Good news, the Supreme Court has recognized your individual right to possess and use firearms for any lawful purpose under the 2nd Amendment.
Now if only they could understand our 5th Amendment property rights. 
Look for more after I read Scalia’s opinion this weekend.
Loading ...
Probably the right decision – albeit an undeniably activist one overturning a century of Supreme Court precedent. Interesting that the authoring Justice is a supposed “originalist”.
Of course, as I and many others have said previously the difference between an activist Justice and a strict constructionist is simply a matter of agreement or disagreement with the decision.
It shouldn’t take a judge to tell me what my God given rights are in the first place. It sickens me to think that this had to be decided in court.
Ragnar,
You might be surprised here, but I disagree with you. What’s more important a century of Supreme Court precedent or the Constitution which is a little older than than and slightly more important?
I know you Dems think the Courts are the final arbiter when it comes to our rights, but some of us disagree. You can read abortion into the Constitution and miss the “right to bear arms” somehow. Simply amazing.
Last I knew the right was not qualified in the Constitution saying you have the right to bear arms until the government makes a law prohibiting this right.
Anyone with half a brain knows our Revolutionary forefathers wanted to be able to bear arms to overthrow an oppressive, high taxation government. Isn’t that exactly what they did? But their original intent was to prohibit future generations from using firearms to protect themselves?
Duck – you are reading the Constitution without any historical knowledge or understanding, go back and read the 2nd Amendment. It does NOT guarantee the individual the right to own a weapon, it does guarantee weapons ownership to individuals b/c it was the individuals who were responsible for owning and taking care of their weapons to be part of a militia.
That said, that was then, this is now. We no longer have militias – other than the National Guard. Thus, the right needs to be interpreted against the backdrop of today. Which is why our Constitution and system of Government works.
Gunter – I guess I missed where in the Bible, after thou shalt not kill and turn the other cheek, that God promised you a gun…
Today was a good day – and the SCOTUS actually followed the Constitution. Good job.
Ragnar, it is our God given right to protect ourselves.
Gunter – won’t disagree with you there.
Reid – the SCOTUS always follows the Constitution, it is only your opinion of their rulings that changes.
Let me ask you ragnar, what do you think the founding fathers were trying to protect with the inclusion of the bill of rights? Why include it, and where did they come up with it?
Only the left would find “abortion” in the 14th amendment but fail to see “keep and bear arms” in the 2nd.
Bravo, Kirwin, Bravo!
Ragnar,
Expert on everything, including what I do and do not know. I should not be surprised. Whenever someone does not agree with you, they don’t seem to know what they are talking about.
I know there is no historical context in saying the Constitution and the Bills of Rights were authored by rebels who wanted to overthrow an oppressive gov’t. that loved taxing its citizens. The Bill of Rights were not added to the Constitution because there was general fear that a strong central government would try to deprive its citizens of their basic rights.
People wanted the 2nd Amendment because they wanted the new government to be able to defend itself, not because they wanted a prayer of being able to overthrow the new government should it turn out to be oppressive.
Actually, they wanted a National Guard to exist because they wanted someone to come sandbag the Mississippi to protect their property when it overflowed. Guns really work much better than sandbags.
Let’s look at the 2nd Amendment against the backdrop of today as you say. We don’t have to worry about England depriving us of our freedoms. Today we have criminals to worry about. Mayors and other law makers love inane laws that deprive law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms, giving criminal who could care less about those laws, hence the name criminal, easy pickings.
So let’s let law abiding citizens form militia, complete with guns, to hunt down these criminals.
Or we could sic the National Guard on cities with high crime rates. Both are consistent with your argument of looking at the 2nd Amendment against the back drop of today.
I agree that today an armed militia has little prayer of overthrowing a government that reserves the best guns for itself and possesses nuclear weapons, aircraft, satellite technology, etc. So, if the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid, why aren’t you honest and why aren’t you seeking a repeal of this amendment instead of trying to reinterpret it?
On second thought, look at the “success” in Iraq. Maybe we do have a prayer of overthrowing our current oppressive government that taxes everything including the air we breathe (out at least given Kyoto). Is this the true reason Democrats want us out of Iraq? Are they afraid the terrorists there will embolden us to seek an armed revolution? Sorry, the zealot in me slipped out. I’ll try to keep it in check the next post.
Go read the opinion, Ragnar. Scalia addresses your argument.
——————-
If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners — if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a
safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force. That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to
exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev.477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.
——————-
If I may paraphrase…
If the right only applies to those in the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard), and Congress has the power to say who can and cannot be in the militia, then there is no protection at all in the Second Amendment, and no point to its being in the Constitution at all.
Jack – you have to admit that the logical path J. Scalia takes in the opinion is a bit strained. (Any time a Justice has to cite to a law review article you have to question the justification…) But, as I stated previously, I believe the result – although it does go against 70 years of Supreme Court stare decisis – is reasonable.
Though, I am bothered on a common sense level that it was J. Scalia in the recent GTMO decision who reported that the majority’s decision would “probably cost American lives” – yet this decision will undeniably cost more American lives – even over the 30,000 lost to gun violence last year. If “lost American lives” is a legal benchmark for J. Scalia, as he seemed to make it in GTMO, why was it not worth considering here? It does seem to be a break in his logical reasoning.
