2nd Amendment SCOTUS Poll

[frogger]

I think an armed revolt against restrictions on trans fats is in order.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Devil's Advocate here:

Assume for a moment that state restrictions on firearms are lifted and the individual right to keep and bear arms is upheld. Where does it end? Does it? Can the private individual go buy howitzers? F16s? Stinger missiles? Nuclear weapons? Hell, I'm sure the defense contractors would be tripping over themselves to sell these kinds of things to people, but where exactly would the restrictions end?

This issue is bound to come up in at least one of the decisions, either for or against.

If the argument is centered on the INDIVIDUAL assuming the rights and responsibilities of what used to be state militias, should the individual also not have access to military hardware? After all, a state militia was a MILITARY entity. They fought organized campaigns and battles in the interest of a governing body. That sounds like a military to me, albeit not a federal one. If the argument is made that the individual differs from a state militia, then we're on very shaky ground indeed and you better hide 'em or start locking 'em up, cause it won't be long until they start banning private ownership by default.

[frogger]

What better way to ensure neighbors behave appropriately than a little M.A.D.?

[jyl]

I chose the second option, allowing "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership.

If that is how the court decides, then its quite possible nothing will change. Most state and local gun control ordinances would probably pass a "reasonableness" test. Normally the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the government, in a reasonableness test.

Maybe a few of the most extreme laws would get invalidated, perhaps only partly. For example, look at the DC ordinance. In DC you essentially cannot own a handgun, but you may own a long gun. Could this be considered "reasonable"? Well, for home defense a shotgun arguably works just fine - lots of people on PPOT have posted that a shotgun is the best choice - so it might be reasonable to permit long guns but not handguns. In the end, things might not change so much in DC, might it? Especially if you wanted a handgun . . .

Same w/ SF, NYC, and a handful of other places with the most restrictive laws. Things might not change much.

As for the less severe gun control ordinances that affect the rest of us - the CA "assault rifle" ban, bans on .50 cal rifles, restrictions on full-auto guns, restrictive concealed-carry laws, etc - it is very likely they would pass a "reasonableness" test.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by tabs

"We are only doing it for the common good."

"it's OK to eavesdrop on telephone calls if you have nothing to worry about."

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by tabs

The 2nd does infer that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to bear arms.

sorry pet peeve of mine (and I know tabs loves grammar like he loves his spoons).

The 2nd *implies* that the individual has the right to bear arms. Tabs (or anyone else) *infers* that when they read it.

Good explanation of this:

Communication consists of a message, a sender, and a receiver. The
sender can imply, but the receiver can only infer. The error that usually occurs is that the word infer is mistakenly used for imply.


WRONG: Are you inferring that I am a fool?
RIGHT: Are you implying that I am a fool?


If someone gets the idea from your behavior that you are a fool, then he is inferring that you are a fool. But if he is subtly letting you know that he thinks so, then he is implying that you are a fool. You, of course, can infer from his implication that he thinks you are a fool.


IMPLY = to put the suggestion into the message (sender implies)

INFER = to take the suggestion out of the message (receiver infers)

IMPLICATION = what the sender has implied

INFERENCE = what the receiver has inferred

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by frogger

I think an armed revolt against restrictions on trans fats is in order.

I'm right by your side! now this is an issue I can get behind!

[frogger]

By my side? Get behind? Man, don't confuse me!

[jyl]

If you think the Supreme Court is going to say that individuals should have the right to own military-level weaponry, you have taken leave of reality. Sorry, but that is the way it is.

Note the interesting wording of the Court's decision to accept the DC case for review.

The question that the Court instructed the parties to brief: "Whether the following provisions [three sections of the D.C. gun law] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

Interesting, isn't it? I know we're just reading tea leaves, but the Court doesn't seem interested in the (ridiculous) argument that you and I and grandma with her bedside S&W are some sort of latter-day militia.

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Devil's Advocate here:

Assume for a moment that state restrictions on firearms are lifted and the individual right to keep and bear arms is upheld. Where does it end? Does it? Can the private individual go buy howitzers? F16s? Stinger missiles? Nuclear weapons? Hell, I'm sure the defense contractors would be tripping over themselves to sell these kinds of things to people, but where exactly would the restrictions end?

This issue is bound to come up in at least one of the decisions, either for or against.

