Right to bear arms

[gallo]

It appears as if I am going to have to alter my position on the 2nd Amendment. Court watchers reported some sympathy for an individual right to bear arms granted by the 2nd Amendment.

My position has been that there is no absolute right granted to individuals by the 2nd Amendment. That right was granted to "the people" as a means to maintain a militia for times of emergency.

The question now is whether the SCOTUS will recognize an absolute right to bear arms, or allow limits to that right by state and local governments. It seems likely at this point that the absolute ban in Washington, D.C. will be overturned. It is not clear how far the Court will go in removing gun control legislation.

As I understand it, it is true that the ban on hand guns in Washington has not had an effect on crime. Neither has the legalization of concealed hand weapons in Texas. Crime with fire arms goes on, one way or the other.

In Texas, after the legalization of concealed weapons with license, the first case of the use of such a weapon was no billed by a grand jury. It was a case of a fender bender in Dallas. One large motorist felt wronged, jumped out of his car and ran back to the car of the perceived offender, who conveniently had rolled down his window to talk. The first motorist reached through the open window, grabbed the other motorist by the necktie and punched him in the face. That punch resulted in a broken jaw. For his efforts, the first motorist received a 9 mm. slug in the face that was immediately fatal.

Anyway, if the SCOTUS finds that Americans have an absolute right, even if subject to state and local limits, this is going to take years to sort out. If I am arrested carrying my legal hand gun in a bar, I might be able to appeal on the grounds that I have a right to carry it into a bar in spite of state law.

[Halofan48]

For the D.C. law, one could argue that since there is easy access to weapons outside of D.C., people could just drive down there and purchase a gun then bring it back and use it.

[gallo]

Quote by: Halofan48 For the D.C. law, one could argue that since there is easy access to weapons outside of D.C., people could just drive down there and purchase a gun then bring it back and use it.

But that's not the point. The question is whether the D.C. total ban on side arms is Constitutional. The law makes it illegal for an off duty police officer to carry a loaded weapon or to keep one in his home. Where I grew up, police officers were required to carry weapons off duty. A good friend of mine was a police officer and used to complain about it. When the weather was cool and he could wear a jacket, he carried it in the middle of his back. Otherwise he wore one on his ankle.

[Technosoul]

Anyway it seems that the right to bear arms will not be limited to those who are members of a state military, such as the national guard unit.

It simply means that you can have and wear a gun for private protection without anyone giving you permission to do so, that is your right.

But if you left your private property and then left public areas to enter another person's property, such a hip hop bar, they could make you check it at the door. (ban guns).

This is because you have a choice not to enter the bar but if you live in DC city limits you cannot really make a choice not to be there. At least it is not fair for a city to force you to make that kind of choice.

(ruleing is still pending folks, so don't jump the gun yet).

So, does that mean no more gun permits? If the consitution permits it, is that not enough?

Now let's say that the consitution gives you the right to privately bear arms for self defense (or for hunting and sports). Someone still must sue or take to court those that attempt to ban a gun.

But can a private business ban something that the Consitution says you have a right to bear? Such as an airport?

This whole "case" is not over by a long shot.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Gallo My position has been that there is no absolute right granted to individuals by the 2nd Amendment. That right was granted to "the people" as a means to maintain a militia for times of emergency.

Then your position has been consistant with the current case law precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, decided in 1939 in Miller, and 8 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts, who have affirmed and expanded on Miller. The only dissenter has been the 5th Circuit Court out of Texas, with their decision in Emerson... figures.

All other decisions, based on Miller, held that the 2nd Amendment was a "COLLECTIVE" right of the states to form militias, and individuals had the right to keep and bear arms provided that such arms was necessary for the maintainance of a well-regulated militia. Which meant that it was not about any particular gun but whether that particular citizen needed that particular gun to help maintain the militia... a rather difficult case to prove.

That means that for the last 70 years, folks like the NRA, etc. have been lying to the American people regarding their "INDIVIDUAL" right to own guns.

