Tomorrow, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on whether private gun ownership is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, or whether that right is a collective one only. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has already offered the opinion that the Second Amendment does give the right to own guns to individuals; now it only remains for the high court's nine justices to agree or disagree. I know a lot of guys here have more than a passing interest in how the court will finally rule.

I wasn't really aware of it until recently, truth be told, but it's worthy of note that considerable pressure in favor of the individual right interpretation has been coming of late from liberal groups and legal scholars, and traditonal liberal opposition has been in decline. Harvard's Laurence Tribe, a liberal if there ever was one, went so far as to revise his Constitutional law textbook to reflect the change in his thinking. Alan Dershowitz, Michael Kinsley, Cokie Roberts, and Sanford Levinson, too. It's a matter of liberals being willing to admit the Constitution might actually approve of something they personally disapprove of, according to New Republic's Jonah Goldberg.

Anyway, a narrowly-focused rather than a sweeping, all-encompassing decision is expected, or so I gather. If the Supremes rule for individual right of ownership, it doesn't mean guns will thereafter be unregulated and unregulatable, just as freedom of speech isn't absolute and has legal limits. But it does mean that Congress and other lawmaking bodies would then have the heavy burden of proving a compelling need for the regulation in order to pass constitutional muster.

We'll see.

We all should have guns,it will keep the crooks honest....

A big piece of the case hinges on the comma...

The placement of the commas in the 2nd Amendment make it unclear which phrase is the modifier...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html

Kind of an intersting article.

jag

I have a gun. I have it in my home. I legally possess it. If somebody enters without my permission, they're going to get shot. The problem with the DC law is that it's an attempt to control individual actions. In other words, level the playing field for the bad guys.

Jd...

So, you feel the 2nd Amendment is designed to create an individual's right to bear arms, and not provide the right collectively for the maintenence of a Milita?

If that's your case, I agree with you, but looking at the wording of the document and the arguments in this case, it's not clear in the Constitution either way...in fact, the wording may lean towards the right to bear arms for the purposes of the Militia, not individually...

I think the make-up of the S. Court is going to find for the individual right here...I'm guessing 6-3...or maybe 5+1, 3...

But, stranger things have happened...

jag

Jack seems to be a walking encyclopedia, what do they say in The Federalist Papers about gun ownership? I seem to recall some discussion about this matter by Jefferson or Jay.

If we are going to parse the meaning of the comma and its placement, I have to ask what were the rules of grammar in the 1990's when they were written. Spelling was an individual thing then so is the comma signifigant.

That being said I believe the framers intended it to be an individual right. I also believe they would have allowed private ownership of assault weapons and the like because they were thinking of the citizen militias which successfully challenged the might of the British Crown and the homesteaders if the midwest who were facing native american tribes on a roughly equal footing.

That being said also, is it a relevant attitude in todays society. Does the Constitution change with the times? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Capital punishment is cruel and unusual today but clearly not back then. Freedom of the press and religion is as sacrosanct today as it was to George Washington.

Your thoughts?

At one time I had about 40 personnel firearms, of course I had my FFL and was doing gun shows at the time. Now I only have one. Will be interesting to see what happens!

Nice mea culpa before the fact, Jack. Just like Hillary suggesting that Obama run as Vice President while he is sitting in the driver’s seat.

The comma is regardless. Anyone who can read will find a plethora of historical records illustrating that there was never anything ambiguous regarding the intentions of the second amendment. This perceived ambiguity is historically speaking, only a recent attempt by liberals in the Democrat Party to revise history to suit their fundamental Marxist perceptions of the world around them. Fortunately, further gerrymandering of the Supreme Court with Ruth Ginsberg types is currently under submission, and where the history, the facts, will ultimately prevail.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled in several cases where the court recognizes the right to bare arms is an individual right. Our founding fathers understood this individual right as the same as all rights protected in the Bill of Rights. Samuel Adams said in the Massachusetts convention that “the Constitution never be construed to prevent people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Additionally, John Adams said, “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” Additionally, the author of the second Amendment James Madison wrote in an article published on January 29, 1788, extolling the advantage of protecting the right to bear arms, and scorning governments that do not trust people with arms.

That’s history, and still yet where the Noam Chomsky’s of the world continue to lecture that we must go down the perilous road previously traveled.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Our founding fathers weren’t that stupid, that’s why were different, and never should we apologize for it. The Second Amendment a “last bastion of freedom”?, yes. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

Day...I wish I shared your confidence...

The Court hasn't ruled on the issue in 70 years, and the last major rulings weighed heavy on the 'militia' aspect of the Amendment, not the individual...all the recent discussion on the issue has been at Federal District or Appeals levels...

And note your John Adams quote, "Arms in the hands of citizens..." well, that's collective, not individual, so is Sam Adams, "prevent the people"...not person...and Jefferson, with "no free man shall..." well, in the context of the day, 'free man' refered to an ideal, not your neighbor...those are all terms describing the "collective" ability...

I think Jack draws a good point in that there's no one sleeping easy, on either side of the issue...and I don't intend to be impolite, but that comma is the issue...it will determine if the right to bear arms is because of the need for a militia or in spite of the need for a militia...

I've read a lot of Supreme Court cases over the last 7 months, and there is no way to predict when the Court will rely on the text of the Document or the intent of the Drafters, or neither...I have a hard time thinking the Court is going to make a decision that would have such huge public policy implications, however, and also feel (hope) the individual's rights will be preserved...

Arguments today...

jag

A question for my friends on the right side of the isle:
If the Supreme Court upholds the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual right and strikes down the D.C. handgun ban will this be legislating from the bench?

