9 ms·

Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

nearestneighbor 16y ago
NYT now also has an article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html
hga 16y ago
NO "cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago [and one of its suburban towns] and Washington [, D.C.]", which have/had full, absolute and total bans on handgun possession by ordinary citizens (maybe with some grandfathering). Therefore the immediate and direct result will be limited (although it should be noted that 3 other Chicago suburbs including the infamous Morton Grove dropped their bans rather than fight (Chicago offered to pay the legal costs of the one remaining suburb)). As it is, some lower courts have already been writing decisions assuming Heller would be incorporated and there are two cases in California have been on hold while waiting for this decision. WRT Breyer's dissent WRT "democratic decision-making", Alito slammed him pretty hard: "First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. [...] Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights."
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Right now I'm reading Scalia's opinion, in which he's tearing Stevens apart. For example: That JUSTICE STEVENS is not applying any version of Palko is clear from comparing, on the one hand, the rights he believes are covered, with, on the other hand, his conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is not covered. I've never read a set of opinions in which one member of the court so clearly slams the opinion of another (although IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS expert). Does this signal anything about the future of the court, or about the Chief Justice's leadership?
  - hga 16y ago
    Don't know, but today is Stevens last day on the Supreme Court....
jsz0 16y ago
I wonder how this will effect the provisions of the Brady bill such as background checks, waiting periods, bans on felons buying weapons, etc. I'm all for gun rights but these seem like common sense restrictions. If it invalidates these provisions an escaped convict could walk into a gun store and buy guns. A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. By the strictest sense of the law it probably raises doubts on age limitations too. Why can't a 10 year old buy a gun? The second amendment doesn't set any restrictions.
- russell_h 16y ago
  It wont. This ruling (as I understand it) mainly has the effect of incorporating[1] the 2nd amendment onto state and local governments, and doesn't deal much with with actual interpretations of the amendment itself. In fact according to the article Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation. Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... (Edited for formatting)
  - awzum 16y ago
    Yea but the anti-gunners say that a whole lot of new cases will inundate our courts for the next 10 years...as if that's a bad thing. California passed AB 962 which bans ordering ammunition online, and requires a thumb print and ID when purchasing ammo in person. I hope that gets fought.
    - hga 16y ago
      Well, states and municipalities could decide to observe the Constitution and preemptively fix their laws; 4 Chicago suburbs with total handgun bans including the notorious leader Morton Grove were defendants in the original lawsuits and 3 gave up rather than fight. And who knows, the really bad states are also in the worst financial shape by and large (strange, that...), they're going to be under new management sooner or later (already are in NJ, the other big ones would be NY, MA, IL and CA).
dieterrams 16y ago
I'm not sure science has progressed to the point where we can successfully graft bear arms onto the human body, but it's nice to see the Supreme Court thinking ahead.
- awzum 16y ago
  Oh come on, upvote this man for the awesome reference! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgCceg042w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgCceg042w
ramy_d 16y ago
i dunno, i thought i would share this: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-america.htm http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-a...
- awzum 16y ago
  A lot of anti-gunners are afraid of guns or have been negatively impacted by some type of gun-related crime. Remember, criminals will still have guns and some argue that banning guns increases the crime rate.
- hga 16y ago
  I haven't watched this, but I'll note two facts: There are about 100,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US. There are 3 known crimes that have been committed using a legally owned one, but two don't exactly count: one was by a cop and the most recent was that insane case of criminal negligence where a pre-teen was handed a Micro-Uzi and allowed to fire it without an adult helping. I wouldn't fire a Micro-Uzi without slowing working up to the point where I was sure I could handle it. One parent on a gun politics mailing list that I'm on who owns full auto weapons and who let his kids fire them emphasizes how he makes sure he has a "death grip" on the weapon to ensure it stays under control. That said, the large number of people who've fired rented or borrowed full auto weapons at events like Knob Creek without incident shows it's not terribly dangerous.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's a fair argument to discount the negligent pre-teen. The fact that you and other responsible adults would never allow this to happen really doesn't change the fact that someone did allow it, so it's an honest data point. Even so, 2 out of 100,000 compares quite favorably to the proportion of automobiles that have been used in violation of the law, or 1040 forms that have been used similarly.
    - hga 16y ago
      I discount it as a "true crime", it wasn't someone using his weapon to shoot someone with malice, it was a criminally negligent accident. E.g. if you bundled someone of the same age into a running car and let them have at it on your own property we wouldn't say that had anything to do with driver's licenses, if the vehicle was properly registered with up to date license plates/tags, etc. Heck, a Micro-Uzi is essentially a big handgun, you should never give a handgun to someone that young without intense training and supervision. I started shooting long guns in kindergarten but was a teen before my father started me on handguns (other more handgun oriented parents have started their children on handguns earlier; Massad Ayoob's daughter was winning competitions as some insane age like 7 or 9). And that's 100,000 over decades; the law dates back to FDR's first year or so in power and the number was frozen by another law in 1986.

