2nd Amendment

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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..

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 still my belief.

---

Your wrong

Lol?

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

Then do some research and look up UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) 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) 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.

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. :-)

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonskils

***A lot of truth***

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aindayen

... 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! ;)

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

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

Filthy Euros.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beelzebubs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beelzebubs

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




<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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaera

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