2nd Amendment

[Wresh]

Updated March 02, 2010
Supreme Court Considers Reach of Second Amendment


AP


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the U.S. Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.

At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Constitution's Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.

The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.

The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."

The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.
James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in Chicago and a suburb. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years.
The court has held that most of the rest of the Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws. But Feldman said the Second Amendment should be treated differently because guns are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," he said.

But Feldman ran into difficulty with some of the five justices who formed the majority in 2008. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined Scalia's opinion two years ago, said it seemed to him that Feldman was arguing that the court got it wrong two years ago.

Kennedy said other constitutional provisions have been applied, or "incorporated," against the states without stripping them of the authority to impose reasonable regulations. "Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" he asked.

Of the other two justices in the 2008 majority, Justice Samuel Alito also appeared to agree that the Second Amendment should be extended to state and local laws and Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, as is his custom during argument.

Tuesday's statements from the court also left little doubt that it would not break new ground in how it might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities.




-------------------------------------------------------

Now, from someone FROM the Chicago area let me be clear on this. There is a reason why Chicago has had one of the highest murder/crime rates in the country. It is because all of the criminals know you don't carry a weapon. If they thought for a second you had a gun, crime/murder would drop.

[Kikiyo]

While that would be true, there is always the death penalty and life in prison. That always works wonders. Use a gun in a crime, life in prison. Fire a gun in a crime, death penalty. Also, all the idiots that use guns in crimes are usually ignorant and idiots that were just raised/taught that way. There would be more people carrying a gun and more people willing to use it for defense if it was any more relaxed laws than it is. Should be more of an effort to teach kids growing up how to be good people than it is to focus on gun laws

[Kikiyo]

PS: I lived in south Minneapolis most of my life. I had a good friend of mine shot and killed 2 blocks away from my house and a cop killed two block away from my house in the opposite direction. If you wanted to know my experience. =P

[Wresh]

While that would be true, there is always the death penalty and life in prison. That always works wonders. Use a gun in a crime, life in prison. Fire a gun in a crime, death penalty. Also, all the idiots that use guns in crimes are usually ignorant and idiots that were just raised/taught that way. There would be more people carrying a gun and more people willing to use it for defense if it was any more relaxed laws than it is. Should be more of an effort to teach kids growing up how to be good people than it is to focus on gun laws


You will never change that humans will kill humans with anything they can get their hands on. Do they need stricter penalties for crimes commited with guns? Yes.... But should they dictate any restrictions to owning such weapons if you are not a criminal? NO..

[Kikiyo]

It's politicals and just a manner of opionon in the end is my view.

For me, I think of it this way. If I have a gun, will that stop someone from mugging me with a gun? probably not. As soon as they pull that gun, you are screwed unless you want to take the risk that they won't pull the trigger. If you point that gun at them, they are also more likely to fire it at you. Pick your poison I guess.

[Domathoine]

My understanding is that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect state and local militias' rights to bear arms in the event that it was necessary for defense, NOT a right of the general populace.

This is also my belief.

[Elkwood]

My understanding is that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect state and local militias' rights to bear arms in the event that it was necessary for defense, NOT a right of the general populace.

This is still my belief.

Your wrong

[Domathoine]

Lol?

I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary.

[Stosh]

Then do some research and look up UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/174/case.html) where the Supreme Court interpreted a militia as thus:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Which basically states that every male is a de facto member of the militia since at the time there was no standing armies, and when called upon by the state to serve, they were to arrive with their own firearm.

And District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/index.html) where the Supreme Court held:
that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

[Domathoine]

I'd bring up Doc v Heller in the same argument FOR my POV as it was a 5v4 majority and is something still very much on the table for deliberation.

Otherwise I applaud the actual research and evidence. :-)

[NormetheGnome]

DC is full of pussies. Id love to see what kind of shit would hit the fan if they tried this shit in a southern state. Redneck Revolution.

[Lonskils]

While I do not wish to own a gun at this time. There is a lot to be said that if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns. That to me means that you will make criminals of decent folk that have guns and mix them with the criminals that will always have guns whether you outlaw them or not. Do you for one second believe that outlawing anything in this country keeps it out of the hands of whomever wants it? Now once you finally realize that writing a law to regulate something and keep it illegal is just a way of keeping track of folks that will follow that particular law, then you must at the same time realize that no law can keep anything away from anyone that wants to have it.