Where did Scalia “have to cite to a law review article”? That is, where was that article required for his argument, rather than simply being one more piece of evidence in support of his argument?
“It does go against 70 years of Supreme Court stare decisis….”
Nonsense. As Scalia points out, Miller clearly shows that the court considered the 2nd Amendment to be protecting an individual right. The ruling hinged on the type of weapon involved, not the fact that Miller was not a member of the organized militia.
“This decision will undeniably cost more American lives….”
You obviously don’t have the facts on gun control. Where gun laws have been passed, crime has gone up. Where CCW laws have been passed, crime has gone down. Go read John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime. As a criminologist, he set out to show that gun control reduces crime. As he collected more and more data, that hypothesis was crushed under the weight of the evidence.
You know, regardless of any legal precedent in this specific case, technically couldn’t the very act of judicial review as practiced in here be considered “activist”? It has been argued that Marshall was really overreaching in his opinion on Marbury v Madison, and that in the logical framework of “originalism”, the concept of judicial review stretches the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond the intentions of the founders. I wonder how Scalia and other “originalists” and supporters of judicial restraint square their beliefs with the original “activist” ruling by Marshall which gives them the very jurisdiction to consider such cases? It seems a little paradoxical to me.
Article III, Section 2 states
Marshall eloquently makes the case in Marbury v Madison that without judicial review, the protections and remedies afforded by our constitution, and the constitution itself, would be unenforceable.
Here’s a quote from Glenn Nye (Democratic Candidate to represent the Virginia Second in the US House):
“The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms and today, in a decision that was crucially important to the people of Virginia and all Americans, the Supreme Court affirmed that right. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and in Congress I will make sure the rights of responsible gun owners are protected.”
I am pleased that the fellah I am probably going to vote for in November seems to understand the need for citizens to be able to “keep and bear arms”.
Isn’t the “need” irrelevent when it is a right?
A right is a right, regardless of “need” for it.
Reid,
The “need” in our society is not a “right” unless it is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Fortunately for me (and you, and all of us) the Constitution addresses this need and makes it a right in our society. Glenn Nye seems to understand the “need” for the right when he praises the Supreme Court decision.
There are some that argue the Supreme Court decision does not guarantee the right to keep and bear unless one is a member of a well regulated militia. Glenn Nye does not seem to be one of them.
Jack,
I personally agree with Marshall’s argument. However, it can be counter argued that the actual power of judicial review is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, when it was a well-known function at the time, and a matter of some discussion by the original members of the convention. For an advocate of originalism and textualism like Scalia, who once said “it is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver”, to issue an opinion based on a process that (essential or not) by its nature seems counter his own method of constitutional interpretation just seems a little amusing to me.
I truly doubt the founders, who fought their government with their own guns, would write a document that allowed only government-sanctioned groups to bear arms.
Jeremy,
Just because people argue a position does not mean the position has any merit. If the Supremes did not have the power of Judicial Review, there would be nothing to stop Congress from passing an unconstitutional law, making the constitution unenforceable and provding no protection whatsoever.
Brian,
I agree with you. However that pesky “well regulated militia” aspect keeps rearing its head.
It is my opinion that the “need” for the citizens to be able to raise up a well regulated militia from amongst the gun owning populace to defend itself from a tyranical government is part of the reason for the Second Amendment being included in the Bill or Rights.
The “need” for a well regulated militia is not what is addressed for in the Second Amendment. The “need” addressed is for the ability of the citizens to defend themselves against tyrants.
Notice, the founders didn’t equate the “militia” with “law enforcement.”
All “well regulated” means in 18th century usage is “well trained.”
I’m glad we agree, though. If anyone thinks the founders protected gun rights of the people solely for military service, I’d send them right back to Civics class.
LD, please refer to the 9th Amendment.
Our rights exist with or without the Constitution, or government’s purpose is to secure our rights, it does not grant them.
The Heller decision turns firearms legislation on its head. The presumption now will be that bearing arms is the norm and special considerations must be present to regulate that right.
Lawyers are going to be busy till this gets sorted out.
Don,
I do not understand that the general 9th amendment overules the specific rights of the 2nd. The 9th only opened the doors to rights not specifically addressed previously. The 2nd (in my opinion) gives us enough guidance that we need not also pull the 9th into the debate.
I do not understand that the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms against the criminals that will bear arms in spite of the laws is a bad thing.
I am sure that Don (the Libertarian) did not mean that turning gun cotrol on its head is a bad thing.
LD- the point of the 9th is that the Framers acknowledged that our rights predate the Constitution and our government exists to secure those rights. They wanted it clear that other rights not mentioned existed and that the Bill of Rights merely made specific prohibitions against government interference with those they thought an oppressive government most likely to obstruct.
And Jack is right that I am delighted that gun control ceases to be a policy question and becomes a question only when sufficient cause exists to limit a basic right.
Don,
However the right to bear arms is specifically addressed in the 2nd amendment. It is upon this specific address that private gun ownership is based.
Upon the 9th amendment everything is cut loose. Everybody that wants to do anything (hey my right to murder is protected by the Constitution) can claim 9th amendment protection.
Private gun ownership has a more specified protection under the Constitution. Attempts to defend this right under the 9th are weak. If the 2nd amendment fails us we are not going to find shelter from the 9th.