If the argument is centered on the INDIVIDUAL assuming the rights and responsibilities of what used to be state militias, should the individual also not have access to military hardware? After all, a state militia was a MILITARY entity. They fought organized campaigns and battles in the interest of a governing body. That sounds like a military to me, albeit not a federal one. If the argument is made that the individual differs from a state militia, then we're on very shaky ground indeed and you better hide 'em or start locking 'em up, cause it won't be long until they start banning private ownership by default.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

I have no problem with reasonable regulation, the problem is who gets to say what is reasonable?

You have to go to driver's ed and take a test to get a driver's license.

Reasonable regulation on gun ownership: background check, 7 day wait. after that, you can have any gun you want. Put another way, it's none of my business if you own a gun or what gun(s) you own, just like it's none of my business what car you own. I know you passed the test to drive one (at least 95% of the time anyway), and that's all I need to know.

[Racerbvd]

Can the private individual go buy howitzers? F16s? Stinger missiles? Nuclear weapons?

Have you priced any of that stuff?? Not cheap!!!

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Have you priced any of that stuff?? Not cheap!!!

you're shopping with the wrong guys

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by frogger

By my side? Get behind? Man, don't confuse me!

I'm everywhere at once.

[frogger]

Just like tabs?

[frogger]

Is it fair to say that SCOTUS will take until Spring 08 to decide this case?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by frogger

Just like tabs?

Since slimming down, he's now only "a lot of places" at once.

[legion]

Originally Posted by frogger

Is it fair to say that SCOTUS will take until Spring 08 to decide this case?

That's probably a fair assumption.

I hope they spend the time researching the circumstances under which the 2nd Amendment was formed--and not procrastinating.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by jyl

Maybe a few of the most extreme laws would get invalidated, perhaps only partly. For example, look at the DC ordinance. In DC you essentially cannot own a handgun, but you may own a long gun. Could this be considered "reasonable"? Well, for home defense a shotgun arguably works just fine - lots of people on PPOT have posted that a shotgun is the best choice - so it might be reasonable to permit long guns but not handguns. In the end, things might not change so much in DC, might it? Especially if you wanted a handgun . . .

Same w/ SF, NYC, and a handful of other places with the most restrictive laws. Things might not change much.

As for the less severe gun control ordinances that affect the rest of us - the CA "assault rifle" ban, bans on .50 cal rifles, restrictions on full-auto guns, restrictive concealed-carry laws, etc - it is very likely they would pass a "reasonableness" test.

You're leaving out the part of the DC law that says ALL long guns must be kept unloaded and inoperable at all times. How is that reasonable for self-defense? How is it reasonable for such a crime-ridden city to tell its residents that only the city government may protect its citizens and no one may protect themselves? That's outrageous.

None of CA's crazy gun laws are reasonable at all. Any criminal who's willing to use a gun in a crime is not at all deterred by a potentials weapons possession charge for having an "assault" rifle. When's the last time you heard about someone taking down a liquor store with a $7k .50 cal. rifle that weighs 20 lbs.? Not criminal's first choice of guns.

[id10t]

jyl - The SCOTUS has already *said* that the individual has the right to own military style weaponry...

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

For those who say that the militia was the equivalent of the draft, and now that we have a standing army and don't need one, I'd like to know what the heck I had to sign up for at the Post Office right around the time I was getting out of high school... in the late 80s....

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

You're leaving out the part of the DC law that says ALL long guns must be kept unloaded and inoperable at all times. How is that reasonable for self-defense? How is it reasonable for such a crime-ridden city to tell its residents that only the city government may protect its citizens and no one may protect themselves? That's outrageous.

None of CA's crazy gun laws are reasonable at all. Any criminal who's willing to use a gun in a crime is not at all deterred by a potentials weapons possession charge for having an "assault" rifle. When's the last time you heard about someone taking down a liquor store with a $7k .50 cal. rifle that weighs 20 lbs.? Not criminal's first choice of guns.

The DC law says a long gun in the home must be unloaded/disassembled OR with a trigger lock. http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/DCCL.pdf So you can have your shotgun loaded at home, trigger lock on, and key - according to this, I guess the key can be tethered to the gun.

Okay, maybe the requirement that long guns be disabled would be overturned. So you can now have long guns, but not handguns. Would that be what pro-gunners would like? Not nearly, I think.

As for CA's laws, the typical legal test of "reasonable" is not if you or I think it makes sense or is a good idea, the test is usually a lot more deferential to the government entity's findings, priorities, and judgment.

My point is, if the Court decides there is an individual right but it is subject to "reasonable government regulation" or some test like that, then outside of a handful of places with pretty extreme gun laws, there probably won't be that much practical impact.