to the debate. The recent past gives examples of free societies (elected governments) that ceased to be free after the government disarmed those it wanted to oppress or murder-i.e.Germany in the 30’s and forties. A death camp survivor when asked what the world should learn from what happened to the millions murdered by Hitler and his minions said, “Never think it can’t happen to you, we thought it could not happen to us”!
The world is full of oppresive governments that would be overthrown if the people had the means and the will to do it (the will alone does not suffice).
Posted by John Adams - 5 months, 4 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes ago
What amazes me about all these comments is that no one has picked up that there are 4 idiots on this Supreme Court that would have read the Second Amendment out of existence without following the Constitutional proces for doing so, without regard to whether the plaintiff was a member of a militia or not. This IS the scary proposition that needs to be addressed by the decision, not whether we are more civilized today and don’t need guns within the city limits. Congress didn’t delinate geographical boundaries in the Second Amendment. Hence the issue is not whether Vladimir has a point about urban living. It’s what are we going to do as a nation with judges that feel they can override the Constitution to further policy agendas?
Posted by J - 5 months, 3 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago
We should all bow down to the ABA gods and allow them to tell us how to live our lives. And, the government is always full of the most intelligent, far-seeing individuals who know what is best for you and your family. They would NEVER go back to tyranny and absolute power—that would just never happen. And we should just hand over our entire paycheck to them. They know how best to spend our cash. Why should we spend any of our own money on things we “want”? We are all so dumb and small and the government gods know best.
Posted by Randolph - 5 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 23 minutes ago
Get over it. It’s hardly a secret that the ABA machinery was taken over by the Left years ago. Just another manifestation of the end of common sense in the country.
Posted by Miranda Hobbes - 5 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Roger #66 did not answer my question, and nobody else apparently can either, but really I am curious whether this concept exists in other democracies. I know in many others (Canada, etc.) do not share this right, and people do not feel especially oppressed or threatened by the government.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 2 days, 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Miranda #70, I don’t know the laws of every other country. In Switzerland, the people are armed as part of their militia with fully automatic military weapons in their homes. If we are unique, viva la difference. My earlier answer was relavent to your question. We are prepared and that alone may prevent a future tyranny. What will happen is unknowable. The Germans in the thirties were demacratic, well educated, wi th a solid legal system and did not feel oppressed. No one would have predicted the worst of what happened in the thirties. The people of Germany and the rest of the unarmed Europe were not prepared and the worst that could happen did happen and millions died. The history of the 20th Century shows that you were many times more likely to be killed by your own government than a criminal. That seems to be continuing into this century (see africa today).
Posted by Miranda Hobbes - 5 months, 2 days, 15 minutes ago
Switzerland probably has a well regulated militia where arms are restricted to trained members of the militia who are (male?) citizens, not like here where it seems like a free for all. Isreal seems to have a similiar concept.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 33 minutes ago
Miranda #72, Switzerland has very liberal gun laws and just about everyone is in the militia so they pretty much all have assault weapons. And, we are Americans we are supposed to be free (free for all) It is one of the things that does set us apart. We are soveriegn citizens; and we are all members of the militia, either the organized militia or the common militia as the case we are discussing points out (all - if you apply the anti discrimination laws to the militia). I agree that people should be trained in the use of firearms and we have a tradition of training our populace. I was trained by my mother and father, the cub scouts and the NRA as well as my stint in the military. The antigun histeria that has risen up has made getting training more difficult and unacceptable in some circles. That is not a good trend. I beleive you are correct about Israel and I think their gun laws are more strict than Switzerland.
Posted by Roger - 5 months, 1 day, 6 hours, 20 minutes ago
Sorry, spelling is hysteria.
Posted by Wyatt Earp II - 5 months, 23 hours, 37 minutes ago
I read the decision and it kind of makes me want to go out and buy a .45 Colt!