NYT now also has an article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html

hga 16y ago

NO "cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago [and one of its suburban towns] and Washington [, D.C.]", which have/had full, absolute and total bans on handgun possession by ordinary citizens (maybe with some grandfathering). Therefore the immediate and direct result will be limited (although it should be noted that 3 other Chicago suburbs including the infamous Morton Grove dropped their bans rather than fight (Chicago offered to pay the legal costs of the one remaining suburb)). As it is, some lower courts have already been writing decisions assuming Heller would be incorporated and there are two cases in California have been on hold while waiting for this decision. WRT Breyer's dissent WRT "democratic decision-making", Alito slammed him pretty hard: "First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. [...] Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights."

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Right now I'm reading Scalia's opinion, in which he's tearing Stevens apart. For example: That JUSTICE STEVENS is not applying any version of Palko is clear from comparing, on the one hand, the rights he believes are covered, with, on the other hand, his conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is not covered. I've never read a set of opinions in which one member of the court so clearly slams the opinion of another (although IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS expert). Does this signal anything about the future of the court, or about the Chief Justice's leadership?
- hga 16y ago
  Don't know, but today is Stevens last day on the Supreme Court....

jsz0 16y ago

I wonder how this will effect the provisions of the Brady bill such as background checks, waiting periods, bans on felons buying weapons, etc. I'm all for gun rights but these seem like common sense restrictions. If it invalidates these provisions an escaped convict could walk into a gun store and buy guns. A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun. By the strictest sense of the law it probably raises doubts on age limitations too. Why can't a 10 year old buy a gun? The second amendment doesn't set any restrictions.

russell_h 16y ago
It wont. This ruling (as I understand it) mainly has the effect of incorporating[1] the 2nd amendment onto state and local governments, and doesn't deal much with with actual interpretations of the amendment itself. In fact according to the article Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation. Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... (Edited for formatting)
- awzum 16y ago
  Yea but the anti-gunners say that a whole lot of new cases will inundate our courts for the next 10 years...as if that's a bad thing. California passed AB 962 which bans ordering ammunition online, and requires a thumb print and ID when purchasing ammo in person. I hope that gets fought.
  - hga 16y ago
    Well, states and municipalities could decide to observe the Constitution and preemptively fix their laws; 4 Chicago suburbs with total handgun bans including the notorious leader Morton Grove were defendants in the original lawsuits and 3 gave up rather than fight. And who knows, the really bad states are also in the worst financial shape by and large (strange, that...), they're going to be under new management sooner or later (already are in NJ, the other big ones would be NY, MA, IL and CA).

dieterrams 16y ago

I'm not sure science has progressed to the point where we can successfully graft bear arms onto the human body, but it's nice to see the Supreme Court thinking ahead.

awzum 16y ago
Oh come on, upvote this man for the awesome reference! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgCceg042w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgCceg042w

ramy_d 16y ago

i dunno, i thought i would share this: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-america.htm http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89716716_fully-automatic-a...

awzum 16y ago
A lot of anti-gunners are afraid of guns or have been negatively impacted by some type of gun-related crime. Remember, criminals will still have guns and some argue that banning guns increases the crime rate.
hga 16y ago
I haven't watched this, but I'll note two facts: There are about 100,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US. There are 3 known crimes that have been committed using a legally owned one, but two don't exactly count: one was by a cop and the most recent was that insane case of criminal negligence where a pre-teen was handed a Micro-Uzi and allowed to fire it without an adult helping. I wouldn't fire a Micro-Uzi without slowing working up to the point where I was sure I could handle it. One parent on a gun politics mailing list that I'm on who owns full auto weapons and who let his kids fire them emphasizes how he makes sure he has a "death grip" on the weapon to ensure it stays under control. That said, the large number of people who've fired rented or borrowed full auto weapons at events like Knob Creek without incident shows it's not terribly dangerous.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's a fair argument to discount the negligent pre-teen. The fact that you and other responsible adults would never allow this to happen really doesn't change the fact that someone did allow it, so it's an honest data point. Even so, 2 out of 100,000 compares quite favorably to the proportion of automobiles that have been used in violation of the law, or 1040 forms that have been used similarly.
  - hga 16y ago
    I discount it as a "true crime", it wasn't someone using his weapon to shoot someone with malice, it was a criminally negligent accident. E.g. if you bundled someone of the same age into a running car and let them have at it on your own property we wouldn't say that had anything to do with driver's licenses, if the vehicle was properly registered with up to date license plates/tags, etc. Heck, a Micro-Uzi is essentially a big handgun, you should never give a handgun to someone that young without intense training and supervision. I started shooting long guns in kindergarten but was a teen before my father started me on handguns (other more handgun oriented parents have started their children on handguns earlier; Massad Ayoob's daughter was winning competitions as some insane age like 7 or 9). And that's 100,000 over decades; the law dates back to FDR's first year or so in power and the number was frozen by another law in 1986.