Well, at least they didn't dream up a right that wasn't there ala Roe v Wade.

So, Kurt, do you support a woman's right to shoot herself in the womb?

So, Kurt, do you support a woman's right to shoot herself in the womb?

No, she's only allowed to shoot the rest of her family in a murderous fit of passion.

I was wondering if there are any legal scholars out there who might compare the US Supreme Court today to what FDR confronted in 1933 after a long period of GOP ascendancy. Seems that that might be a useful point of comparison.

I was waiting for the part of the opinion that limited gun ownership right to a flintlock and a blunderbuss. That would be the original intent in 1789. Right?

In 2000 our young adult kids voted for Bush for one reason....the Democrats' stand on gun control. Yeah, they're sorry now. I am a extremely liberal in my thinking, but I can't help but notice some major issues sort of blur along the dividing line between party platforms and the old definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative. Guns and gun control is one of those issues.

I don't own a gun, but I believe we should all have the individual right to 'bear arms'. I'm intrigued by the idea that this particular Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution. Then, questioning motive, I get to thinking about the private army, Blackwater, training in their new camp in Potrero, CA near the Mexican border. Wouldn't be very convenient for us all to return to peace time and start questioning the legality of Blackwater's arsenal, or infringe on their right to have it. Snicker.

We here are all striving for a return to a Constitutional government through grassroots movements and citizen involvement, noisy but peaceful. But I think the founders knew exactly what language was needed in the Constitution to ensure Americans had the means to protect (and deter) their Republic from elected usurpers, as well as foreign invaders and any persons who would illegally intrude upon their homes and safety with harm in mind.

Re: Joel's question,

FDR was displeased with SCOTUS, because they were handing down decisions that went against the Federal govt, which FDR eagerly was expanding. FDR actually threatened to expand the number of seats on the SCOTUS, and flood the bench, in order to get more favorable decisions. After "The Switch in Time that Saved Nine," the court immediately began to more liberally decide cases, starting with West Coast Hotel and the reversal in substantive due process rulings.

As for the parallels to the Bush-era SCOTUS, they do exist, but they are not quite as drastic. The SCOTUS has showed some of its conservative leanings for the last 15 years, including Morrison et al, but also more liberal rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas. There is no exact parallel, because the SCOTUS is in a fluid state, due to a few consistently moderate votes that tend to swing decisions. Yet, if Obama fails to win this race, the court will swing conservative, after replacing 3 judges, in a way that has not been seen in our lives.

Jamais Vous wrote: Huh? What exactly is "conservative" about believing the Constitution guarantees individuals a right to own firearms?

Yeah. I don't see gun ownership as Republican vs. Democrat. As near as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment is a civil rights issue.

And the explicit position of the Democratic Party of Oregon is that the 2nd Amendment is right guaranteed by our government. That means that the government doesn't get to decide when you're allowed to excercise that right any more than they can decide when you can excercise your right to free speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Of course, I've never really understood why some people are anti-gun.

You liberul idiots are just anti-American gun haters.

Get over yourselves and buy a gun. Any gun. And then practice with it so that you will not be a newbie idiot, but more informed on this issue. Then talk to 2nd Amernment, 2nd Congressional District Chuck. He will give you libbies a clue or two.

Attention all gun nuts out there! Now that the oligarchic elites have affirmed your right to protect your self with lethal weaponry do yourself a favor and make sure you don't screw up. This is a warning from a loaded for bear liberal -- Gun nut; if you mistakenly shoot me for any reason what-so-ever, you will be sued beyond your wildest dreams. I will not hesitate to compensate myself with everything that you because of your negligence.

Hey and gun nut, have a nice day...

Witness the audacity of inartfulness.

Hey rr, you may rest assure, that Obama's aim is true...

Good citizens need a way to protect themselves when out in public from all the violent criminals that liberalized judges have returned to the streets.

Me? If I have to pull a gun because of a threat to my life or the life of a loved one or neighbor I will shoot to kill - not injure. I'd be concerned some idiot criminal would try and sue me and some liberalized judge would grant him his wish!

Ellen,

Why do you assume all liberals are anti-gun?

Jeff - I'd work on the second take. The party over this issue is just getting started. The IL NRA filed suit to overturn Chicago's handgun ban 15 minutes after the decision in Heller. Philly (and other cities) to follow soon (if they haven't already).

The Second Amendment will be a lodestone around B.O.'s neck from June 26 through the general. Many gun-toting Democrats will go McCain, independent, or just stay home. He really should have signed on to that amicus brief...

the big difference between the scotus during fdr and the scotus during bush is that during fdr, especially in his second term there was a massive popular mandate for political change unlike we've ever seen in (most of) our lives. this popular mandate was backed up by the voters, the presidency and both houses of congress but was being held back by a supreme court that was still interpreting law on the political needs of the previous generations. basically, the constitution was behind the times and the supreme court needed to get with the times (and eventually did, most significantly with the reinterpretation of the commerce clause to allow full federal regulation of business).

in the bush era what we have is a court that represents a failed attempt at a contrived constitutional revolution that would mostly be at odds with the popular will. in their current formation they will win some marginal victories like this 2nd amendment issue, and they will probably succeed at impeding some progressive changes if obama wins, but they will not achieve the radical radical reinterpretation of the constitution that they had been aiming for.

