The Court and the Second Amendment

New York Times ^ | 21 nov 07

[rellimpank]

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia’s stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court’s move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

[MrB]

“whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia”

The Supreme Court has already set its precedent under Grand Wizard Hugo Blackmun that the doctrine of “incorporation” means that the restrictions of the bill of rights applies not just to Congress but to the states.

I don’t care if DC is a non-state. Live by “incorporation”... etc.

Of course, my mistake here is to apply logical consistency to a leftist ideology and mindset. You have to think backwards when trying to figure out a leftist. Goal first - consistency of process be damned.

[Dead Corpse]

What is so “reasonable” about victim disarmament laws?

[MrB]

Don’t make the mistake of trying to apply logical consistency to leftist “thinking”.

[samtheman]

I want to keep this link to the grammatical analysis where I can find it. Thanks.

[CourtneyLeigh]

So true

[Hunterite]

thanks

[steamroller]

if the gun grabbers win they can come get my guns and the guns of 80 million other Americans-if only 10% resist there will be a blood bath to rival the Civil War-this is the one issue i cannot compromise on ever-the best idea is to identify who is pushing disarmament and remember them well if things go south for firearms owners

[Ancesthntr]

I'll tell you what -- if I were a DC politician and the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to people living in a non-state, I would immediately propose the following:

All newspaper content within the District of Columbia must be reviewed by the new Censorship Board.

All places of worship in DC must close immediately, with the exception of the Episcopalian Churches.

Police will be searching homes whenever they feel like it, and removing guns, and also inappropriate reading material.

I am certain that this very argument will be brought up by the attorneys arguing our side of this case. If the 2nd doeesn't apply in DC because it isn't a state, then neither do any of the other rights enshrined in and protected by the rest of the BOR.

IMHO, we will win this case - the USSC will state that the 2nd protects an individual right. No, this case isn't about incorporation, so we'll have to go through another case to have a ruling on that. No, it won't specify the limits of "reasonable regulation" (which I am sure will be part of the ruling), so we'll have to go through another case to have a ruling on that. No, it won't rule on the Constitutionality of the '86 full auto ban - though it'll give us the ideal tool to get it overturned in yet another case.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I can't see how they can rule the 2nd a "collective right" (whatever the eff such an animal may be), because to do so would make the rest of the rights mentioned in the BOR just as moot, based on the same reasoning. Even uber-lib Alan Dershowitz realizes this, and he's said that the Court needs to affirm that the 2nd protects an individual right so that the rest of the BOR means something.

[Sacajaweau]

All men have a right to defend themselves. That has ALWAYS been the case. The point of militias is that at times, the government will have to help any/all ordinary men.

[Sacajaweau]

I think we have one of the best and learned courts in History. They won't make a mistake.

Although I think they did on eminent domain...but every state can take care of that if the people open their mouths.

[correctthought]

Awesome post!

Happy T-day everyone.

-ct

[Atlas Sneezed]

“The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.””

---

Note the word “has” before the Miller quote. The NYT wants us to think that the Miller court ruled that the OWNERSHIP was related to a militia. However, in the ruling, it was that the GUN that must have some such relationship.

Here is the quote from Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

[William Tell]

Beelzebubba said: "Here is the quote from Miller:"

Further supporting the proper reading of the quote is the fact that they said "possession or use of a shotgun", not "possession or use of their shotgun" or "possession or use of his shotgun".

You are correct that Miller decided (incorrectly, I believe) that the possession by Miller of some arms is protected and the possession by Miller of other arms is not protected. In any case, they never questioned that Miller himself was the one afforded the protection by the Second Amendment.

[RipSawyer]

But the stats show that violent crime goes down in states like Virginia that have concealed carry laws.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

True, but the battle cry of gun control advocates has always been, “DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, DAMMIT!

[DelaWhere]

"Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality."

NYT obviously supports a revisionist Constitution.
But, the question arises - If they didn't really think that it was an absolute right, why would they think that the justices need to modify it to reflect 'modern-day reality'?

[Redcloak]

...The fear is that it will not.

From their lips to God's ears. : - )

[neverdem]

So it's no wonder that I have given up on the NY Times Editorial Board's Masthead Editorials. They can't even get the basic facts straight.

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

IIRC, the federal trial judge was the district judge who dismissed Parker.

SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., (were) APPELLANTS i.e. the folks who appealed the dismissal.

Here's the pdf link of the decision that zeugma was so kind to convert to HTML.

SHELLY PARKER, ET AL., (were) APPELLANTS

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment 4 (“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”) does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.

The trial court was reversed by the appeals court. In my humble opimion, I don't think these idiots come from New York City.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

If they didn't really think that it was an absolute right, why would they think that the justices need to modify it to reflect 'modern-day reality'?

It's a living document to them. They of course support the "right" to an abortion, which is found absolutely nowhere in the Constitution but for gun rights that are spelled out in plain English they can't be bothered with. You just know they're longing for the days of the Warren Burger Court.