On June 26, 2008 the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision upholding an individual’s right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes, such as for self defense in the home. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is the first ruling on the 2nd amendment in nearly 70 years, and the first ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold a citizen’s individual right to keep and bear arms. While the decision ruled that the ban of handguns in Washington, D.C. is unconstitutional, it stresses that certain regulations are legitimate. In addition to limiting the type of firearms that can be owned, the decision also upholds prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.
I repeat, the District of Columbia v. Heller was "the first ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold a citizen’s individual right to keep and bear arms."
What do you think that means? Do you think it means this was the first time the Supreme Court upheld a citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms? I think that's what it means. And I think that's a direct contradiction to what some of our pro-gun commenters have been telling me. What do you think?
It means the ABA has it wrong!!
ReplyDeleteThe Miller decision upheld the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear arms.
Read it carefully and don't let your prejudice get in the way.
The decision said since the short barreled shotgun had NO relation to the effective regulation of a militia it was legal for the government to regulate the use. Note that means it upheld the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, just that some arms could be regulated.
"Is the first ruling on the 2nd amendment in nearly 70 years, and the first ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold a citizen’s individual right to keep and bear arms.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically correct, however the Miller case made no ruling either way since Miller died and the defense never argued it's case before the court.
Even a cursory reading of Miller shows that the court considered it an individual right. What they said was that a sawed-off shotgun (the weapon in question) was not a protected "arm" under the 2nd Amendment.
Read my post on the subject, and I really suggest reading the decision as well.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-i-hear-this-one-more-time-im-going.html
Also Mike, remember that the 2A cases that went to the SCOTUS prior to Miller (Presser & Cruikshank) are relics of a different era of SCOTUS jurisprudence.
What I mean by that is that they were pre-incorporation cases. Relying on pre-incorporation cases is absurd, since when they were decided the Constitution as a whole didn't apply to the states.
(See also Barron v. Baltimore 1833) which held that the BOR was not binding against the states.
It is if you ignore the Cruikshank and Presser decisions.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that the ABA filed a brief in support of the handgun ban which was found unconstitutional.
Why would they support a ban on firearms MikeB?
Heller was the first ruling in 70 years in which the 2A was at the core of the case in question. The 2A has been mentioned many times in other cases not dealing specifically with the 2A.
ReplyDeleteAnd in US vs Miller, the SCOTUS did not rule that the defendents did not have an individual Right to own a gun. It ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a suitable militia weapon and therefore not protected by the 2A.
The case had to do with the weapon involved, not the right to own weapons in general.
You can read the Miller decision here...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Government/Courts/U.S.%20Supreme%20Court/Miller/US%20v.%20Miller
And don't forget the fact that there was NO defense present at the Miller case. Only the state presented.
ReplyDelete"It should be noted that the ABA filed a brief in support of the handgun ban which was found unconstitutional. "
ReplyDeleteBingo. It's not as if the ABA is some impartial legal source. They supported a total ban on handguns, and the SCOTUS (and american people) put them in their place.
First time or thousandth, it's a settled point of law, now. Time to move on to incorporation, and then to an analysis of the meaning of "shall not be infringed" (should be easy, if you have a dictionary) . . . and then it will be time for ammo makers to start tooling up for serious production.
ReplyDeleteLet freedom ring.
Keep spinning, boys.
ReplyDeleteAs usual Bob S. had the funniest response. Anyone whose opinion differs from his, whether it's me or the ABA, is simply wrong.
Then it got really hysterical with reminding me to not let my prejudice get in the way while reading the Miller decision.
I suggest it's the pro-gun folks who need this reminder. You guys are the greatest bunch of spin doctors and repetition bullies I've ever encountered.
Indeed- spin doctors par excellance! They have to be. Look at what they are attempting to 'defend.' Reminds me of that old news footage when the CEO's of the Tobacco industries were called to Congress and each one stated that 'cigarettes are not addictive.'
ReplyDeleteGuys like these are shysters, plain and simple. Snake oil anyone?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteSometimes there are no shades of gray.
This isn't something like which soft drink is best...it isn't the Pepsi Challenge.
The ruling of the Supreme Court is in print. Clearly and easily understood, the court did uphold the individual right in Miller and in Cruikshank and Presser. If they didn't uphold the right, show it. PROVE IT.
You think that I'm bad for saying that something is wrong....when it is wrong. I disagree. If I said the sun was a Black Hole, obviously that isn't correct, it isn't an opinion. It would be an incorrect fact, it should be called that.
So, what do you call it when the Court repeatedly upholds an individual right many times prior to the Heller Decision. Is your statement right or wrong?
"Look at what they are attempting to 'defend.'"
ReplyDeleteThe Bill of Rights. Seems you have lots of contempt for it.
BTW MikeB, since you can't respond to any of the statements, it's all 'spin', right? Just like your belief that the FBI fudged their numbers and the NRA forced the BATFE to include disclaimers.
Bob S. And in other cases the SCOTUS mentions the 2nd as a fundamental right along with the
ReplyDelete1st. See the Dredd Scott case.
Of course the also said that Scott didn't have any of the individual rights they listed (including the
2nd) because he was a slave and thus no more than property.
Also, Cruikshank is one of the most racist rulings the court ever sent down.
