District of Columbia v. Heller
We've dealt with the ambiguity of the Second Ammendment before. But today's Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller settles the matter, at least for now.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
17 comments:
If you read through the linked .pdf the dissent starts on page 114.
it's going to be brain breakingly complex, innit?
Not really. But, I went to an awesome college and am fucking smrt.
Working on collecting quotes for the main issue of cognitive dissonance I see in the ruling...
The cognitive dissonance starts on page 57. Put these ideas together:
1) Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. (page 57)
2) It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. (page 58)
3) It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. (Page 60)
-
Those ideas do not seem to fit together. 1 states that the government may regulate rights, which is what the D.C. handgun ban does. 2 acknowledges the degree to which "handguns" no longer serve the purpose the Founders intended for the second ammendment, yet then says this does not matter...for some reason.
3 mostly confuses me. "American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon" is completely faulty logic given the ability of government to regulate guns. If the government is the body who regulates then "American People" are not the source of reasoning for regulation; it does not matter if American People think that re-res ought to have guns; the Goverment has already ruled that re-res cannot have guns. So to invote "American People" as some guideline is baseless, I think.
One thing that bothers me is that in this case the ban isn't on guns but on concealed guns. Am I correct in thinking this. The government isn't taking away your right to bear arms, but instead is demanding that if you do so, that you make it known.
Not exactly.
"District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns"
The ban is not on concealed guns. The ban is on handguns through the mechanism described in the quote.
1 and 2 CAN be made to fit together, as 2's point is built upon the earlier statement that the Militia was a purpose, but strangely, doesn't shape the operating clause...
in other words, the right is not unlimited, but the changing technologies outdating the original purpose is not enough to limit it.
I don't necessarily buy it.. but.. they can be made into a single case.
1) Government can regulate guns.
2) The dichotomy between the historical utility of guns and the contemporary utility of guns cannot change the interpretation of the right.
3) American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.
When you combine those three my question is then, "What is the basis for government regulation?" We can regulate, we can ignore historical context, but we can't go against the considerations of the American People.
I've no idea how they sort that mess out.
Yeah.. they kinda go out of their way to avoid saying that, don't they?
If the notion of a militia is at all involved that indicates that the arms to which citizens have access need to be arms of the same level as those which foes would use against them. AK-47s, motherfucker.
But if that is not the standard then we need another. And "People like them" is hardly a reasonable standard to use unless I get an AK-47.
The part that gets me is that each section of the majority opinion makes sense. But when you combine them all it's nonsense.
.. a lot of things you like do the same, though.....
ahem.
True. But I'm not passing judgements that impact U.S. Law for years to come.
Gun-Control Supporters Show Outrage
Of course, since none of the Gun-Control Supporters owned guns the outraged demonstrations were short-lived.
Equally true.
And if you ever do, you'll break down .. and then rule guns for everyone, to fuel your spree...
The most entertaining part of this will be when the NRA challenges every gun law ever, and courts have to figure out what they are allowed to regulate.
Which is terrific, because if you read the ruling it doesn't help with answering that question.
"and then rule guns for everyone, to fuel your spree..."
Nope. Guns for some, tiny American flags for others.
Post a Comment