Supreme Court punts on Second Amendment case for now
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports that the Supreme Court took no action today on the much-watched D.C. gun rights case:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced no action on a new case testing the meaning of the Second Amendment — an issue the Court has not considered in 68 years. The Orders List contained no mention of either the District of Columbia’s appeal (07-290) or a cross-petition by challengers to the city’s flat ban on private possession of handguns (07-335). The next date for possible action on these cases is likely to be Nov. 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference of the Justices set for Tuesday, Nov. 20.
The Court, of course, does not explain inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review — especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial. The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning — that is, whether it guarantees an individual right to have a handgun for private use, at least in one’s home — and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced. Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer as to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference.
***
The Rocky Mountain News editorial board boils down the case and the stakes:
The district’s firearms ban gives the court an opportunity to bring clarity to an issue it has avoided. The ban, passed in 1976, is so comprehensive that even a narrow decision should have far-reaching consequences.
The district requires all firearms to be registered with police, and only active-duty and retired police officers can own handguns.
The most cursory glance at crime statistics shows that the ban – which was imposed to reduce violence – has been an abject failure. As recently as 2002, D.C. had the nation’s highest murder rate; last year it was ranked seventh among major metropolitan areas.
But the court’s role is not to determine whether a law has been effective. The justices must decide whether D.C.’s gun ban violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding residents.
In March, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that the ban violates the Second Amendment, which “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” The court noted that if the Founders intended the Second Amendment to protect the rights of states rather than individuals, they could have said so directly, as in “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” or “States have a right to a well-regulated militia.”
They didn’t, so it’s logical to conclude that the Constitution confers an individual right to own firearms.
If the justices uphold the D.C. Circuit’s decision, it will not pre-empt all local firearms regulations. For example, even most Second Amendment advocates have little problem with laws that prevent convicted felons or the mentally disabled from owning firearms. Possession and sale of automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934 – before the Miller decision.
Constitutional rights are rarely absolute. Just as zoning can co-exist with property rights, modest gun restrictions can be consistent with an individual right to bear arms.
A clear statement that favors individual rights would give citizens and elected officials some clarity about where those limits reside – and force advocates of draconian regulations to amend the Constitution if they hope to impose their desires on the entire population.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The Brian Terry Memorial Act passes
December 15, 2011 06:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsThe murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze
December 9, 2011 09:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
125 CommentsNewsflash: Shootings reported at Virginia Tech; reports – police officer shot/dead?, at least one other victim
December 8, 2011 01:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
42 Comments
Capitol Hill hearing/vote watch: Holder, Corzine, Cordray; Update Holder: Nobody lied; Corzine: Don’t know where $ went; F&F impeachment?; Issa turns up heat; Holder “possibly” will clean house; vids added
December 8, 2011 09:41 AM by Michelle Malkin
157 Comments
Categories: Guns
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
I hope all of the justices watch the 1/2 Hour News Hour’s segment on gun-free zones before coming to any decisions. I don’t have a gun, but I kind of want to get one just to exercise that particular right!!
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-un-membership-for-taiwan.html
Let them take up this cause now.
“from my cold, dead fingers…”
I’m certainly not surprised that they ducked the question of the Second Amendment as an individual right versus a collective one. I was heavily involved with the Silviera case a few years back, and I finally understood that the game is fixed when the USSC denied Certiorari, refusing to even consider the argument. I’ll be shocked (although pleasantly) if they agree to hear this appeal. The government does not want a pro-individual rights decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“…shall not be infringed.”
Seems pretty clear to me. If you abide by the law, then your right to carry whatever firearm you desire should be unfettered.
Period.
But apparently, it takes a nanny Congress to tell us what we can and cannot do.
I agree with you ACHefty. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t get much more clear than that. Only a lawyer can somehow interpret that as being a collective rather than an individual right.
This is only one of the reasons why all gun owners, and those who support that right, need to join the National Rifle Association. Then, we might not even be having this arguement.
This we do know that when the citizenry is not armed the government has a way of taking over a country…..Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.
I for one, am glad that if the SC does hear this case, it wont be about some criminal trying to get out of a weapons charge. I want to say, off the top of my head, that silviera had that problem. Heller is a better test case because Heller isnt accused of any crimes.
I’m not sure your logic follows. If the USSC does not hear the case, then the lower court ruling stands, which would mean that the ban would be unconstituional. Thus, not even hearing the case would be a pro-individual rights decision.
I always liked the argument that the Second Amendment is an individual right both because it’s phrased that way, and (perhaps more importantly) because every one of the original 10 amendments are phrased as individual rights. They were intentionally phrased that way by the Framers.
Ohh, i guess not, Silveira v. Lockyer was a challenge to a california assault weapons ban. No suprise that the 9th circuit shot it down.
Its worth noting that the SC doesnt actually *have* to hear this case, there wont be a court split because heller vs DC only applies to DC law, not, say, California law.
I’m pretty fearful of guns. It’s too easy for psychos to get their hands on one through both legal and illegal channels.
However, the DC handgun ban is pretty clearly unconstitutional. I was hoping the Court would tackle this head on and make it clear that handgun possession, as stupid and dangerous as I find it, is a right.
Even worse is DC’s argument in the original case. The city’s AG is arguing that since DC isn’t a state, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to its 580,000 citizens. This is crazy. According to the city’s legal reasoning, the federal government can start quartering soldiers in my house since I’m not covered by the Bill of Rights.
To top it all off, it’s not like the handgun ban is effective. The ban started in the 1970s, a good decade before the crack epidemic turned Washington into the murder capital of the world. Crime spiked dramatically with the handgun ban and is now decreasing dramatically with a handgun ban. It isn’t unreasonable to conclude that the handgun ban doesn’t do a damn thing.
I agree with you. But you’re only quoting half of the amendment. So saying “only a lawyer” could interpret the amendment the way we see it is a bit much, don’t you think?
re #13: What do you mean by:
Your comment makes it sound like you believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to a “collective” right. Can you clarify?
If they refuse to hear the case, the lower court’s ruling stands, which is a good thing.
If they hear the case, I suspect they’ll uphold the lower court’s ruling, which makes that ruling nationwide, which is even better.
win/win IMO.
I meant the way ACHefty and I see it. We both think it’s an individual right. Sorry for not being clear.
Just the mention of a selective policy that gives guns rights to some but not to others should be enough to frighten everyone (what do you mean police officers, active and retired, are the the only ones that are allowed to bear arms?). This does nothing but create a two-tier society made up of those that have the power to defend themselves and those that don’t. Scary.
re #16: OK. Then, I agree with the previous comment that only a lawyer could try and twist the 2nd Amendment into a “collective” right. It is clearly worded as an individual right, and only someone with either no brains, or a really nasty agenda, could think otherwise.
Also, it seems to me that these are EXACTLY the types of cases to the SCOTUS should be hearing – those involving issues pertaining to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If they take a pass on this I’ll be forced to think they’ve done nothing more but continue to push a private agenda that continues to favor the wealthy and elite. I hate to be that guy that warns everyone about the government’s ability to oppress the citizens at large, but….watch out.
In Philly (as well as in DC, I suspect), it’s easier for the psychos (by which I mean gang bangers) to get their hands on a gun than it is for me to get my my hand on a gun (and not just because my financee doesn’t want one in the house).
I don’t fear the gun, I fear my getting busted for trying to protect myself against the criminals who have such easy access to weapsons.
You forgot one thing otcconan. The court could also rule that it is a state collective right and not a right for the individual.
If that happens you it will be only a matter of weeks before the first gun confiscation laws are passed. When that happens, watch out.
I would guess you would start seeing shootouts that would make the Waco, Texas debacle look like a training accident.
For all those gun control advocates out there (Rusty, snausage, southernboy), did you ever think that we wouldn’t even be a country if gun control laws existed in 1776? The whole government was set up to be all about checks and balances. A well armed population would keep the military from assuming control. Pretty simple.
I really hope they take it, uphold the Circuit decision and end this stupid individual/collective argument once and for all.
re: #13, you said:
If you are suggesting a collective right, try these analogies and see if your reasoning still holds.
A well regulated University, being necessary to the success of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Well-educated Property Owners, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read Books, shall not be infringed.
In evaluating the entire amendment text, are you suggesting that these examples should be interpreted that only a University or Property Owners have a right to keep and read books?!?
Isn’t it amazing how the same people who hold dear imaginary rights like privacy and a woman’s right to choose are also the same ones that try to redefine the most clearly spelled out right of all, the second amendment?
