another okie
Member
Yes. That four justices could think that a complete handgun ban is a reasonable restriction of an individual right is amazing to me.
Have you read the decision itself?
- Thread starter yhtomit
- Start date
- Status
The ruling generally upholds standing decisions about exclusions (felons, mentally ill, etc.) but very clearly affirms the individual right to possession.
I can't say this is a "victory" as much as an affirmation that lawful self-defense is the main part of what the 2nd Amendment was about initially.
I'm very grateful to all the justices who ruled in favor of common sense and decency.
I can't say this is a "victory" as much as an affirmation that lawful self-defense is the main part of what the 2nd Amendment was about initially.
I'm very grateful to all the justices who ruled in favor of common sense and decency.
Read it this morning, and having read many, many USSC opinions what really struck me was the language Scalia used. "Justice Stevens is dead wrong", "Justice Stevens has a grave misunderstanding regarding the role of a court..."
In legalese that's smackdown talk, none of the usual "my esteemed colleague appears to have misunderstood.." talk. The conferences must have been really interesting.
In legalese that's smackdown talk, none of the usual "my esteemed colleague appears to have misunderstood.." talk. The conferences must have been really interesting.
RoadkingLarry
Member
What disgusts me is the intellectual dishonesty of the dissenting justices.
Scalia and Stevens must have gotten into it quite a bit. I got the imprerssion that Scalia may believe Stevens to be a largely incompetent buffoon.
That being said, I as still a little disappointed in the opinion. While I am very glad as to the affirmation of the individual RKBA, I am a little concerned and disappointed in the rationale behind overturning the specific ban on handguns.
That handguns are common is all well and good. That they would be commonplace amongst the militia if we were all called up and organized is also true. But to argue that they shouldn't be banned because they are an arm that would generally be considered widely available and commonplace within the militia is a little odd.
Machine guns would probably be more common today if the tax stamps were still issued. Since swords are no longer common among the populace, does that mean that they can be banned? If commonality is the criteria to determine what arms can be banned or restricted, and which ones can't, at what level of availability does something become, and thus militia capable, arm? Since there are a ton of AR-15 and SKS owners out there, are these weapons currently beyond the reach of a ban? What about garands? Since they are semi-automatic rifles, similar to other semi-auto rifles, would they be protected as a member of that class of arm?
If commonality is the defining characteristic, then we all need to go and buy as many different rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. as possible. If we can show that these classes of weapons are all very commonplace, there can be no bans.
That being said, I as still a little disappointed in the opinion. While I am very glad as to the affirmation of the individual RKBA, I am a little concerned and disappointed in the rationale behind overturning the specific ban on handguns.
That handguns are common is all well and good. That they would be commonplace amongst the militia if we were all called up and organized is also true. But to argue that they shouldn't be banned because they are an arm that would generally be considered widely available and commonplace within the militia is a little odd.
Machine guns would probably be more common today if the tax stamps were still issued. Since swords are no longer common among the populace, does that mean that they can be banned? If commonality is the criteria to determine what arms can be banned or restricted, and which ones can't, at what level of availability does something become, and thus militia capable, arm? Since there are a ton of AR-15 and SKS owners out there, are these weapons currently beyond the reach of a ban? What about garands? Since they are semi-automatic rifles, similar to other semi-auto rifles, would they be protected as a member of that class of arm?
If commonality is the defining characteristic, then we all need to go and buy as many different rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. as possible. If we can show that these classes of weapons are all very commonplace, there can be no bans.
m1009
Member
Thanks for the link! Read most of it...
I tried to read most of it, skipped over the parts where it dived into obscure opinions, but I did read some of the old cases that were brought up. I thought it was very well written, and I liked the way it touched a lot of areas where we could very well have a good precedent to stand on for future cases. My only disappointment was in the amount of pro-votes. Wish it had been at least 6-3
But, we won this round. So, with this wonderful decision under our belt, on to the next round! Next up, Chicago!
I tried to read most of it, skipped over the parts where it dived into obscure opinions, but I did read some of the old cases that were brought up. I thought it was very well written, and I liked the way it touched a lot of areas where we could very well have a good precedent to stand on for future cases. My only disappointment was in the amount of pro-votes. Wish it had been at least 6-3
But, we won this round. So, with this wonderful decision under our belt, on to the next round! Next up, Chicago!
patentmike
Member
"The right to 'carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game' is worthy of the mad hatter." - Justice Scalia
I'd say Scalia would like to challenge Stevens to a duel.
I'd say Scalia would like to challenge Stevens to a duel.
PedalBiker
Member
I only read the dissenting opinion. It has an awful lot of "everybody is doing it" in it. Isn't the supreme court supposed to use the constitution as a guide? Just because HI and CA are doing it doesn't make it right. If they really wanted to do an opinion poll instead of scholarly work couldn't they hold a special election?
I didn't know that the "everybody is doing it" plea worked in court.
I didn't know that the "everybody is doing it" plea worked in court.
Jamie C.
Member
Yes, I've read it.
And one of the things that's crossed my mind about trigger locks and such being unconstitutional - because they render the gun incapable of being used as a weapon - will also prove to be the undoing of anyone trying to ban or restrict ammunition.
After all, a gun with no ammo is nothing more than an expensive paperweight. And SCOTUS seems to agree.
J.C.
And one of the things that's crossed my mind about trigger locks and such being unconstitutional - because they render the gun incapable of being used as a weapon - will also prove to be the undoing of anyone trying to ban or restrict ammunition.
After all, a gun with no ammo is nothing more than an expensive paperweight. And SCOTUS seems to agree.
J.C.
Scalia would be right. In a case that Justices wait their whole careers for, one involving a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights, Stevens made glaring factual errors:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/stevens_dissent.php
I picture Scalia wanting to haul Stevens in the back room to slap some serious sense into him, then thinking better of it and leaving Steven's incompetence for history to judge.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked