SCOTUS Upholds "Individual Rights" Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

but the state doesn't license parents.

That's because children can be made with unskilled labor.

...or very skilled labor! :)

Practice does make perfect. :)

Bad parents endanger their kids every day, but the state doesn't license parents.

Good point.

Children drown in pools almost daily in the summer....should we ban pools?

What about leaving kids locked in hot cars.....ban cars?

A head heavy toddler can drown in a pail of water......ban pails?

Also far more children die in accidents involving all of the above more than from finding a parent's gun and shooting someone or themselves.

I think people need to accept accountability for negligence.

I think people need to accept accountability for negligence.

Relatively proportional, it should stand to reason that responsibility for education and practical application receive equal priority.

Thank you, Shaun, for contributing one of the best statements I've read so far today. Namaste'

where well-trained police forces provide personal security

Hehe.

where our standing army is the pride of our Nation

...And hasn't Iraq taught us that just such a militia with personal firearms can put up a pretty good fight against just such a large and powerful standing army?

Adam, with all due respect if all the AQ boys and JAM had were AKs there'd have been no problems in Iraq. Unless, of course, they had training from the elite Wolverines.

This is the part you have to get further clarification on - the court said you can own one and have it in your home and it can be loaded. Outside of that, the governments can regulate you taking it outside of your home (i.e. Washington DC could rewrite the ban to keep guns off the street by simply adding the phrase "outside the home" to the ban)

While it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction to the "personal defense" premise here, the court said you do NOT have the right to carry a weapon for whatever purpose meaning the city / county / state could regulate that

I wonder if the claim that you are taking it to a gun range would hold up or if governments now will have to ban that to ban loose guns.

While it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction to the "personal defense" premise here, the court said you do NOT have the right to carry a weapon for whatever purpose meaning the city / county / state could regulate that

My guess is that the court will, over time, develop a "reasonableness" test which seeks to balance the State's need to regulate firearms for public safety vs. the individual's need to carry a firearm for self-protection.

I strongly suspect that an outright ban on concealed carry would not pass Constitutional muster, but reasonable restrictions designed to protect public safety (such as requiring a permit for concealed carry) would be allowed.

Roan, do you remember the uproar that ensued when a dishonest historian tried to claim that individual firearm ownership was rarer than commonly thought in early America? This episode (Columbia had even given Arming America the Bancroft Prize before it was forced to rescind it) should stand forever as an example of the innate leftwing bias in the academy.

I agree, it is in the interests of everyone to make sure guns stay in the hands of responsible citizens. People found in possession of a stolen gun, especially if it's used in a crime should be the beneficiaries of some of the misplaced sentencing zeal found in drug sentences.

I would absolutely agree with that. The problem has been that, as with most issues, the country is horrendously polarized on this issue. One group wants to work to find solutions and one group wants to keep trying "solutions" which have been proven ineffective, so we end up with no solutions. This decision is certainly a first, tentative, small step toward real solutions, but there's a long way to go.

I still think it is in the interests of the "gun-enthusiasts" meaning NRA and others to work more closely to find ways to deal with the gun violence that is gripping our cities at the hands of the criminals.

I agree, but I think it is in all law-abiding citizens interest to work more closely to find ways to reduce gun violence.

The "all law abiding citizens" include a large contingent of individuals who favor gun bans. Rather than find reasonable solutions we have ended up with "extremist" stances.

In truth there is no particular reason to stand so vehemently for "cop-killer" bullets and assault weapons in the hands of anyone who wants them; but that has been the position of the NRA for fear of the "erosion" of 2nd ammend. rights.

I personally do not own a gun--nor do I have a desire or need for one. It would simply be dangerous in my hands. I am thankful that others do, and I benefit from their gun ownership and the stability it brings to a society, so I am a believer in the concept of personal firearm ownership.

I would simply like the NRA and its like minded citizens to work with others to find solutions to gun violence besides--"well then go get a gun and defend yourself!" because that is an overly simplistic solution.

Firearm education from family and organizations like the Boy Scouts were historically excellent vectors for delivery of gun safety and training information but sadly these no longer have strong influences in th esegments of our population most likely to engage in gun violent crimes.

Perhaps volunteers and the NRA could make some inroads into those communities and use some budget dollars to support this type of action instead of simply combatting the "ivory tower elitist liberals" who advocate against guns on principle.

In my experience, a good education is better than the wiliest propaganda.

Just my 2 cents

Wow, I think I'm in love.

Thanks Griff. Do you have kids of your own? How do you train them?

My mother is the 3rd of thirteen children. My grandfather kept multiple loaded guns in the house at all times. There was never a problem with all those kids because they were taught, literally from the cradle never to touch a gun without supervision.

