SCOTUSblog - HELLER - Be there or Be square!

[lazs2]

boy... you should hear old osamabam backpeddling on the issue now...

He is claiming that he always thought it was an individual right and that he never agreed with the democrats who thought DC's law was constitutional..

He had no teleprompter so he really stepped into it..  it will be fun to watch his position from last year and his position from this year played side by side over and over.

He was one of the few who would not sign the amicus brief that said that it was an individual right.

lazs

[Guppy35]

I'm pretty confident that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been elected we would have a different ruling today or no ruling at all. IMO, without the second, the rest of the constitution would be little more than the paper it's written on. The second will allow us to defend the rest of the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

And based on that comment, you are clarifying that you see any decision made by the supreme court as a political leaning decision not a decision based on the law and the constitution.

So in that regard this decision should be seen as nothing more then political conservative leaning and based purely on that and not the law. 

And I should have no faith that the highest court in the land can make a reasonable decision, just an ideological based one.

Wow that makes me feel real confident.....

[AKIron]

boy... you should hear old osamabam backpeddling on the issue now...

He is claiming that he always thought it was an individual right and that he never agreed with the democrats who thought DC's law was constitutional..

He had no teleprompter so he really stepped into it..  it will be fun to watch his position from last year and his position from this year played side by side over and over.

He was one of the few who would not sign the amicus brief that said that it was an individual right.

lazs

He seems to have real knack for saying the wrong thing and contradicting himself but he says it eloquently. Guess that's enough for some folks. Well, that and those Robin Hood dollars he's going to spread around.

[AKIron]

And based on that comment, you are clarifying that you see any decision made by the supreme court as a political leaning decision not a decision based on the law and the constitution.

So in that regard this decision should be seen as nothing more then political conservative leaning and based purely on that and not the law. 

And I should have no faith that the highest court in the land can make a reasonable decision, just an ideological based one.

Wow that makes me feel real confident.....

I've seen it just exactly that way for several decades now. Our government gives me almost no confidence.

[Guppy35]

And that is why I characterized the dissenters as chowderheads, Dan.

There are people that don't believe ANY opinion can be characterized as "activist". However, had this failed to be confirmed as an individual right it couldn't be any more clear that they were amending the Constitution from the bench.

I'll admit that overall, I do not respect the 4 dissenters and have not for quite some time.

But Toad, you are absolutely set in your belief on what the 2nd Amendment says.  I've got quite the arsenal here, and love to shoot, but it's never been clear to me based on the militia wording.  Does that make me a chowderhead for not seeing it that clearly?   What you gents are saying is that due to political placement, and for no other reason, this was finally seen the way a very conservative, right leaning bunch wanted to see it.  Their ideoligical view is closer to yours so it's gotta be right while everyone who doesn't see it that way is wrong or 'activist'.

What a terrible way to look at the court, and people in general.  

I can respect the decision as the highest court in our land has ruled on it, and I can respect the dissenting opinions as they ask the same questions that I do.  One of the beauties of the constitution is it allows for dissent, and not respecting that right or condemning folks for not agreeing with your ideological view is downright scary to me.  

[Guppy35]

I've seen it just exactly that way for several decades now. Our government gives me almost no confidence.

And your solution would be?  Outside of little jackboots for everyone and denying our right to dissent and disagree what do you want?  Show me a system that works better?

[Jackal1]

I'm disappointed in the ratio of votes regarding this situation. I am deeply grateful that Bush did have a hand in selecting the court vs the alternative.

Absolutely. I am also disappointed in the ratio....................no, I`m amazed would be better words.
A victory is a victory though. Much work to be done now.

[AKIron]

And your solution would be?  Outside of little jackboots for everyone and denying our right to dissent and disagree what do you want?  Show me a system that works better?

Whoa, who said anything about denying anyone's right to dissent, besides you?

How about a government that doesn't see fit to redistibute our wealth (my hard earned bucks) for starters? How about a government that enforces the laws we have on the books like our immigration laws for example? Instead of trying to shut up the radio hosts when they energized people to defeat their amnesty bill how about a congress that represents the people instead of one that tries to control them? I could go on if you want?