I’m pretty fearful of cars. It’s too easy for psychos to get their hands on a car to kill a bunch of people.
Not a very good argument for gun control. I’m glad that you’re not letting this fear of guns get in the way of common sense.
Does our government really want to have this issue heard by the SCUS? I have often wondered over the years why no court in the land will follow any second amendment case through to the end.
I my mind, the Constitution is pretty clear on the issue of private ownership of guns. NO ONE shall (not may or can) make laws prohibiting the right to bear arms…period! What does that mean in our modern society?
If NO LAW shall be passed prohibiting a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, then how in the world do cities and states pass constitutionally consistent laws prohibiting possession of arms?
What would happen if the Supreme Court ruled that all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional? Would that mean that current laws prohibiting ex-felons from gun possession are unconstitutional?
This is quite a quandary, is it not? How can any lawmaker write a resolution to change the Constitution if it is clearly written in the Constitution that NO LAW shall restrict our right to keep and bear arms? Wouldn’t that be, in itself, unconstitutional? Back to my question…why hasn’t a court case regarding the second amendment ever run it’s course all the way to the SCUS for a ruling, once and for all?
Concerning Rusty.
Here is the entire 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia, being vital to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Again, only a lawyer can interpret that as a collective rather than an individual right. It very clearly states that individuals are allowed to own firearms.
That’s pretty silly. The first clause of the Second Amendment makes it a lot less clear than, say, the First Amendment which is as clear as day and has been whittled away by the Courts and Congress. “A well regulated militia being necessary” is a lot less forecful than “Congress shall make no law.”
Again, I think carrying a weapon is an individual right. But there’s certainly room for maneuvering.
re #29: Rusty, are we now talking about “carrying”? I thought we were dealing with the basic idea of “keeping” arms. In other words, the people of DC (and other areas) are BANNED from “keeping” arms. Should the government be able to BAN citizens from keeping arms?
Discussions about “bearing” arms is another aspect.
Ok, you caught me in a semantic error.
I don’t know why I’m getting so much flak for agreeing with MM and most other readers here that the DC handgun ban should be lifted. I have some sympathy for the other side of the debate since guns are really, really frightening. But I still disagree with those people.
Geez, guys. Give me a break.
Rusty said:
Just curious Rusty…are you afraid that guns are out to get you? I can’t think of one instance when any gun just up and fired at somebody (all by themselves), can you?
If you enjoy being fearful, then fear the criminal…especially if you are not armed…don’t fear the gun.
I have always thought this was simple to understand – the 2nd amendment addresses the issue of militia in the first part “well regulated militia”, then there is a comma and it states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
If the Framers just wanted this to be the right of the militia to keep and bear arms the sentence would have ended and it would just have read “A well regulated militia, being vital to the security of a free state”. But they did not stop there. They included the right of the people deliberately to insure that it was recognized as an individual right. As someone previously posted, the first 10 amendments are written about individual rights, so why wouldn’t this one have been the same?
re #31: OK, Rusty. But when you start off with something like:
you might be setting yourself up for some questioning…
Once again, on the Second Amendment…the key phrase is
The words “SHALL NOT” has no other meaning. “INFRINGED”
has no other meaning! No one may create laws to prohibit the free exercise to keep and bear arms. It couldn’t be more clear.
There was a good article in the Washington Post today discussing some of the crime and murder numbers at the time of the ban and since. It also talks about the state of the city at the time of the ban, and why the City Council introduced and voted for this handgun ban.
It seems that the ban was an attempt to make a statement and they hoped it would entice neighboring states (Maryland and Virginia) to follow suit.
It was also one of the first major actions of a City Council that had only recently obtained home rule, allowing them to vote and pass measures on their own city, rather than being strictly at the will of Congress.
re #36: Yeah! And let’s not forget “Mayor for Life: Marion “B*tch set me up!” Barry…
With guns we are citizens; without guns we are subjects.
Despite being a combat veteran, gun-owner, and (yikes!) a lawyer, I never gave any in depth consideration to the 2nd amendment. I always believed that the language was susceptible to two interpretations. Then I read in detail the majority opinion by Senior Judge Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (I also read in detail the dissent). Only then did I realize how complex the almost deceptively simple language of that amendment was. It also made me a believer that it is an individual right. I recommend that anyone who wishes to express an informed opinion read the case (Parker vs. District of Columbia). I can be found at:
pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
What concerns me more than anything else these days is that our government seems to act in their own interest rather than the interest of their own citizens. The day may come when these idiots decide that we are no longer allowed to own firearms regardless of what the constitution says.