Bert Lowry writes, "I don't see gun ownership as Republican vs. Democrat. As near as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment is a civil rights issue.

And the explicit position of the Democratic Party of Oregon is that the 2nd Amendment is right guaranteed by our government. That means that the government doesn't get to decide when you're allowed to excercise that right any more than they can decide when you can excercise your right to free speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure."

I agree. I was a voter the day that by a vast majority the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Oregon took its position in favor of Second Amendment rights. I was on the Platform and Resolutions Committee that (if memory serves me correctly) unanimously sent this resolution to the Central Commitee with a "do-pass" recommendation.

The Constitution is not owned by Republicans and the right. We as Democrats have just as much right to demand that every section and every provision of that document be preserved and protected. I for one don't see how you can make a case for taking out pieces of the rights we have.

I support Habius Corpus. Don't you? I support free speech. Don't you? I support the right of free assembly. Don't you? I support a free press (and wish it would get its act together). Don't you? I support freedom of religion. Don't you? I support the right of due process in the legal system. Don't you? And I support the right to have my guns. Why shouldn't you?

First of all, thanks for the comments in reply to my question about how today's Court compare to the Court when FDR took office.

Next question is, does anyone know if there are any democratic countries besides the US that have any sort of constitutional guarantees regarding firearms? My guess is no. I would further guess that the reason for fairly robust gun control in other democratic countries reflects both the constitutional situation and local cultural values. Just speculation.

Here's what I don't get: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." From a strict perspective, I ought to be able to own ANY weapon, from a .22 rifle to a ICBM or Surface-to-Air missile. I think most agree that laws against individuals possessing WMD are reasonable. If you accept that laws limiting ownership of hydrogen bombs or fully-auto assault rifles are legitimate and legal expressions of the public will, balancing social safely against civil rights, how can it be unconstitutional for a particular state or jurisdiction to attempt control of another particular class of arms, say, semiautomatic handguns?

Displaced Oregano: You're making too much sense and it's hurting my head. Didn't you hear that Obama is going to do away with Christmas and substitute a gay sex holiday?

I'm pleased that scotus upheld our 2nd Amendment, although I don't own any guns myself. I was less pleased about their decision to invalidate states' rights to determine appropriate levels of punishment for convicted child rapists, and I agree with Obama's stated view on the latter subject.

Thus, it seems inappropriate to describe the current court as "conservative or "liberal" - they're clearly all over the map.

There was never any intent nor language to include cannons or other explosive devices. Arms and militias were understood to be small arms - ie firearms. For 180 years the individual right was never questioned, that move occurred in the 1970s. There is absolutely no historical basis for the argument that the right is collective.

I am farther left than most people who comment on this site. I am not liberal or progressive, I am plainly left. I see no difference between the perceived security many of you object to in Bush's abrogation of Habeas or the 4th or "free speech zones" and the idea that the 2nd is somehow disposable on the same basis.

None of the BOR are considered limitless, ie crying fire in a crowded theater, this hysteria is ludicrous. Most of you crying foul have no idea what so ever what the actual laws are or what the actual operation of firearms is. I'll bet, that in the face of plain physics, 3/4 of you think a bullet will throw somebody someplace or knock them down. Movie land fantasies rule. The chances that a legally owned firearm will be involved in a criminal act versus the numbers in private hands are vanishingly small.

You willingly take your eyes off the real problems that encourage firearm violence and focus on the things. You are played for fools and certain segments of power benefit hugely from it. It is in the interest of certain power centers to let you focus on a thing rather than the conditions. 1% of the population makes more than the bottom 90% and you take your eye off the conditions created by that? How can you not have ghettoes?

The same fear mongering crap you accuse the Republicans of is in operation on this issue; don't even look for the man behind the curtain.

”the big difference between the scotus during fdr and the scotus during Bush...basically, the constitution was behind the times and the supreme court needed to get with the times”

There is a mechanism for correcting the Constitution when it is seen as being “behind the times”. That is the amendment process which has been used numerous times throughout the country’s history. The job of the Supreme Court is not to amend the constitution but to interpret the constitutionality of laws.

What FDR tried to do was stack the court with ideologues who would rubber stamp his agenda, thus disrupting the government’s balance of power, something even those in his own party were against. Even Bush hasn’t tried to do that.

When you read how restrictive the DC law concerning rifles and shotguns was it is surprisingthe decision was this close.

Jeff,

I think your 1:07:29 post is exactly wrong.

I am a life long Republican who only today made a final decision to vote for John McCain.

This ruling brings into relief the importance of SCOTUS choices for me and many other Republicans I have spoken to today. And Frankly, I'm a little shocked that we as a society aren't talking about what I think is the much more important lesson from today.

Everyone should be concerned with the idea that our country was one person's swing vote away from loosing an enumerated civil right. One person's vote. I am now a much more motivated McCain supporter.

Is their a Constitutional guarantee to have a handgun in France? Well, for a little over forty years they have had universal, comprehensive health care. The levels of anxiety and stress are significantly lower. People who are happy intead of fearful may not need to announce that,"You better watch out for me 'cuz I am packin' heat." Then too, what is a weapon? Is a Pentagon that can not explain where or how $195 Billion dollars was spent in last years budget alone keeping you safe. Lets see, do I prefer an auditor or a howitzer. Republicans have reduced auditors and increased the amount that each is responsible for tracking from $600 Million to $2 billion. Safer? The connection between anxiety over whether or not you have a gun or whether or not you will lose your home due to a medical catastrophe. Safer with a gun or safer with a good single payer comprehensive health care plan. Zero in on the right target. When you don't need a gun because there is less crime and happier people guess you have to admit you live in a different country.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that it doesn't say, "the right of militia members" or "shall be subect to restrictions determined by a legislative majority".

I'm surprised the SCOTUS majority opinion didn't attract 7 votes: I'll have to read the dissenting opinion to learn why the minority got it so wrong.

The simple fact remains that private gun ownership was widespread in Revolutionary America, and the fledgling U.S. Government made no attempt to restrict ownership of weapons to militia members.

It's only after nearly 240 years that the diction and syntax of that era could be so widely misunderstood by gun control advocates and four Supreme Court Justices.

Well this is well down the slippery slope toward legalizing the shooting dogs and polygamists !!

And we are surprised by this, why?

Let's face it... 51% of this country are primitive barbarians. I say... let them shoot each other.

Chuck Butcher I love what you said. And it's true we have taken our focus away from the issues that spawn violent crime. We should find a cure for the disease, not just bemoan the symptoms. Give the "masses" livable wages, and take away the fear-of-future poverty breeds and crime will drop, productivity and inovative thinking will rise.

Crap does this mean I am Left, Chuck? aaahhahaahaaaa

What's not to like about this decision, aside from the the disappointing 5-4 margin? If you ask me, it didn't go far enough. In my mind, the right to bear arms ranks right up there with free speech, privacy, the right to choose, etc. The Second Amendment represents a cornerstone of individual liberty, whether you choose to posses firearms or not. "And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

"There is a mechanism for correcting the Constitution when it is seen as being “behind the times”. That is the amendment process which has been used numerous times throughout the country’s history. The job of the Supreme Court is not to amend the constitution but to interpret the constitutionality of laws.

What FDR tried to do was stack the court with ideologues who would rubber stamp his agenda, thus disrupting the government’s balance of power, something even those in his own party were against. Even Bush hasn’t tried to do that."

the supreme courts interpretation of the law has a direct influence on what kind of republic we live in. often supreme court decsisions, or clusters of decisions, do effectivly "amend" the constitution. te commerce clause, which states that "Congress has the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes" had been used by the scotus to prevent most federal managment of the economy. the Hughes court had been blocking many of FDRs New Deal programs, finally after the 36 election and the "court packing" threat, several members of the scotus changed their votes allowing for NLRB, the fair labor standards act, agricultural subsidies, etc. it fundamentally changed the meaning of our government.

our constitution is not very flexible. most constitutinoal change occurs in flurries of amendments, and reinterpretation of old laws with the arrival of new justices. usually this occurs in conjunction with a popular mandate for change.

i'll make it simple:

in fdr's case the court was standing in the way of a popular mandate for change.

in bush's case the court was contrived to do the exact opposite, though it has not yet succeeded

Steven Maurer - your 5:41:22 post echoed my thoughts. The Bill of Rights was created by people deeply skeptical of big unlimited government. They seriously contemplated having no professional army at all. They had just overthrown an oppressive government and were worried that the new one might grow oppressive in turn. (These were points the Federalists and Anti-Federalists largely agreed on.)

They very much wanted to ensure that "the people" could, if it proved needful, rise up again in armed revolt against their own government.

As for Chuck Butcher suggesting that the Founders couldn't possibly have intended to protect cannon or other crew-served weapons, note that the Battle of Lexington and Concord was sparked by a British move to seize an arsenal of privately owned cannon.

A third poster, Kevin, incorrectly says "The DC ban was on handguns and explicitly excluded rifles and shotguns. So it's not accurate to characterize it as "disarming" citizens." This is one of those statements that's so clearly untrue that it marks the writer as either so ignorant of the facts as to be unworthy of attention, or dishonest and attempting to mislead the uninformed. My thanks go to two other posters who set the record straight - DC's laws banned all possession of handguns, and they required rifles and shotguns to be stored in a manner designed to make them useless for self-defense. (Under DC's laws, you couldn't even "transport" your own pre-1976 registered handgun from one room of your home to another without a separate license.)