Alas, it's an ironic shame that, as the nation impatiently awaits the departure of 'The Worst President Ever', his biggest legacy may very likely be that his stacked conservative court will overturn the 70 yr-old standing precedent, and declare the 2nd Amendment as open season on Americans.

Oddly enough, the honorable Justices in their discussions all seem intent on finding that the government can still regulate gun ownership... as if they're desperately trying to hold the status quo while appeasing the libertarian right that the 'Individual' right applies and will prevent the most extreme forms of gun control... like DC's outright ban ...but not eliminate all gun control.

A reasonable compromise to many, I'm sure, but to my mind, a total cop out.

.

[Technosoul]

Is Washingto DC a state? If not then it cannot claim the same rights which were permitted to state governments.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul Is Washingto DC a state? If not then it cannot claim the same rights which were permitted to state governments.

That's actually correct as I understand it. Washington, D.C. is special. The Court could possibly strike down/uphold the D.C. gun laws and at the same time limit the effect of that opinion to D.C. alone. This case has come from federal courts without any consideration in any state court. However, if a case from the jurisdiction of a state is cited, Miller (307 U.S. 174) for example, then argument could be made that the opinion applied to all levels of government in all states.

Of course, the Court might decide that while a total ban on firearms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, reasonable restrictions on the possession and carrying of them is not. They will have to be very careful in how they word their decision in that case. For example, what are "reasonable restrictions"?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo That's actually correct as I understand it. Washington, D.C. is special. The Court could possibly strike down/uphold the D.C. gun laws and at the same time limit the effect of that opinion to D.C. alone. This case has come from federal courts without any consideration in any state court. However, if a case from the jurisdiction of a state is cited, Miller (307 U.S. 174) for example, then argument could be made that the opinion applied to all levels of government in all states. Of course, the Court might decide that while a total ban on firearms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, reasonable restrictions on the possession and carrying of them is not. They will have to be very careful in how they word their decision in that case. For example, what are "reasonable restrictions"?

I think DC thought it was reasonable because we have so many important people moving about in DC, form the President to most anyone else that a terrorist or extremist whack-o might want to kill for political reasons, or to prevent those people form getting killed in a mugging due to poverty problems at that location.

Needless to say allowing people to bear arms inside the Supreme Court is not going to "fly well" with a judge. Or inside the White House, Congress building, etc. The limitation was in focus on handguns and not guns normally used for hunting purposes. Which is odd because a rifle would be more useful to a sniper then a handgun ( opinon). But they are a bit harder to hide when entering buidlings.

Would a car be viewed as a place to apply such a "resonable restiction", if the car is your personal property?

I can imagine a lot of smaller cases about what locations are reasonable will follow if the court does not spell out clear details, if they word it to avoid such then they better gear up for a lot of new cases in the courts.

Hmm? Are places that were once reasonable when the Consitution was written still reasonable in our modern times?

Is it still reasonable to believe that people with handguns can defend thier self from a federal governing that has tanks and nuclear bombs?

Will "the south rise again"?

Sorry, some of the questions are lame. As you might have expected.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gallo That's actually correct as I understand it. Washington, D.C. is special. The Court could possibly strike down/uphold the D.C. gun laws and at the same time limit the effect of that opinion to D.C. alone. This case has come from federal courts without any consideration in any state court. However, if a case from the jurisdiction of a state is cited, Miller (307 U.S. 174) for example, then argument could be made that the opinion applied to all levels of government in all states. Of course, the Court might decide that while a total ban on firearms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, reasonable restrictions on the possession and carrying of them is not. They will have to be very careful in how they word their decision in that case. For example, what are "reasonable restrictions"?

I'd also be curious as to how the Court will attempt to define "arms", as that will indicate whether or not those ruling are hostile to the concept, or not.

[sdbest]

If the SCOTUS finds that Americans have an absolute, unfettered right to bear arms, it will do wonders for the U.S. tourist industry trying to attract international visitors.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest If the SCOTUS finds that Americans have an absolute, unfettered right to bear arms, it will do wonders for the U.S. tourist industry trying to attract international visitors.

Ah yes, the wonders of propaganda.


How lucky we all are to live in these wondrous times.