That is exactly why the Bill of Rights was written – to protect us from government.
Concerning #31
Okay Rusty, I’ll take your “Sorta” agreement with us.
Now I’d like to take your statement about guns being “frightening”. A gun is just a machine, little different than your car. It does what you tell it to do, when you tell it to do it. Having grown up in rural Oklahoma, we always had a house full of guns. Hunting was just a way of life for us. Guns are also a form of recreation. Try it sometime.
THIS IS WHY what Rudy did in NY should raise HUGE concerns. The reduction of guns did not prevent crime. DC is still the murder capital of the world. It is likely because criminals (the ones who would break the law anyway who have guns) know that if they don’t see you with a gun, you don’t have one.
I personally don’t have a gun. But I don’t want anyone knowing it. Rudy trumpets his gun control in NY as THE REASON crime went down in the City.
Not only does this show that claim to be false, but it should ring alarm bells as to his ability to govern LEGALLY.
I still can’t believe that in this great country, the two best people we are going to have to choose from are going to be Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani. It CAN’T be.
Hey, Rusty, I’m afraid of airplanes…we should ban those, too.
ThackerAgency,
What statistics are you using to make this claim?
From my cold, dead fingers.
My only concern about SCOTUS hearing this case is that they will base their decision on International Laws and other countries Constitutions.
To my credit, I did earn the Rifle Shooting and Shotgun Shooting merit badges.
As for my argument that guns are frightening…um, duh? I see countless cars on a daily basis. But if I see one handgun then I probably had a very bad day.
And anyone who claims that DC is still the murder capital of the world isn’t paying attention. It’s by no means the safest city in America, but the murder rate has been cut by more than half in the last ten years or so.
Texhoma
They will never hear it. At least not in it’s current make up. They are smart enough to know that if they uphold the Constitution, and rule correctly, it will cause ENORMOUS problems, and perhaps cause anarchy.
Texhoma,
Are you serious? When has the SCOTUS ever based their decisions on international law or other country’s constitutions?
Nothing scares me more than International Law being used in a Supreme Court ruling. Only the US Constitution should be used as the test of any law or court case that they agree to review. A justice that does not understand that should be impeached and removed. Thomas Jefferson was right when he stated he feared the judiciary most for the loss of our freedoms.
Gun control is using both hands. The only way the Government will get their hands on my guns is from my dead cold hands.
From the Washington Post article (emphasis mine):
I’ve said the same thing about hammers. They are just tools.
Justice Kennedy, for one, has cited international law in his decisions.
The way I interpret the 2nd amendment is that the right of the people to own and bear firearms, is what keeps the militia well regulated. Just the the way I think it was meant to read.
If all nine justices watch the show, it would probably double the 1/2 Hour News Hours ratings!
This is a very scary case. I’d like to see one more conservative vote on the USSC before it is decided. The thought of the government restricting our fundamental right to keep and bear arms at this time in history during which liberal columnists are threatening Jihad styled violence from millions of illegal aliens is beyond the pale. Imagine having to depend on some of these politically correct cities for protection in such an event. No thanks.
Imagine being reduced to hoping that Elliot Spitzer would allow the national guard and state police to oppose rioting illegal aliens. Yikes. Cold dead fingers indeed, the fact is we don’t want it to come to that.
Rusty,
when the Bill of Rights was being written, every free man was required to own a rifle or musket, a certain quantity of ammunition, a blade weapon (sword, hatchet, or bayonet), and to train with same one day a month. “Milita” thus excompassed most of the male population over 15 or so, and the arms are privately owned. Ergo, it is difficult to get a collective right out of a historically based interpretation.
Incidently, “arms” includes such weapons as swords, spontoons, etc., not just firearms.
Molon Labe
All your Constitutional rights have limits. That limit is usually the level at which you exercising your right would cause harm to others. Just like with your First Amendment Rights. You have the right to say what you want, but if you yell “Fire,” in a crowded movie theatre and someone gets hurt, YOU will be held responsible.
I’ve batted this whole thing around my head for a long while. Quite simply, our firearms legislation requires some serious revamping. The 1986 ban needs to go out the window. So does the ’32 ban. When the Second Amendment was written, it was intended to keep the citizenry armed to the same level as the regular army. Back in the 18th century, this meant muskets, flintlocks, and a good hatchet. Private citizens were to be able to carry the same weapons as a regular infantry soldier. The basic rule of thumb was “if one man can carry it, he can have it”. Obviously, this keeps regular citizens from owning artillery pieces, crew served machine guns, and the like.
Technology has advanced. Does that mean that American citizens should be limited to that self-same musket, flintlock, and hatchet to defend themselves? Of course not. An armed citizenry, in order to defend itself from a tyrannical government, needs to have comparable arms. That means handguns, so called “assault rifles”, even ones with fully automatic capabilities, and yes, even suppressors.
As far as legal (i.e. Constitutional) restrictions on the Second Amendment: I like background checks. I don’t think I should have to pay for a background check. I also don’t think that all felons should be prohibited from owning a firearm. I think the only Prohibited people should be: those convicted of violent crimes, those convicted of drug crimes, and those adjudicated to be mentally infirmed.
I agree with a $200 tax stamp on items currently considered NFA items (short barreled rifles, suppressors, short barreled shotguns, select fire weapons). However, there should not be a ban on the importation or creation of parts for full auto weapons (currently, a fully automatic M16, produced and registered before 1986, goes for about $10,000). I think the BATF is a corrupt organization and needs to be abolished.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convienence store, not a government agency.
The bill of rights (all of them)were written for the individual, not the entities controlled by the government, these did not need rights. As they are the ‘governing powers’ and need to be regulated.
How are these regulated? By a well armed citizenry. Our founding fathers knew the result of power and rights only to the governing: slavery or serfdom.
Oh, and being afraid of guns is almost laughable. I am afraid of cars when they are being driven by drunk drivers or terrorists with bombs (i think this qualifies as psycho), but I am not going to outlaw cars…
I suspect that the reason that so many people have an irrational fear of guns (as opposed to a healthy respect), is that so many people get their ideas about guns primarily from Hollywood. What was the last time you saw a gun in a film used to do something other than kill a human being? The only instances I can think of is the turkey shoot in Sergeant York and the elk hunt in Last of the Mohicans. Those who grew up around firearms know that shooting people is pretty far down on the list of everyday uses for them, but if you were to just watch movies you could not really be blamed for assuming that guns were primarily made for killing people.
Re being afraid of guns: As I mentioned before, if you live in a city and see a handgun, you should be scared. We don’t have hunters and we don’t have rec shooting.
Archon,
I agree with many of your comments. My point was that many of the current restrictions to the Bill of Rights are indeed common sense interpretations of the those rights, and most have gone through the court system to get to the point where they are today. The one exception, I think, is with the 2nd Amendment.
One cannot, and should not, read exceptions where there are none. Where, for instance, does the 2nd Amendment contain an exeption for “law-abiding” citizens only? Do we risk loosing the right to keep and bear arms, simply because we allowed someone to decide what they think the founding fathers intended?
Strict constructionist interpretations are best, in my view. If it is an issue important enough to change, then do it by a Constitutional amendment…and there lies the rub…Congress shall make NO LAW…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…
Rusty, I live in a city. I own several hanguns, and I am not afraid. This city has many hunters, and we have many recreational shooters, also. I’ll bet you have hunters, and recreational shooters in your city, too…you just never hear about them. Why would you, unless you were a sportsman?
Did you know that in California, it is a misdemenor to carry a concealed handgun, but a felony to carry a concealed dirk or dagger? So, should you be afraid if you see someone walking around, not knowing whether or not they have a concealed knife? What about all the people who carry pepper spray around? Doesn’t that also scare you?
Where will your fear end, and rationale take over, dude? Guns aren’t the boogey-man…but maybe that guy behind you is!
re #62: Randy, Randy, Randy! Don’t be afraid of the gun! Be afraid of bad people – especially when the nanny state has decided that YOU are not to be trusted with your own defense. In other words – you (and your ilk) are ready-made prey for the predators. And the predators exist in the cities, suburburbs and rural areas. You can be a victim, or you can fight for your own defense. Insist on your right to keep and bear arms – unless you are mentally deficient, of course!
Gun free areas = victim-rich zones for criminals.