[Charon]

I can respect the decision as the highest court in our land has ruled on it, and I can respect the dissenting opinions as they ask the same questions that I do.  One of the beauties of the constitution is it allows for dissent, and not respecting that right or condemning folks for not agreeing with your ideological view is downright scary to me.  

Read all three opinions. The majority decision is Constitutional-based. The minority opinion still holds to the militia deal that even top liberal scholars like Tribe have discarded. Could this be for primarily ideological reasons given the virtual lack of academic support it has outside the gun control community today? They REALLY have to make some mental gymnastics to have that position in the face of the actual scholarship cited in the majority opinion. Then, the minority dissents wander directly into non constitutional areas where they have public policy objections. Breyers is even 2/3 public policy and not constitution.

The justices are not on the court to set public policy at their whim. They are not there to rule on ideology. We have the legislative and executive branches for that. We can freely change the Constitution as required using the appropriate channels. The court justices are there strictly to rule if a law meets existing constitutional muster.

Scalia addresses the dissent numerous times in a very specific manner. Calls to question directly, personally and forcefully their "logic." He addresses Breyer and the public policy "stuff" here:

After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interestbalanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam).

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

and

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

and

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.[/b]

Again, read all 3 opinions.

Charon

[Toad]

 I've got quite the arsenal here, and love to shoot, but it's never been clear to me based on the militia wording.  Does that make me a chowderhead for not seeing it that clearly?

Dan, Charon has explained it very well. I can't add much to what he said or what he quoted from Scalia's judgement.

As for your failure to see it as an individual right, I would have to assume. I assume you are a very intelligent guy from your body of posts here. Therefore, I must assume that you simply have not done your homework on this issue. The intent of the 2nd is clear as can be from the writings of the founders before and after the 2nd was written. The history of the 2nd is clear. It's there for any true scholar. So if you arrive at your conclusion because you have not seriously researched the 2nd (Scalia gives a fine history of the right today; a good place to start and no point in me repeating stuff here) you would not be a chowderhead. If you have done the research and choose denial, well.. I guess I would consider you a chowderhead on this issue.

To be fair to myself, I believe I said the court libs were chowderheaded on the Kelo V New London eminent domain ruling in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. At nearly the same time I believe I said Scalia was a dead wrong chowderhead on using interstate commerce on the medical marijuana case. (Note of course that the libs were chowderheaded on that one too....).

I will point out, echoing Charon, that Constitutional support in today's dissenting opinions is sadly lacking; their primary recourse is to personal opinion. I think Scalia shames Breyer and Stevens in this area; he shows them for what they are, and they are definitely NOT judging on a Constitutional basis. But then they didn't judge on a Constitutional basis on eminent domain or medical marijuana either... sooooooo... they're tough to respect because they dont' respect the Constitution.

[Toad]

.

[Charon]

As an aside. Funniest two satirical alias names from the various posts today on other boards (and both by the same guy):

Juan McShamnesty and Ruth Beider Meinhoff

Got a chuckle.

Charon

[Shuckins]

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the wording of the Second Amendment in the Constitution was all that the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject. 

It's not. 

There are a lot of other documents, letters, and other writings by them that shed more light on the actual meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, almost all of which refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right.  The reference to militias is simply a phrase pointing out that the presence of militias, comprised of private citizens bearing their own arms, is the best defense against the development of tyranny within our own government.

[Elfie]

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the wording of the Second Amendment in the Constitution was all that the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject. 

It's not. 

There are a lot of other documents, letters, and other writings by them that shed more light on the actual meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, almost all of which refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right.  The reference to militias is simply a phrase pointing out that the presence of militias, comprised of private citizens bearing their own arms, is the best defense against the development of tyranny within our own government.

So true Shuckins. There is lots of documents from that time frame that show exactly what the founders intended with the 2nd Amendment.

[myelo]

Stupid 8-ball is always wrong <smacks it>...

Tell 8-ball to never underestimate the need for bitter O'Clubbers to cling to gun threads.