NCAAbbs

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

My only question is how was this a 5-4 decision? The 2nd Amendment clearly states that people have the right to bear arms, so the DC ban on handguns is in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, especially since other forms of guns (rifles, shotguns, etc) were allowed in DC as well.

Good news!

Awesome, where is my uzi?

Here is something I agree with Scalia on.

My understanding is that the DC law placed an ABSOLUTE BAN on handgun ownership by private citizens so it was the most vulnerable of the nation's state gun laws. We can expect each state NRA organization to sue in their own state to overturn other, less drastic gun ownership laws. Since the decision was 5-4, it may be difficult to predict how other state's laws will fare, but I can confidently predict that there will be a lot of happy lawyers in the nation over the next decade or so. BTW, I believe there SHOULD be laws limiting access to certain firearms and under certain conditions and that, as with a driver's license test, evidence of passing a state gun safety program should be required for new gun purchasers. A lot of new technology has been developed to limit the use of stolen guns which, according to several studies, is the largest source of "black market" guns to common criminals.

The problem with the D.C. gun law: if forbade the possession of an un-registered firearm, then forbade the District from registering any firearms. So, yes, possession was outright banned. It also required that any firearms in your home (which means they were there before the law against possession took effect) had to be either disassembled or unloaded with a trigger lock on it at all times, rendereing it not an arm at all, but a piece of useless scrap metal.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the supreme court's decision, there are legitimate questions that can be raised about the 2nd amendment. What does a "well regulated militia" really mean? Certainly it doesn't refer to the Natl Guard because their weapons are supplied by the state. So if a person is not affiliated with any gov. recognized military organization, do they forfeit their right to carry a weapon? Personally I think the the entire amendment needs to be re-written and then ratified to end this entire argument.

AT THE TIME of adoption of the 2nd amendment, there was essentially NO difference between the weapons carried by an army or militia and what a frontier farmer kept handy by the door of his house. Muskets (smooth bore) and rifles (spiral groove bore) were essentially the same for both military and home use. Today, the two types of weapons have little similarities except they both shoot bullets, and the differences are increasing.
The day of controlling gun ownership by non-military people is gone. That would have had to be decided centuries ago. All we can do today, amendment or not, is to try to use education and technology to make guns safer to keep around the house or when carried away from home. Many gun owners, principally men, like to "show off" the shiny new gun just as they would a shiny new car. I hope we will accept the need for gun training with the same acceptance as we have for driver training.

The supreme court's decision did clearly state that they feel there is a need for "common sense" gun control, and that they do not intend their decision to mean that there can be no gun control at all.

There has always been a debate as to whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals or to state militias. Do we really need state militias any longer? And when the amendment was written, were guns anything like what you can buy now?

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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. ”


my interpretation (plus $1.15 gets you a cup of coffee at McD)

'the people' have the right to bear arms because
'We, the people' never know when our government will abuse power and try to turn our country into a Totalitarian or Authoritarian police State.
'The people' have a constitutional right to form militias, with the intent of returning power to 'We, the people'.

I don't think it's too difficult to understand the wording/meaning unless there are other motives (power).

Also, I think there should be some kind of reasonable state licensing/safety process (the 'well regulated' wording).
But when/if we have strict central government regulation, the governement will know the citizenry that has the guns.
Where do you think a totalitarian/authoritarian governement will attack first?

The federal government destroyed the rights of free states around 1864. Since then we have increasingly been controled by the rich and powerful corporations. Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned of the increasing power of the military industrial complex. What good is protecting a free state with .38 S&W against M-16 and Apache helicopters.

'the people' have the right to bear arms because
'We, the people' never know when our government will abuse power and try to turn our country into a Totalitarian or Authoritarian police State.
'The people' have a constitutional right to form militias, with the intent of returning power to 'We, the people'.
Also, I think there should be some kind of reasonable state licensing/safety process (the 'well regulated' wording).
But when/if we have strict central government regulation, the governement will know the citizenry that has the guns.
Where do you think a totalitarian/authoritarian governement will attack first?
[/quote]

If anyone, domestic or foreign "totalitarian/ authoritarian government" wanted a list of known gun owners, the first place they would go is the NRA National and State HQ and seize their membership rolls.
The 2nd Amendment's reference to "militia" was that there was practically no U.S. Army at the time. When George Washington had to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion" in western Penn., he used two or three State Militias to do so. State and regional militias remained the core fighting units almost to the modern era. We all have heard of the "Tenn. Volunteers" who served so well in the Mexican War in 1848. Some New York units in the Civil War wore their own bright red pantaloons with blue jackets that made them look like a force of "M.C. Hammers" in mass. "Stonewall" Jackson's VA units wore blue uniforms leading northern troops at Bull Run to mistake their arrival for Union reinforcements. The "Dixie Division" and the "Rainbow Division" were examples of regional units in the 20th century. The fact remains that until the advent of modern automatic weapons, the guns carried by soldiers on military duty were essentially the same as those available to the average American citizen for home use and hunting, so the militia phrase made sense until the 20th century.

I have never thought of the comparison of the license to drive a car to the license to use a gun. Of course, one could argue that the state does not require a license to OWN a car, only to operate one. So... the NRA could argue that the state can require a license to operate a gun but not to own one :)

This is incorrect. The whole reason the 2nd amendment exists is because of the standing army. Read the Federalist papers, namely number 46. Madison made the point that it is standing armies that threaten the freedom of the people, and an armed population is the insurance policy against it.

If you believe that the government is a threat to take away our freedoms (and judging from your posts over the years, I think you do), then the last line of defense against those who would take away those freedoms is an armed population.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

Tell me, how do you think that such a government is thrown off? Only by arms. I hope to God that the need for that never occurs in my lifetime or any others. But if the time were ever to come, our only hope is an armed citizenry.

The British had a "professional army" and an empire around the world to keep it busy. The U.S. had no standing army prior to 1789 and very little of one until the 20th century. BTW, The U.S.A. now has just such a professional Army similar to the British model of that day, and we keep them busy all around the world as Britain did then.
If you think the armament of the 21st century American Army will have a lot of trouble with a bunch of NRA fanatics has been watching too many "Red Dawn" movies. Once they grab the national and state NRA membership lists, they will have "a make" on most of the likely "resistance members". The rest of them won't take them long to hunt down.
America's main problem is an 18th and 19th century education "system" that is totally unsuited to compete against the 21st century national systems of the rest of the modern world. Except for the kids coming from our richest states, and the richest school districts of the poorer states, we can't compare to the "average" students in 90% of the industrialized nations. Alabama has already reached its limits of what it can afford to do and is even now back-tracking to an earlier part of this decade.