I think this can be likened to yelling “Fire,” in a crowded theatre. If you have been convicted of a violent crime, of a crime involving drugs, or have been adjudicated of being mentally defective, then you have demonstrated that you exercising your Second Amendment rights can present a danger to society as a whole. Of course, I don’t think that someone convicted of a non-violent, non-drug related felony should lose their rights to a firearm. I think they should serve whatever punishment is levied by the court, and when released from custody, allowed to go about their lives.
Roger and tracking.
Rusty said:
I gather from your earlier posts that you live in the DC area, so perhaps you aren’t as accustomed to have firearms around. However I, living in one of the quickest growing cities in the US, tend to see handguns every day. I see people transporting them to indoor and outdoor ranges. I see people with firearms on their hip, since open carry is perfectly legal. I see people with concealed (although not very well) firearms who, I assume, have a concealed carry permit. I have even, on occasion, seen a handgun waved around in a threatening manner.
None of these situations scare me. Why? Because I know that a handgun is an inanimate object that will not act of its own accord. The only time I’ve seen a handgun (domestically) that was in danger of going off and actually hurting someone was deterred by….another hand gun! You would be surprised how quickly a “gangbanger” will turn tail and run when he knows that his intended victim is not, in fact, defenseless.
A good friend and I got in a friendly debate a few months back about the “right to carry”. She assumed that the only reason I carry a firearm is because of my military background. I informed that this was not the case, and that I had been shooting for 13 years before I ever joined the military. Finally, she out and out asked me why I carried.
I replied “Because a cop is too heavy.”
I couldn’t agree more. Most people don’t realize the truth of this statement.
One more thing:
In the immortal words of Larry the Cable Guy, “Guns don’t kill people, husbands who come early do.”
re: #28 tre said:
re: #29 Rusty said:
re: #30 PDColeman said:
First, for the sake of interpretation, I’d like to add a word or two to the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment:
“SINCE a well regulated militia,
beingIS vital to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”I interpret that to mean that IF a situation arises where it becomes necessary to engage a state militia, the PEOPLE (who would form that militia) must be prepared, since arming a militia couldn’t be done from any other source. Thus citizens must be allowed, not only to “keep” arms, but also to “bear” arms when needed.
I’ve heard many argue that (apparently the mere presence of) the word “militia” limits that amendment to the collective and applies only to situations where calling up a militia becomes necessary. This is completely wrong for the same reasons as my first argument (paragraph above). You cannot have a well-armed militia unless the people are independently armed!
Rusty, I believe your comparison between the First and Second Amendments places emphasis on the wrong phrase (in the 2nd). You compared the militia phrase with the “Congress shall make no law” phrase. The militia phrase (if read carefully with special attention to the placement of commas) is almost incidental, a subordinate phrase to the main idea. For a proper comparison as to “forcefulness” of the wording between the two, you should use the phrase “the right of the people… shall not be infringed.” This is precisely and distinctly applied to ALL the people as individuals, and the admonition not to “infringe” applies across the board to all cities/towns/municipalities, counties, and states in the land, and not to just the Congress (which indicates US Federal law). It states very clearly that a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed — by anyone!
…which brings me (finally) to #30 PDColeman. See all of above.
The right to “keep” arms means the right to own, keep, store in your home. The right to “bear” arms applies to the right to bear, wear, carry arms. It’s all covered.
If they do take up the case, I can’t wait to hear how they segregate hand guns from shotguns and rifles if they vote in favor of DC. The Constitution states “arms”. It doesn’t say what kind of arms. Liberals, of course, would rule that the framers meant hunting arms and not hand guns. In any event, with the millions of guns in the hands of Americans already they would have to kill all of us to get them.
God help us if Hillary ever gets to appoint a Supreme Justice.
Stop reading your fanciful interpretation into the plain English text of the 2nd Amendment. It’s very clear.
You get to keep your arms to fight government oppression.
Whether the government can cut off your hands at the wrist has never been addressed by the federal courts.
You have at least a leg to stand on. But do you have a right to one? Not constitutionally.
I’m headin’ down to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in a bit.. anyone need me to pick something up for you?
Anil, don’t forget that the constitution also states “public Use”. That didn’t stop the liberal supreme idiots from changing it to “public benefit”.
Banning any kind of firearm would be defacto government oppression. They’ll have to take mine from my cold dead hands.
Anybody who is interested in the constitution as it relates to the 2nd amendment, the history of gun laws and court ruling and everything about the politics of guns should check out http://www.guncite.com Its a fantastic resource.
Also, as another poster said, read the court opinion of parker vs DC, its totally readable and well defended.
For the collective rights view, read Silveira v. Lockyer. The parker vs DC dissent was a weaker copy of the majority of Silveira.
For those interested in gun crime statistics, check out Dr. Gary Kleck, he is the most respected criminologist studying gun crime now. Here is a great quote about him from Marvin Wolfgang:
Rusty,
I can appreciate your “discomfort” with firearms. I sense you probably are thinking more of handguns primarily when you refer to “guns” as being out of place in crowded metropolitan environs. As one who grew up with guns of all sorts and used them primarily to put food on the table (and to provide for self-defense), I view them in an entirely different context than you. To me they are simply a tool with which to accomplish a designed task. Just like a chainsaw or many other “tools” they are extremely hazardous and demand absolute respect and appreciation for their lethality.
I spent my career in the Fire Service in SoCal (30 years) and as you might imagine I saw first hand the end result of irresponsible and criminal abuse of the “Right” protected by the 2nd Amendment. But growing up in and returning to, on retirement, a rural environment I am somewhat distanced from your type of situation. I have not lost my appreciation for how many in crowded metropolitan environments view gun possession and make every effort not to add to their apprehension whenever our paths cross in my rural environment.. But I seriously hope that the SCOTUS finally settles the debate, once and for all, over this collective vs individual right to bear arms.
As an “old timer” the 2nd Amendemnt’s interpretation had seldom even been questioned until perhaps in the last 40 years or so. Suddenly 200+ years of reading it and accepting it as an “individual” right has been turned on it’s head and for socio/political reasons only as far as I can discern. Hopefully, the court will decide the argument once and for all and we can get on with confronting the solutions to other divisive and emotional social/legal issues we are faced with. I for one am sooo tired of the bumper sticker cliches’ from both sides of this debate.
I congratulate you on your openess and being forthright in your concern while at the same time acknowledging that you also, read the 2nd the way so many of us have for all these many decades. It is truly the cement that secures our ability to sustain all those other ‘rights’ we hold so dear.
You know, if the 2nd amendment doesn’t refer to an individual right, why would the government need to state that a militia can keep and bear arms? The government would not need anything stating such, so for the amendment to refer to anything BUT an individual right is just plain illogical.
Excellent observation! I do believe you’ve hit the proverbial nail on its noggin!
A V-8 moment for the rest of us!
I’m keeping mine. Regardless.
First of all, THIS is the complete Second Amendment:
People in this blog have substituted the word “vital” for “necessary.” Which is strange because you can just open another browser window and search for the full text of the 2nd amendment.
I also agree that it is an individual right and does not mean you have to be part of the militia to keep and bear arms. Try this change to the right to vote:
A well-educated citizenry, being necessary for an informed electorate, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed.
Could this be interpreted that only college graduates are allowed to vote? We need to stop this socialist assault on our rights and our ability to protect ourselves.
Well stated Chief…I think you about said it all.
Re #9: Taylork says,”I’m not sure your logic follows. If the USSC does not hear the case, then the lower court ruling stands, which would mean that the ban would be unconstitutional. Thus, not even hearing the case would be a pro-individual rights decision.”
Yes, the lower court ruling would stand, but it would only be enforcible within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Other Districts are not required to honor that decision, thus it is simply a local victory. This same scenario played out with United States v. Emerson before the Fifth Court of Appeals in 2001, when the court decided in favor of the Second Amendment as an individual right. What changed nationally? Nothing.
It is time to end the Second Amendment’s death by a thousand cuts, one way or the other. Then at least we’ll know where we stand.
All ‘rights’ are individual. What would a collective right be? Name some other ‘collective’ rights. In 1953, when I was 11 yrs. old my dad drove me to Williams Gunsight in Davison, MI. I plunked down about $13, the man behind the counter passed me my single-shot Winchester Model 67, and we left. My dad had said not a word. When I was 61, I went to the very same shop to buy a single-shot .410. In going through the rigamarole, there was a long delay while they followed the law in order to get approval of the sale to me. I finally left but called back every day for a week to see if I had been cleared. After a week, they said that since no rejection had come back on me, I could then come and pick up the firearm. What I could do as a boy I cannot do as a grown, retired man. Don’t tell me freedom isn’t under attack from the American left and their Democrat party acolytes.