I do not. For now, I have to settle for going to the range with my friend's nephew.

Wheel: I was taught from the cradle as well and that is how I am training my kids.

Griff: You will be a blessing and an example to that child. Good for you!

Thanks, but here's hoping I'm not that blessing for a long time...

It is refreshing to see a Canadian who does not want the US to follow in their footsteps of gun control and other things. What do you think about government health care?

I personally have been satisfied with Canadian healthcare, altho I am pretty healthy and haven't required a lot of hospital or specialist care. We have medicare for drugs here in Ontario as well, and I'm really grateful for that. Without it, I'd never be able to afford the meds I need for bipolar disorder.

Rules in pretty much every existing gun control measure anyway, what's the big deal?

I disagree Jack. A blanket statement saying the right is not unlimited, does not automatically rule in favour of every existing gun control measure.

While I doubt that this decision will be used to overturn many current gun control measure, a detailed analysis will need to be done for each such measure before one can make such a claim.

I agree with Roan on this one. While a case can be made for a shotgun being used for home defense, I don't think much of a case could be made for an rpg. :)

Roan:

I conceded that. I know there'll be some haggling around the edges, but things like the VA purchasing limit or the TX schools/bars/churches restrictions seem to me to be pretty clearly in.

Three days waiting periods, ownership databases, etc., etc. None of those laws appear to be affected.

In effect, this moves the debate from the grand level of Constitutional principle down to the gritty conflict over practicality and effectiveness. Politically/socially/culturally that does two things: It takes RKBA off the table as a salient national issue [which as a libDem I think is a good thing] but at the same time it constructs an explicit framework within which gun-control advocates can work to construct measures immune from Constitutional challenge [although, again as libDem, I hope they don't try for a while].

iarnuocon:

It shuts up the whole "collective rights only" angle which many gun-banners have attempted to utilize in justifying widespread bans on firearms.

Yup. That's actually good for gun control advocates. It dispenses with the stupidest argument they always had and forces them to construct measures to conform to a "compelling state interest" or some other such principle.

As for future cases, I think I'd like to see the TX law litigated, leaving the protections for schools and churches but allowing guns in bars. That way they can shoot each other in roadhouses and let the clubs' insurance carriers pay the cost.

iarnuocon:

That's kinda what I was trying to say. Since this:

focus instead on practical measures that enhance public safety

Is my primary interest, I'm actually somewhat pleased about this decision.

It means now we can dispense with this idea that we can "eliminate" guns, and focus instead on practical measures that enhance public safety while respecting individual rights.

Absolutely, iarnuocon. Now the lower courts know there are parameters within which their 2nd amendment decisions will be judged. Any restrictions on firearms must survive the test that balances the practicality and need for the restriction with the protection of the individual's right to possess. I have no doubt the courts will hash out the details of this balancing test over the next hundred years or so.

But at least now that all talk of banning guns has been extinguished, we can start having the real discussion as to what constitutes reasonable regulation of firearms to insure safety and security of everyone.

Hmmm. Haven't heard from Barry yet? Wonder what he thinks of this decision? :-)

Hmmm. Haven't heard from Barry yet? Wonder what he thinks of this decision? :-)

Barry is probably bleeding from his eyes and ears upon hearing the news.

Nah, he is just trying to find a relevant article to plagiarize.

Barry has already come out in his usual fashion of taking the decorous straddle but his buddy Richie Daley is promising to fight hard for Chicago's gun law, parts of which are probably headed for the crapper along with DC's outright ban.

Bill 12.12- re: Obama and DC Gun Law---he was for it before he was against it.

Scalia . . . follows his normal pattern by first eschewing precedent that doesn't support the outcome he intended to achieve

I would have to agree with Scalia's analysis. It is hard to give too much weight to a case as precedent when the issues in that case were not fully and fairly argued by both sides. In Miller, neither the defendant nor his attorneys showed up to argue the case. Because of that, the Second Amendment issues were not fully presented to the court and vetted. Why would you give weight to such a case on such an important point as the interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Also, the Court's holding in Miller was very narrow, and was predicated on the lack of any evidence being presented by the defendant:

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.

Given this holding and the lack of evidence presented by the defendant, the Miller Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is purely dicta, and not binding as precedent. Scalia was correct in doing a thorough analysis of the history and meaning of of the Second Amendment in order to provide the first definitive interpretation of that clause by the Supreme Court since it was written.

and then goes even further of his "conservative" path by relying on a more modern definition of militia as opposed to his framer's intent version.

Please explain what you mean by this. I think Scalia in his decision went out of his way to show that the definition of militia at the time of the framers supports his reading of the Second Amendment.