If not why not?

I throw this question into this discussion because I hear this phrase "legislating from the bench" and sometime it disturbs me.

SOme quotes that may help:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson

quote:

Originally posted by Shorthair:
A question for my friends on the right side of the isle:
If the Supreme Court upholds the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual right and strikes down the D.C. handgun ban will this be legislating from the bench?

If not why not?

I throw this question into this discussion because I hear this phrase "legislating from the bench" and sometime it disturbs me.

It's only "legislating from the bench" when they disagree with the decision.

I am solidly on the individual-rights side of this case.

I also believe that gun safety and the responsibilities of gun ownership should be taught in public schools. This, as with each of our Rights, requires both thoughtfulness and education to use and to preserve.

quote:

A question for my friends on the right side of the isle:
If the Supreme Court upholds the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual right and strikes down the D.C. handgun ban will this be legislating from the bench?

Just as a small point of information, the D.C. handgun law has already been struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court. The Supreme Court's ruliing will determine whether or not that decision was correct.

No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, reasonable people have to agree there's a viable argument for both interpretations of the Second Amendment, and that there's no way for us to ever know with certainty what the founders actually intended. The Supremes, then, as the Constitution mandates, are charged with issuing a majority opinion on which interpretation is correct. When they do, that word becomes the law of the land, or more accurately, the word under which the laws must be written. So, in my view, a decision either way wouldn't be a case of 'legislating from the bench'.

Because of the ambiguity in the Second Amendment's language, this isn't an instance of the debate between "the Constitution as it was written and nothing more" vs. "the Constitution as a living, breathing instrument which can reflect current times and mores".

Also, the Court won't rule based on a list of quotations from the founding fathers, or the personal opinions Jefferson may have offered in his private papers. They'll rule based solely on the twenty-seven words that make up the Second Amendment.

Ya know, if they try to restrict us further the only people with guns will be criminals and cops. I don't trust either with the lives of my family.

Also, with the world the way it is these days I think it adds credibility to the right to own firearms. Do you all remember that big bank robbery in California about 7 years back or so? The California legislature adopted a strict firearm law, and when the cops showed up with their 10 round clips against a barrage of machine gun fire--the went to local gun shops and granted immunity to any of them that furnished automatic weapons for the cops to use in their defense. This is a prime example of "it's all well and good until something bad happens."

Any which way it goes, ya'll better stock up before November, I feel that the law won't be changed for the better either way.

I think that we have to look at the law in the context to the harm to the citizen. Is the citizen being harmed by the law against possessing handguns?

First off, the ban is for handguns, not longarms. Shotguns and rifles are still legal. Since the argument here is for home defense, and not for personnel defense, one could say that the law is justified, although it will probably be struck down.

A shotgun is the best weapon for home defense. If you load the shotgun with birdshot, you aren’t likely to miss your intruder and the birdshot won’t go through the drywall and into another room.

I tend to look at the second amendment as a guarantee for firearm availability under very specific circumstances: defense of liberty (a hedge against a tyrannical government), hunting, protection of livestock, and home defense.

I don’t think anyone here would argue that somebody needs to own a machine gun, but even the most bleeding-heart liberal gets squeamish when you talk about restricting the right to all firearms. Even if your head is in the liberal clouds, you tend to recognize that in some areas of the country, being anti-gun means being pro-hunger. There are still places in this country where people still use firearms to protect their farms and hunt for their dinner, although I would admit that they probably aren’t doing this in Washington, DC. But this law doesn’t state that you can’t own *a* gun, you just can’t own a specific type of gun that you probably don’t need anyway.

Naturally, some people will bristle I use the word “don’t need.” I understand that people don’t like the idea of a government telling them exactly what they need or don’t need. But let’s look at the home defense scenario in a different light:

I think almost anybody here who is former military or law enforcement would agree that a handgun is probably one of the most useless things ever invented. When the time comes to pull the trigger, you are too scared to actually hit anything, and the short-barrel design of the pistol contributes to throwing rounds off target. Essentially, police officers and soldiers have a hard enough time hitting what they are shooting at when they are stressed. A civilian who practices even less has an even lower chance of scoring a hit.

Note that some civilians who read this may not like what I said. You may own your own gun and fire perfect scores on paper targets at your gun club, but paper targets aren’t very threatening and don’t shoot back. If you want a more accurate simulation of the conditions, get in a car accident. Once you get that post-wreck adrenalin high, then go to the range and shoot. Tell me how it works out.

So now I get back to the harm argument. Is anybody being harmed by not being able to own a handgun since a handgun probably won’t work in that situation anyway? Probably not.

I have a feeling that the court will strike down the law. The court is concerned with the legality as it interprets the constitution, not necessarily the harm imposed by the legality of one firearm over another. In this case, the vagueness of the constitution works against the law.

SSG Big Tobacco

With conservative justices I have to believe the people will keep their guns. As they should. Plenty of other countries have shown us why disarming the populace is a bad idea. And we need to stop giving away our rights dammit.

quote:

I have a feeling that the court will strike down the law.

I say again, in case you missed it. The D.C. gun law has already been struck down by the D.C Circuit Court on Constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court opinion will either reverse or reaffirm that decision.

quote:

Ya know, if they try to restrict us further the only people with guns will be criminals and cops. I don't trust either with the lives of my family.

That day has already come in many big city's across America.City's with the highest crime rates.Proving once again that gun restrictions don't work.I would love for some liberal law maker ass-holes.To go door to door collecting guns only to see them receive the bullets first.