The DC laws were designed specifically to disarm citizens and to prevent any form of legal self defense with a firearm. The SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment forbids the government from blanket disarmament of law abiding citizens.

The hysterical headline of this posting notwithstanding, the court did not "establish" any new right - nor did they strike down the 1938 federal law restricting ownership of machine guns, nor any other restriction short of a blanket ban.

If any of you dear readers would like to cease wallowing in ignorance regarding firearms, let me invite you to partake in handgun training by the Pink Pistols of Portland, the gay and lesbian shooting society. Straight people are welcome too.

Here's the first fallacy of the Justice Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissent:

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state," 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that "the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed," id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed "[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State." Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment's preamble. It confirms that the Framers' single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee "to keep and bear arms" was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

In fact, hunting was the primary use for firearms in all 13 colonies (more animals were killed than people), while personal defense (especially near the frontier) was an important secondary use. The use of firearms by organized militias was viewed as a tertiary utility, and it was understood that each citizen was required to bring their own weapons. The framers knew that private ownership of firearms was necessary for hunting, and for citizens to defend themselves and their family from man and beast.

The framers did not anticipate "The State" (meaning any branch of State or Federal government) would seek to outlaw private gun ownership given their critical primary and secondary uses. The framers feared that limited government could easily become hegemonic government, and knew that disarming the civilian militias (aka The People) would be a necessary precursor to subjugating them. With this fear of subjugation in mind, and the fresh memory of the pivotal role played by PRIVATE CITIZENS in defeating the British, the framers penned the second amendment:

"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 framers could not anticipate that future generations of urban Americans would doubt the utility or necessity of firearms for hunting or personal protection any more than they could anticipate that cars would eventually replace horses on city streets. The framers enumerated the militia only because they assumed this tertiary role (firearms in the service of militias) would be the one the The State would seek to infringe. So they said "don't infringe".

The framers assumed "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was dispositive and did not require a definition of "the people", "Arms", or "to keep and bear". Their reference to "well regulated militia" was necessary only because they knew a hegemonic State would challenge the necessity of maintaining a militia, so they inserted a prefatory clause.

And preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns would do NOTHING to keep criminals from owning guns.

Even if you made all the guns vanish, people will still be killing each other with knives, hammers, golf clubs.

If we adopted Saudi Arabian style corrections, recidivism drops by 98%. We could close half our jails and leave our doors unlocked, and gun ownership would go way down.

But if Libtards insist on punishing property crimes with probation and let violent offenders reoffend over and over again, the rest of us will seek to provide for our own defense.

The SCOTUS got this one right: too bad the dissenters let their politics get in the way of the U.S. Constitution.

Chris, at least your response was intellecually honest. A disclaimer - as a Libertarian mostly, I could give a fig about abortion. It really is a woman's choice to either support and nuture the developing life in her or eliminate it. No law at either the state of the federal level should even address that right of the woman. For the Warren (?) court to extend abortion rights under the veil of privacy was - well a lunicrous stretch. /but thanks for at least responding in an enlightened tone rather than the pathetically predictable posts from Tom Civiletti, Steven Maurer abd Joel Dan Walls. In his pique, Maurer even gets the reasoning totally wrong as based on unreasonable search and seizure.

To the DC ruling - The second amendment is plain to all but those who would deprive us of our rights to own weapons. The DC law was a bold grab for citizens guns - all of their guns. I don't support unlimited ownership of automatic rifles and other such nonesense. The .22, 20-06, Mauser and 410 shotgun I currently own are sufficient.

June 26, 2008

DC Gun Ban Smack Down: what’s next, Drug War?

As an anti-drug war activist for the last 30 years I long ago came to the conclusion gun bans are about as effective as the bans on marijuana and hard drugs. I think the court made the right decision. These symbolic gestures by desperate and/or clueless lawmakers hoping to give an appearance of doing something about gun violence or drug crimes actually do more to encourage crime and violence, while taking important individual freedoms away from law abiding citizens. Meanwhile every angry punk in town is packing heat picked up on the street for a few hundred bucks.

The big driver of the illegal gun market is the illegal drug market. The two are inseparable and for all practical purposes out of control.

So, our system of Checks and Balances appears to work and an unconstitutional ban has been lifted, cities and states take note. But let’s hope it does not take another 30 years for the Supremes to strike down another unreasonable and unnecessary prohibition, this deadly Drug War. A “war” that kills way more young men on our streets, than on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Since 2003 about 4600 US personnel have been killed in combat, by comparison there are about 12,000 murders by handguns each year in the U.S. (FBI Uniform Crime Report)

Floyd

There is a ray of light here - the decision leaves most mainstream gun regulation intact. Some cities will have trouble with some of the most restrictive provisions, but I was having trouble thinking of an Oregon gun control law that I thought was seriously in jeopardy.