Honest question.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the Heller ruling?
Have you read the Parker ruling?
Have you read the Miller ruling?
Have you read the Cruikshank ruling?
I have read all and many more.
Have you? If yes, then show where we are wrong, please.
My guess is mike won't read those cases, won't bother citing them, and probably wont even read the post I linked to about Miller.
ReplyDeleteHe won't even respond anymore to this post since he can't defend his statements or answer any of the questions w/o making himself look an even bigger fool.
ReplyDeleteHold on, guys. I've got some reading to do as recommended by kaveman and Mike W. Then I'll have plenty to say, don't worry.
ReplyDeleteMeantime, keep spinning. I especially like that UK reference. You guys have repeated and copied each other's nonsense so many times on that one you all forgot what the real deal is. When there are fewer guns there are fewer gun murders. In the UK that's held perfectly true, but you guys keep spinning it about the knife crime and about the rapes and robberies, crime in general.
Fewer guns means fewer gun incidents. That's what we're talking about, not knives and not swimming pools, not cars and not cameras and computers. We're talking about guns.
"Fewer guns means fewer gun incidents. That's what we're talking about, not knives and not swimming pools, not cars and not cameras and computers. We're talking about guns."
ReplyDeleteThat's a specious argument Mike and you know it.
If you reduce the # of guns and end up with say 50% less violent crimes committed with guns but at the same time there's a 200% increase in violent crime with edged weapons what's the net?
Is society safer when violent crime increases so long as those crimes aren't committed with a gun? Anyone who can rub a few brain cells together will tell you NO.
BTW Mike.
ReplyDeleteUK - Knife crime doubles in 2 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2284258.ece
And here in the US, in that gun-control utopia New York. Gun homicides drop and knife homicides go up 50%. Gun Control - not exactly a raging success at keeping NY safe.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/knife_deaths_up_in_new_york_ci.html
When there are fewer guns there are fewer gun murders. In the UK that's held perfectly true, but you guys keep spinning it about the knife crime and about the rapes and robberies, crime in general.
ReplyDeleteSo is it somehow "better" to be stabbed, bludgeoned, strangled, or beaten to death, than it is to be shot to death? Do you care to address the issue that a firearm, the use of which places far less emphasis on brute strength, provides an effective means of protection for the elderly, the weak, etc. (who tend, by the way, not to be the sorts to initiate violence), against the young, strong, and brutal? Being a paraplegic, confined to a wheelchair, that argument has some personal relevance for me.
"Then I'll have plenty to say, don't worry."
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying that but the only things you 'say' are more cutnpastes from anti-gun groups while dismissing the FBI, BATFE, DOJ, etc.
"In the UK that's held perfectly true,"
Which explains why their 'gun crime' rates went UP after their recent bans. And they're on an island.
Mike W. says, "If you reduce the # of guns and end up with say 50% less violent crimes committed with guns but at the same time there's a 200% increase in violent crime with edged weapons what's the net?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a wild "if." How about this one?
Reduce the number of guns enough to get a 50% decrease in gun violence but the other violence goes up 25%. There's the net gain and a more likely scenario too.
Thirdpower is repeating pro-gun propaganda again:
ReplyDelete"Which explains why their 'gun crime' rates went UP after their recent bans. And they're on an island."
At least the part about they're being an island is correct.
45, That's a trick question. "So is it somehow "better" to be stabbed, bludgeoned, strangled, or beaten to death, than it is to be shot to death?"
ReplyDeleteThe whole point is that when stabbed, strangled or bludgeoned, one is less likely to die. Guns kill better. That's the point. Less guns, less death. It's simple.
"Guns kill better. That's the point. Less guns, less death. It's simple."
ReplyDeleteTell that to the folks in Rwanda. One of the most efficient genocides in history carried out primarily with Machetes. (After they made sure the folks they intended to slaughter were unarmed of course)
The whole point is that when stabbed, strangled or bludgeoned, one is less likely to die. Guns kill better. That's the point. Less guns, less death. It's simple.
ReplyDeleteOK, so the 70% gunshot wound survival rate (Brady Bunch numbers--unless you want to dismiss them as "gun lobby" propaganda) isn't good enough for you.
Do you plan on addressing my point about the enormous defensive utility of firearms, particularly for those who are at a physical disadvantage in comparison to likely aggressors?
Mike W., Do you think those machete-wielding murderers in Rwanda would have killed fewer people if there'd been plenty of guns?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on arguing even obvious things like "guns kill more efficiently?" Don't you have enough good points to argue, do you have to pick on every single thing.
As I said before, you argue with me even when you agree with me.
You do realize, don't you, that the same properties that make "guns kill better" (or "more efficiently," depending on which time I quote you), also make them defend better/more efficiently?
ReplyDelete"Mike W., Do you think those machete-wielding murderers in Rwanda would have killed fewer people if there'd been plenty of guns? "
ReplyDeleteABSOLUTELY! roughly 800,000 people were slaughtered in just over 3 months in 1994. The perpetrators of that genocide used machetes as their primary weapon, literally hacking people to death.
That's nearly 8,000 people murdered each day Mike. Hacked to death because they had been denied an effective means of self-defense prior to the genocide. Funny how that works, when one group wishes to wipe out another group, they universally make sure their target group is without effective defensive weapons.