If you make it illegal for me to own a gun. All you are doing is telling everyone WITH A GUN that I don't have one, so break in my house with impunity, rape my children without fear, and feel free to bring your gun.

Of course everyone is always Lons is a crazy person anyway or that I always look for the worst case scenario of any rule set. I tend to do that, because nothing is ever roses and sunshine, it usually falls somewhere between "thats fucked up" or "holy shit they did what to that family?" when you turn on the TV.

I end by saying in my rambling way I suppose, if you outlaw guns, it WILL NOT keep them out of the hands of the folks that will use them anyway. All it will do is fill our prisons with a bunch of decent folks that held on to their guns and got caught with them. The true criminals will always have a gun. But now, you'll never be able to tell em apart.

[Aindayen]

Guns will never be outlawed.

I find it funny that it's never the person that kills another person but rather gun violence. A gun is simply a tool when used with poor judgement can lead to bad things happening. Clearly some fault has to be for the person that uses such a tool in that way. I've always believed that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I also believe it's better to have a gun and never use it, rather than need a gun and not have one. Personally I shoot at a club as a bonding sport with my father :) I think I even have a video of my mother firing a clip through my fathers AR-15.

When the GF bought a new home last year my first gift was a shotgun.

Ain

[Skaara]

***A lot of truth***



... A gun is simply a tool when used with poor judgement can lead to bad things happening... ...guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I also believe it's better to have a gun and never use it, rather than need a gun and not have one.

I suck with words, but you two put it quite nicely. Now come get some man luv! ;)

[Beelzebubs]

Strange how countries with gun laws have a lower murder rate per capita than countries that allow everyone to have a gun.

[Phaera]

Oh God, let's please not start with the politics.

[Allara]

Filthy Euros.

[Stosh]

Strange how countries with gun laws have a lower murder rate per capita than countries that allow everyone to have a gun.

Yeah, this sounds like a peaceful and safe place. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)

[Lonskils]

Strange how countries with gun laws have a lower murder rate per capita than countries that allow everyone to have a gun.

I don't pretend to say this is an unbiased website, but not sure they could make this shit up...

LINK (http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm)




<table bgcolor="#ffff99" border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" width="620"><tbody><tr><td colspan="5" valign="top" width="50%">
High Gun
Ownership Countries
</td> <td colspan="4" valign="top" width="50%">
Low Gun
Ownership Countries
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="top" width="13%">
Country
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
Suicide
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
Homicide
</td> <td valign="top" width="12%">
Total*
</td> <td colspan="2" valign="top" width="13%">
Country
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
Suicide
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
Homicide
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
Total*
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="top" width="13%"> Switzerland</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
21.4
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
2.7
</td> <td valign="top" width="12%">
24.1
</td> <td colspan="2" valign="top" width="13%"> Denmark</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
22.3
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
4.9
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
27.2
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="top" width="13%"> U.S.</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
11.6
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
7.4
</td> <td valign="top" width="12%">
19.0
</td> <td colspan="2" valign="top" width="13%"> France</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
20.8
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
1.1
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
21.9
</td> </tr> <tr><td valign="top" width="13%"> Israel </td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
6.5
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
1.4
</td> <td valign="top" width="12%">
7.9
</td> <td colspan="2" valign="top" width="13%"> Japan**</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
16.7
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
0.6
</td> <td valign="top" width="13%">
17.3
</td></tr></tbody></table>

* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.


Just not seeing the prob here exactly...

[Lonskils]

Oh God, let's please not start with the politics.


I don't see anything wrong with reasonable adults talking politics or anything else, meh

[Beelzebubs]

Yeah, this sounds like a peaceful and safe place. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)

I blame our prison system and also the drinking hours here. Oh and Chavs! Violent crime is != to murder though, I'd rather take a savage beating than be killed :p

Imagine though if these already violent people had access to guns. I'm not saying we don't have them here but even our police have few guns.

[Aindayen]

Hell if I had to pay that much for petrol I would be violent as well!

Ain

[Cardinal]

I worked with Michael McDermott less than a year before he became famous . . . (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5732932/Killer-coworker-the-case-of.html ) The event truly got my attention. I often think that but for the grace of whatever, he could very well have gone off a few months earlier and it could have been me cowering under a desk waiting for him to unload an AK47 into my office.

