Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Supreme Court to determine D.C. gun rights (Update: DC gun ban struck down)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Supreme Court to determine D.C. gun rights (Update: DC gun ban struck down)

Old 03-09-07, 02:25 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,918
Supreme Court to determine D.C. gun rights (Update: DC gun ban struck down)

I'm disappointed in some of you - we usually have such gun rights fans in this forum. How did you miss this big news today? Hell, I'm preoccupied with college hoops today, and even I learned of this.

Here is the decision, which I recommend reading:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

Here is a key excerpt, thanks to Professor Volokh. If you are an originalist (even if just on Fridays ), you'll really like it.

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” — indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all — e.g., “the states.” These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions....

The District points to the singular nature of the Second Amendment’s preamble as an indication that the operative clause must be restricted or conditioned in some way by the prefatory language. However, the structure of the Second Amendment turns out to be not so unusual when we examine state constitutional provisions guaranteeing rights or restricting governmental power. It was quite common for prefatory language to state a principle of good government that was narrower than the operative language used to achieve it.

We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a well-regulated militia — even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia [which the court had earlier concluded “was a large segment of the population” rather than just a government-selected National Guard-like subgroup -EV] — is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias....

[I]f the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit — and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.

There is now a conflict on this issue between the DC Circuit and the 5th Circuit, so there very well could be a SCt review of the issue, perhaps early next year.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 02:31 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I assume you're happy about this decision.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 02:33 PM
  #3  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Good news, now the criminals won't be the only ones armed.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 02:35 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
spainlinx0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 14,841
So can I get a carry license in NJ yet?
spainlinx0 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 02:37 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,918
Originally Posted by classicman2
I assume you're happy about this decision.

Happy? No - I wouldn't have been 'happy' no matter what the outcome was. If anything, I like the decision because now it may force the SCt to definitively say what that amendment means, and that's a good thing.

Doesn't bother me though. The majority's opinion is more well-reasoned than the dissent's IMO.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 02:41 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
I find it stange that people bend over backwards to interpret the language of 18th century citizens to fit modern society. A modern Constitution would have voluminous legalese and be 75,000 pages long.

Other than that, I don't have a huge issue with it.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:15 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by CRM114
A modern Constitution would have voluminous legalese and be 75,000 pages long.
Like the Texas Constitution?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:15 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2554309.shtml


Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.
Sounds like Ms. Henderson agrees with Colbert's idea that D.C. residents aren't Americans
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:21 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by CRM114
I find it stange that people bend over backwards to interpret the language of 18th century citizens to fit modern society. A modern Constitution would have voluminous legalese and be 75,000 pages long.

Other than that, I don't have a huge issue with it.
if you take all the scotus cases then that is what you get
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:22 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
i think gun rights should be left on a local level. what works 100 miles north of denver doesn't work in NYC. if too many people had guns here it would be chaos
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:23 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,918
Originally Posted by Venusian
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2554309.shtml




Sounds like Ms. Henderson agrees with Colbert's idea that D.C. residents aren't Americans

Yeah that part of the dissent is bizarre.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:27 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
More importantly, why is homer the best image for this?

http://www.dcist.com/archives/2007/0..._rules_dis.php
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:33 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by al_bundy
i think gun rights should be left on a local level. what works 100 miles north of denver doesn't work in NYC. if too many people had guns here it would be chaos

You sound like Rudy - to hell with what the Constitution says.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:45 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
2 million people armed with guns in a 20 mile diameter isn't what the constitution says either
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:46 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
The Constitution is all well and fine when it serves my purpose.....
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 03:49 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,918
Originally Posted by al_bundy
2 million people armed with guns in a 20 mile diameter isn't what the constitution says either

Are you under the impression that the DC gun ban has resulted in the disappearance of guns in the District?
Red Dog is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:12 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
al,

Do you believe that localities should decide for themselves whether or not to have prayer in public school?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:20 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
you will never get rid of illegal guns, but having 2 million people armed in a place like NYC is crazy. everyone is always ticking everyone off and if everyone had a gun it would be block war like in Judge Dredd.

same thing with prayer, if towns want to allow it then it's up to the people that live there. but i don't think prayer will work in NYC schools since there are too many types of Christians here among other religions
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:22 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Then why even bother with The Constitution?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:35 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
because as someone famous said, the constitution is not a suicide pact

this country was founded on federalism and this means giving localities the power to govern themselves

i don't care if people own guns or not. i just think in NYC or other places with a large population density having a lot of people armed is a bad idea because the smallest things may flip a switch and too many people will get hurt. there are apartment buildings here with more people than a lot of towns in other parts of the US

Guns aren't illegal in NYC, it just takes like a year to get a license and there are a lot of restrictions.

Last edited by al_bundy; 03-09-07 at 04:38 PM.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:38 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by al_bundy
you will never get rid of illegal guns, but having 2 million people armed in a place like NYC is crazy. everyone is always ticking everyone off and if everyone had a gun it would be block war like in Judge Dredd.
Or maybe it would make everyone a lot more polite. Think positive!
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:46 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,995
Originally Posted by classicman2
Then why even bother with The Constitution?
You act like the constitution is 100% clear on this issue. It is not. There have been many bans on weapons (certain types) that have been upheld. And the courts cannot even agree on what "the people" or "militia" means. So just because there is a discussion on the topic doesn't mean anyone wants to throw out the constitution. This is what I hate about most folks to oppose a ban on guns. There is no reasonable discussion. Those that oppose a ban start throwing out "your not an American", "you don't believe in the constitution", "you don't believe in freedom"...

There are clearly limits that must be followed. I cannot go buy a military M-16 or whatever they are using today, and I live in Texas! I think what Al is trying to say is maybe that "limit" should be set at the local level.

For example, there are still states that ban the sale of sex toys. I think that is silly. But it is their state, should the feds come in and force the sale of these products? What about Internet sales of beer/wine?
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 04:54 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by Sdallnct
There are clearly limits that must be followed. I cannot go buy a military M-16 or whatever they are using today, and I live in Texas! I think what Al is trying to say is maybe that "limit" should be set at the local level.
For $300 and an FBI background check, you could be in possession of an M249 SAW. As long as you had the cash and could find a legal seller.

Last edited by crazyronin; 03-09-07 at 05:13 PM.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:12 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
besides, SCOTUS says what the Constitution means. The lower courts are lower than dirt and SCOTUS will have the final say.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:13 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
Or maybe it would make everyone a lot more polite. Think positive!
Originally Posted by Robert Heinlein
An armed society is a polite society
Really, when so many states started passing concealed carry laws there were all sorts of predictions of gun battles in the street. Hasn't happened.
movielib is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.