Looking towards the future, I think it makes sense to focus our efforts on responsible gun ownership. The decision allows reasonable restrictions. No one likes to discriminate against the disabled, but should blind people really have unlimited access to firearms? We don't have enough regulation of gun ownership to ensure that owners 1) are physically capable of using a gun responsibly; 2) able to meet at least some minimal standard of marksmanship; and 3) know how to keep a gun safely in their residence.

Thanks to Jenni for the reference to the lanebus.org posting on the more important decision of the day.

I'm a progressive who supports the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights). I am disappointed that some of the people who I usually consider political allies have adopted conservative views when it comes to gun control and the Constitution. Let me explain what I mean by that.

Traditionally, the conservative view of the Consitution(especially the Bill of Rights) is: protecting people's rights gets in the way of things I want to see happen, therefore, we should get rid of those rights.

I'm sure a bunch of conservatives will disagree and call me a "libtard," but that describes what I have seen. They oppose the 1st Amendment for war protesters. They oppose the 4th (and 5th) Amendments for people who are arrested (they call it coddling criminals). They oppose the right to habeus corpus (on the grounds that terrorism is so scary we need the government to take that right away from us in order to protect us). Basically, conservatism has always maintained that constitutional rights are on loan from the government and can be taken back when necessary. They wouldn't phrase it that way. But that's what they think.

Progressives (including us libtards) have maintained that our Constitutional rights exist regardless of what the government says or does. One of the U.S. government's obligations is to guarantee those rights. It doesn't always live up to its obligation, but when it doesn't, it has failed in one of its most important functions. Let me restate that: the government does not grant us our rights; it protects them.

I am dismayed that, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, people I ordinarily respect have adopted the conservative view that you can revoke a Constitutional right if it's inconvenient. I agree that some problems could be solved faster if we disregard some rights. But it is not worth the price. Our Constitutional rights are too important to give them away just to try to solve a problem that could be solved in other ways.

I hope I have struck the right tone. I don't want to sound angry -- just a little disappointed.

The liberal/conservative, left/right pigeonholing is sort of pointless in this entire discussion.

I'm not some sort of kneejerk liberal anti-gun bozo. I've fired real guns. I went to the trouble of taking a 3-day-long course in firearms use. What I came away with was a deep impression of the power of guns, as well as the conviction that I never wanted one. I also saw how seductive the power of guns is for some people.

I wish there were not such a fascination with guns embedded in the collective American psyche, but there it is. And I'm more concerned with that fascination than with the Supremes' latest ruling, because the consitutional right to "reasonable" gun ownership would be uncontroversial if there were no widespread cultural attachment to guns. Perhaps this latest Court ruling will shift the entire debate away from where it has been and towards a discussion of why deadly force holds such seductive power for so many Americans.

Hillabomination writes, "In fact, hunting was the primary use for firearms in all 13 colonies (more animals were killed than people), while personal defense (especially near the frontier) was an important secondary use."

Just a note: 13 Colonies aside, to this date more animals are hunted and killed in these 50 States than there are people killed by fire arms in any given year. I don't know what the national ratio is, but around here it is huge. When you include the big animals like deer and elk, and then the small animals like the bird hunts - I would think we are probably at 20,000 to 1 ratio, if not higher.

I know some of you think that hand guns are not used for hunting. Generally that is true, but often a hand gun is used for a final shot if a larger animal is wounded. There is no way to track what kind of gun is used in hunting, but I'd hazard a guess that more animals are killed per year with hand guns than people are killed.

So, the point of my comment is that Chuck Butcher has it about right. We need to look beyond the guns if we are concerned about violence in our society. We need to look at causes such as poverty, desperation, lack of education, lack of opportunity, etc. We even need to look at taxation, or the lack of a fair and equitable taxation system, as part of the underlying problem that creates violence in our society. Violence is not a mechanical problem attributable to the weapon in hand, it is attributable to the hand holding the weapon and the complete environment that the person connected to the hand is within that promotes, tolerates, creates, and punishes or doesn't punish violence.

The second amendment speaks of the right to keep and bear "arms." "Arms," not "handguns."

DC's ban may have been overbroad, but I don't think the Second Amendment can fairly be read to preclude a handgun ban, so long as other "arms" are legal to keep and bear. After all, not many people -- except maybe a few extreme libertarians -- think we should let the average citizen walk around packing an AK-47, a few hand grenades, or a flamethrower. The government clearly has the power to ban some "arms" consistent with the Constitution.

Banning certain classes of "arms" does not offend the constitution, as long as people have reasonable access to some weaponry.

Echoing Chris Lowe's comment, both Chuck and Bert seem to be arguing against ghosts. I haven't counted, but I think there are more comments of the "I'm a liberal and this is a good ruling" variety than anything else.

I do take issue with the argument that no logical person could come to a different conclusion. Four respected SC justices did just that, and it's worth reading their dissent. This was a close call. Even the NRA knew that, which is why they did everything in their power over the last few decades to PREVENT similar cases from reaching the SC. Until Alito and Roberts were confirmed, they knew they would lose this issue 5-4 or even 6-3.

That means that the government doesn't get to decide when you're allowed to excercise [2nd amendment rights] any more than they can decide when you can excercise your right to free speech. . . .

Couldn't agree more, which is why the SC indicated pretty clearly that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are okay. If we can apply the same TP&M restrictions to firearms that we can to speech, gun control advocates are going to be pretty happy. After all, you can't walk into a school, church, or business and make a political speech anytime you want. You can't disrupt others with your speech unless you get a permit. And you can't engage in speech that is potentially harmful, such as yelling "Fire!" or inciting a riot.

This decision means that the government will have to show that there is a legitimate public interest before passing gun control measures. And those measures will have to be the least restrictive possible in order to achieve the desired result. Sounds okay to me.

Lee, You have a hobby horse and ride that sucker hard, don't you? Dragging ole Santa into this doesn't bring much credence. An armed society creates the MAD of the Cold War variety. The fact that the State still stands unassaulted means that people still believe in the ballot to rectify GWB. It would be incredibly dangerous to convince me that the ballot does not exist, your ignorance is appalling. I will absolutely not detail in any manner, whatever, the mechanisms that make this statement true. This much I will tell you, I know any number of shooters with weapons that can reach out over 3/5 of a mile and make someone extremely ill with a firearm with one shot, including myself.

As for the general uprising of the sort you seem to refer, I doubt any matter of principle would bring that on, the Revolution was not instigated by the masses, either.

The funny thing about rights is that they exist outside the purview of those as yourself or GWB. The BOR acknowledges these predating the Constitution.

A note about your quote of the 2nd, "a free state" you may notice is not capitalized nor is "state" used with a determinative modifier, it is a state of being not a physical location or government. You attempt to associate it with the government, sorry. It is a fact that during the Ratification it was specifically noted that the 2nd is not about hunting or sport but that it would surely enhance those usages. How you get from any of these points to a collective right is unfathomable. Miller was specifically about the militia applicability of a sawed off shotgun, nowhere in the decision was any question raised regarding memebership in a militia. Not one sentence. Collective right was not brought up until the idea of banning gained currency and a method of justifying it required. The fact that 4 justices decided to see it that way is disturbing, just as the fact that 4 justices saw Habeas as disposable.

This is about authoritarianism, not left or right and you can find plenty of that mind set anywhere.

Pat & Chuck,

Thank you for restoring my faith in liberalism.

I'm WAY late to the party on this, but Steven says:

it was the right of the people to form militias bearing armaments clarified into an individual right to keep unsecured loaded handguns in ones own home.

Where, exactly, did the Supreme Court specify that handguns may be explicitly kept unsecured? California has tough regulations regarding locking devices and gun safes. I don't see anything in the ruling preventing any level of government from requiring that people store their weapons securely. It follows that people would then be criminally liable for negligent discharges of unsecured firearms. As a very left-leaning handgun owner I have NO problem with that concept.

Bert Lowry says: They oppose the 1st Amendment for war protesters. They oppose the 4th (and 5th) Amendments for people who are arrested (they call it coddling criminals). They oppose the right to habeus corpus (on the grounds that terrorism is so scary we need the government to take that right away from us in order to protect us). Basically, conservatism has always maintained that constitutional rights are on loan from the government and can be taken back when necessary. They wouldn't phrase it that way. But that's what they think.

This goes to a point which I've often thought of for a long time. Conservatives aren't about 'conservation' of anything when it gets in their way. They're only pro states rights until states get uppity and start marrying gays and sending black kids to school (and many of those 'conservatives' were Dixiecrats). In a pure political sense, a true 'conservative' would be an ACTUAL strict Constitutionalist, ie not using that as a code word for being a neocon patsy.

Miles said: Couldn't agree more, which is why the SC indicated pretty clearly that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are okay. If we can apply the same TP&M restrictions to firearms that we can to speech, gun control advocates are going to be pretty happy. After all, you can't walk into a school, church, or business and make a political speech anytime you want. You can't disrupt others with your speech unless you get a permit. And you can't engage in speech that is potentially harmful, such as yelling "Fire!" or inciting a riot.

Yes. States, counties and cities should be able to draft gun control laws which make sense for them within the bounds of what is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. When I decided I wanted a handgun, the longest part of the process was waiting for shipping to my FFL dealer. A gun is a deadly weapon whose primary intent is to kill something. A car is a transport device that happens to be fairly likely to kill something. In Oregon, we require more education and testing with cars than we do with guns in order to obtain them. Personally, I think we should require more education, testing and safety regulations for both cars and guns.

As a responsible firearms owner it's my duty to keep my weapons secure and to be well trained in their operation. Beyond my personal practice and research and reading, I will be taking classes in their safe and effective operation as my budget allows but my personal issue here is that I wasn't ever required to, and I'm only required to take a very basic class if I want a concealed carry permit. I'd gladly submit to mandatory training and testing in order to exercise my right, particularly to concealed carry. With that right comes heavy responsibility.

Steven, I guess my argument is that the ruling may be interpreted to block onerous requirements of keeping firearms disassembles at all times, etc, but I still don't see how it's broad enough that it could be construed to prevent government entities from requiring that firearms be secured when one might reasonably expect that they be -- for example, when unattended. If you leave your home for the day and there's a gun inside lying around loaded and unsecured, you are asking for trouble.

Also, GunVault among other manufacturers make "no look" pistol safes which can be opened by punching in a combination by feel -- there are grooves where you slide your fingers and then punch buttons under your fingertips in a given sequence. This can be accomplished in total darkness in seconds. With these types of devices and some practice, there's no excuse for leaving loaded guns lying around. They can be secured and yet still ready to use.

Shocking B/O Headline: Supremes Establish an Individual Right to Gun Ownership

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776.

"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, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776.

In fact, the framers knew that private ownership of firearms was pervasive in Colonial America. The mere fact that private ownership of firearms has persisted for the last 240 years is proof the 2nd Amendment protected this right. Ironically, it required a draconian ban on private ownership/storage of firearms by the D.C. City Council to require an initial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The English Language has evolved in the past 240 years, making it possible to misinterpret the constitution. For example, what does the term "well-regulated" mean? A modern reader might assume that "regulated" implies the oversight of the state, given our current subordinance to government regulations.

The following usage examples are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Listen up, all you gunslingers out there who argue (foolishly) that the Second Amendment was designed in part as a check on the danger of government excesses. Yes, I mean you, Pat Ryan and Chuck Butcher.

The Constitution is the bulwark, with its fastidiously enumerated checks and balances, against a government run amok, not the fear of citizens taking to the streets with their fintlocks and muskets. And the Constitution, I remind you, predates the Bill of Rights.

As my older brother (he advocates the abolition of all handguns, as do I) wrote yesterday in a guest post on my site, the Second Amendment surely does not confer an individual right to "keep and bear arms."

He elaborates today in e-mails to my gun owning younger brother who disagrees:

"The argument essentially boils down to whether 'A well regulated Militia' was the sole reason or just one example for 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' ".

My older brother's reponse:

"I agree. It boils down exactly to that. Unfortunately for the pro-gun nuts, the 'well regulated Militia' reason is the only reason that actually appears in the amendment."

In a follow-up e-mail he wrote:

"If the Framers had written the Second Amendment this way - 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' -- [Jerry] wins the argument.

"Why in the world would the Framers have gone to the trouble to add that phrase? And how can the gun nuts just flat out ignore it?"

Once again, in no way is a standing army a deterrent to the institution of tyranny nor is it in any manner a reflection of the fact that humans arm themselves and always have. The well regulated militia is one of the reasons, it is not exclusive, its existance is justified by the "a free state" part of the statement.

Carla's argument hinges on adding words or thoughts that aren't in the 2nd. It does not say "Only because a well..." It is a fact that the idea of a collective right being the meaning is historically very recent, well later than the developement of machine guns and Presidential assassinations. In the face of the Civil War the 2nd wasn't tinkered with, that says something in itself.

Kevin loves to ignore the military and civil usagae of handguns, they are the quintessential close range, close encounter weapon, they also do not have (generally) the problem of over-penetration, ie shooting someone at close range with a rifle means that bullet will exit at a very lethal velocity. I suppose watching ER means you're qualified to diagnose brain surgery? If you don't know about guns how the hell can you expect to be taken seriously? You propose to interfere with rights on the basis of what? Movie magic?

There are a lot of things printed that I don't like and that can be easily shown to reinforce and incite hate and crimes - do you propose to ban printing presses because of that or just writings involving civil disobedience or those involving race? Some people will abuse rights, that is a fact, the 'thing' is not the issue, the behavior and its causes are.

A firearm is a powerful weapon and it is a concrete exemplar of a civil liberty as well as an almost genetic disposition to be armed. Mucking about in that arena means you are going to get serious blowback. (blowback - the escaping gases from a firearm's chamber toward the shooter - our very terms of language)

Stevens didn't like the opinion for reasons beyond the Constitution, Scalia's opinion also has garbage in it -ie phoning. The decision and dissents are gooped up with political considerations, that is unfortunate and detracts from the meaning of the decision. As a Constitutional issue the thing was pretty simple, the social and political considerations mucked it up.

There is a lot of extra-Constitutional verbiage running around this thread, that isn't about the Constitution nor the literature surrounding the Ratification, it is all about I don't like this or I like this. For Pete's sake, Barak Obama early in the Primaries recognized publicly the individual right - it is the fallout that has people going off. The agenda of the draconian gun control advocates drives their analysis, not the literature nor history. If you think you're that right on the issue, amend the Constitution, the problem is you do not have the support required. If you think that the times preceding Ratification until around WWII were not firearm violent, you have not paid attention, and they did not spark this collective rights idea.