The oppressive gun laws of Massachusetts did not help his co-workers much. I now have a license to carry concealed (good for something like 33 states...) and often do (Glock 27, 40S&W ). Oddly enough, here in AZ anyone can openly carry a gun, you only need to get a license to carry one concealed ( don't ask me the wisdom of the distinction ). You dont often see someone packing a Colt 45 on a gunbelt, but every once in awhile you certainly do . . . were someone to go off with a AK in an office here, it likely wont be the police who bring them down .

I am fairly confident the USC will declare Chicago's draconian gun laws unconstitutional, but yet leave plenty of wiggle room for less absolute revisions. The Court's 5-4 ruling in the DC case lines them up for bouncing at least part of the Chicago approach. They rarely go way out on a limb and fully back either side of a controversey however, and there will be something everyone will hate.

[Berae]

http://www.thereheis.com/images/family%20guy%20bear%20arms.jpg

Maybe you all misread what the second amendment is clearly about? :)

[Lonskils]

Where do you stand on this health care bill Card? Forcing folks to buy an insurance seems to not be something that congress nor anyone besides the states could require and even then it seems a bit much.

[Maegwin]

If I'm going to be taxed and/or fined to pay for poor (and/or lazy) people's health insurance then I damn well better be able to tell them they can't eat at fucking McDonalds, ever.

[Lonskils]

I'm sure once they have your health records on a database, they'll be telling YOU that you can't eat at McDonalds etc etc. They being the gov.

[Peotr]

If I'm going to be taxed and/or fined to pay for poor (and/or lazy) people's health insurance then I damn well better be able to tell them they can't eat at fucking McDonalds, ever.

Wrong approach. Standard treatments for overweight-related health issues (blood pressure, cholesterol, Type 2 diabetes, gerd) are above the average for a comparable person of the same age and normal weight, but these costs are also largely inexpensive (84% of the drugs used to treat these conditions can be purchased for $4.00 per month at Walmart.) Obese people have a mortality incline of 56 years of age, mortality average of 64 years of age and mortality crest of 74 years of age. On average a senior citizen living to the age of 82 costs more in Social Security and Medicare than any two obese people.

Surprisingly, obese people are no more likely to need heart bypass surgery than the average citizen - they are more at risk, but they aren't as likely to survive before treatment. In most states obese people do not qualify for organ transplants or hip / knee replacement surgery.

Interesting statistic - a lifelong skier will average more lost work hours and health costs than a lifelong obese person. On the other hand, a lifelong golfer will average the lowest.

Insurance companies rail against the obese because they don't like to pay for continuing treatments, but that doesn't mean the obese are the greatest burden. They are a burden, and the trend towards obesity is growing, but cancer, pregnancy, organ failure, degenerative disease, automobile accidents and depression all still trump the cost of obesity, and institutionally the obese person is less expensive. Health and life insurance companies don't like obese people, but corporate and state retirement funds do.

[Lonskils]

Also more poor folk are obese than the folks that can afford to eat well. The poor have to buy the cheaper meats, fattier food and more preservatives in them and thus when they eat they eat more fat, salt, etc. McDonalds dollar menu is a cause!

[Berae]

Also more poor folk are obese than the folks that can afford to eat well. The poor have to buy the cheaper meats, fattier food and more preservatives in them and thus when they eat they eat more fat, salt, etc. McDonalds dollar menu is a cause!
So, to make America healthy, Obama should be focusing on jobs and economics? :)

[Lonskils]

Yes, which is what from day one he should have been doing....Not this crap.

[Aerothas]

Health insurance fucks you any way. Be it private or soon to be national. I'd love to ellaborate but I'm not going to.

[Stosh]

I've always had health insurance. The first day I was ineligible to be covered by my parent's insurance, my mother was insistent that I get it. I knew why, of course. It wasn't so much to worry about paying for a doctor's visit for a cold, or an emergency room for some stitches. I rarely got sick. I had my father's constitution. My father NEVER got sick. I can't recall him ever missing a day of work. The entire house would have the flu, coughing and sneezing and he would walk through the mists of germs with seeming immunity. He worked hard. He was a plumber/pipe-fitter/welder. Not the residential stuff, huge corporate stuff like Exxon and Nescafe, where they would install and lug around 20 inch diameter steel pipes. He also never earned more than 30 to 35k per year. But he was a member of a union with outstanding benefits, particularly health insurance. He never needed it until September 9th, 1981.