The decision at this time is a function of politics just as its not coming forward since the Sullivan Act was political. The previous SCs didn't want to rule on this, it was going to go this way, margins might have differed, or there would be an explosion. The majority fell all over itself trying to keep this decision very narrow in scope and it still is going to have a bunch of legal fallout for draconian or capricious laws.

Lets connect our brains folks, there isn't a poster on this thread with any desire to be confronted in their home or on the street by a criminal armed with a gun. Not one. No one on this thread is in favor of murder or accidental shootings (opinions about suicides belong to the suicide). Move forward from there.

"Well regulated" has a very different meaning from "regulate".

Kind of like "time for my constitutional" is only tangentially related to "Constitution".

The larger reality is that the framers of the U.S. Constitution could hardly fathom the size and scope of Federal powers today. They feared that giving too much power to government would undermine individual rights, and they were right.

Carla, the Constitution as a whole is either the creation of governmental units or limits on those, it is extremely chary of granting powers. Roe V Wade was an expansion of limits on government using essentially the idea of privacy. What you are proposing to play in the case of he 2nd is an expansion of governemental powers into a specifically stated limit. There is a huge difference. This stands with Habeas and the 4th as directly stated limits.

Sal is rather full of stuff as usual, the SC has refused to hear cases. The SC has not wanted to rule on this, for political and social reasons. (they also fell all over themselves to narrow this) Sal will nearly lose his mind on this issue, an issue about a thing but how much of that heat ever gets into issue of the reasons for criminal use of firearms? You won't find Sal getting all het up about plutocracy and the institutionalization of poverty. You won't find Sal getting crazy about the crushing of out-of-poverty job wages.

There are direct contributions to firearm violence by governmental policy, the War on Drugs stands first as well as another piece of the authoritarianism ehancement. Nailing people into poverty creates violent reaction. Crime and poverty are joined at the hip. Educational failure and poverty are joined at the hip.

Carla you should be wary of bringing Jefferson into a collective right argument, he won't fit despite his anti-standing army stance. He was aggressively individual right including statements that would be a bit too much to bring into a measured discussion.

Carla, the Constitution as a whole is either the creation of governmental units or limits on those, it is extremely chary of granting powers. Roe V Wade was an expansion of limits on government using essentially the idea of privacy. What you are proposing to play in the case of he 2nd is an expansion of governemental powers into a specifically stated limit. There is a huge difference. This stands with Habeas and the 4th as directly stated limits.

Sal is rather full of stuff as usual, the SC has refused to hear cases. The SC has not wanted to rule on this, for political and social reasons. (they also fell all over themselves to narrow this) Sal will nearly lose his mind on this issue, an issue about a thing but how much of that heat ever gets into issue of the reasons for criminal use of firearms? You won't find Sal getting all het up about plutocracy and the institutionalization of poverty. You won't find Sal getting crazy about the crushing of out-of-poverty job wages.

There are direct contributions to firearm violence by governmental policy, the War on Drugs stands first as well as another piece of the authoritarianism ehancement. Nailing people into poverty creates violent reaction. Crime and poverty are joined at the hip. Educational failure and poverty are joined at the hip.

Carla you should be wary of bringing Jefferson into a collective right argument, he won't fit despite his anti-standing army stance. He was aggressively individual right including statements that would be a bit too much to bring into a measured discussion.

Not only "conservatives" want to own guns. You really should get out of the city more.

Steve--while I strongly agree with the ideas behind Roe and am a staunch pro-choice woman, Roe is generally thought by many legal experts to be very weak reasoning and bad precedent. Its my opinion that Roe will eventually be overturned and that the battle will be won at the state level.

Carla has stated it far better than I did. This decision seems to leap off the pages of The Bill of Rights in an easily understood manner. Roe, unfortunately is poorly written and relies on more than one logical shift legally in order to come to its conclusion. Roe is being discussed over 40 years later whereas this decision will fade because it makes legal sense.

Roe is a really stupid decision but I'm not sure how the discussion got over to it. In Roe the Court invented a right, Heller is about something that is actually written in the Constitution. Well to be more precise, Roe leveraged a right that the Court invented in Griswald but since most people on this board don't have legal backgrounds we usually skip that part of the discussion.

When I was in law school we learned that most of the "big" cases were all rather stupidly decided. If you sit down and read thru Roe, Brown, etc you'll quickly see that most of those big cases don't make much sense. They were political decisions dressed up as judicial decisions but as decisions they stink. Brown has a bunch of social science babble in it that is nothing more than junk science. Roe has a stem winder about quickening going back to Biblical times. Roe also has some silly formula that the Court pulled out of their ass on trimesters. The whole thing was invented out of thin air and the Court has looked silly every since. That is why the justices hate Roe, they know it makes them look like morons for having handed that one down. Heller at least has some actual words in the Consitution to work with. There is a disagreement between the majority and the minority on how to deal with the very ackward phrasing of the Consitution, but now we have a decision. Next year we might have a different decision.