It was a hot night, we had the central air conditioning on. I watched the Mets play the Pirates with my dad, they won 5 to 3. And school had just started. It was the evening of the first day of class, 8th grade. We made tuna fish for lunch the next day. At some point after we went to sleep, my father got up to go to the bathroom. My parent's bedroom door was across the hallway, diagonally from the bathroom. Directly across from the bathroom door, adjacent to the bedroom door was the door to the basement. All we can surmise was that my father, half asleep and groggy picked the wrong door and instead of going back into the bedroom, fell head first down a flight of stairs and smashed his head into the solid concrete floor. My mom heard the crash and woke up. I did too. The sight and sounds of my father on the basement floor will never leave me.

The first hospital he was taken to basically left him for dead. He had last rites twice. When he refused to die, they finally decided to take him to the area trauma center, doubtful he would survive the drive. The neurosurgeon didn't expect him to survive the operation. The impact shattered his skull, and one of the pieces of bone sliced through his brain. He was in a coma and ICU for nearly two months. Then there were months in Kessler Rehabilitation hospital, then several years at home with a nurse. The doctor's never thought he would live or emerge from the coma. When he did, the doctors told my mother he would never walk and if you intended to bring him home, we would need to retrofit the house. Several months later, my father walked into his office under his own power.

Through all this, multiple brain surgeries, close to a year in hospitals, physical therapy, a lifetime of costly medications, at home nurses, possibly having to redo the house, my father's insurance paid for nearly every cent. I asked my mom once how much had all this cost, and it was upwards of 3 million dollars. (1980's money.) During that whole crazy time, mom my was never under any financial strain or was forced to compromise my father's care due to cost. I can't imagine what the situation would have been otherwise or how my life my would have turned out differently.

To most people, insurance is for a doctor's visit and a trip to the dentist. To me, it's in case of a catastrophic accident, like life insurance for the living. I've paid insurance premiums for 23 years. I think I've been to the doctor three times. I don't care. I'm not a big fan of forcing people to pay for something they don't want. But they've painted themselves into a corner with pre-existing conditions. Who in their right mind would pay for expensive health care, if the minute you needed a heart transplant you could plunk down $200 and say "Ok, paid my premium, fix me up." It's going to be an interesting Supreme Court case in any event.

Sorry for the long and personal post. This is the first time in nearly 30 years that I've ever put some of this down on paper and the more of it I typed (and believe me there was a whole lot I skipped) the more therapeutic it became.

[Cardinal]

Where do you stand on this health care bill Card? Forcing folks to buy an insurance seems to not be something that congress nor anyone besides the states could require and even then it seems a bit much.


The challenges the various attorneys general are raising in lawsuits aimed at the healthcare bill are a bit intriguing from a purely theoretical point of view. ( not commenting one way or the other on the social merits) This bill is treading on virgin ground on requiring the public to "buy" something from a private company, to the best of my knowledge, it is groundbreaking on that front.

It is such a highly charged political question however, that the Supreme Court may do backflips to avoid the question directly. It has been a long time since the Court really went way way out on a limb an issued a ruling that stikes at the heart of the balance of power amongst the branches of gov't and implicates the state's rights question to boot.

The extra wildcard in the mix is the seemingly direct snub Obama leveled at the supreme court in his state of the union address (note judge roberts reacting quite negatively sitting in the audience) , it may well have become something personal to the right leaning majority in the court to be looking for something to beat up the administration over. It could get interesting.

The only thing certain I sense from my personal viewpoint, no matter what happens, I am going to get reamed tax wise in the coming years! I only hope that being a given, that somehow the feds manage to direct some of my tax money where it is needed and not just create more bloated bureaucracy. I will remain a skeptic on that front . . .

[Lonskils]

about 16k new IRS agents should do the trick, Card!

[Aerothas]

Just thought I'd whip out my penis. A buddy of mine is bringing me an AK when he gets back from the desert. He also claimed a SVD (not sure what that is) from some "shitty [racial slur] sniper" he killed.

I already own a pair of Beretta 92 pistols but I haven't even fired a full auto yet. So excited!

[Talas]

The Utah supreme court repealed the decision to ban firearms on public campuses while I was living there. My wife could have brought a firearm to kindergarten and I could have been packing heat while going to the University. CNN was on-location at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City after the Virginia Tech shooting, interviewing students that were carrying concealed weapons. They interviewed one of the guys in my graphics class!!

My professor joked that the grounds crew would save us from any potential gunman.. then he pointed out that if anyone was going to go on a shooting spree it'd be in the Engineering building. =\