Court hears guns case (Justice Kennedy, Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms")

AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/18/08 | Mark Sherman - ap

[Sloth]

The BoR don't "give" the people any rights.

To be charitable, the word "gives" isn't inside the quotation marks in the article -- maybe it's the reporter's ignorance rather than the justice's.

[Travis McGee]

HH did the new version on the right side, and put them together.

[3niner]

DC’s argument has mostly come down to a pragmatic one, not a legal one. They claim that it reduces gun crime to reduce the number of guns in the city. If they really believed this they would not arm their police officers.

Since they do arm their police officers, they are acknowledging that it matters who has a gun. Since CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime with a handgun, than a police officer, it is obvious that this is about government power, and not public safety.

[Clump]

I think you are correct, but a win is a win as they say. With this court, I will take it. Then we can build on this basic right when we get one or two more , rather than have to hear all the stare decisis crap when we want it (a collective rights opinion) overruled. I think the 5 will hold together on this one. I will remain cautious until then.

Of course afterwards we will have a strong reliance interest when the liberals try to get it overruled in the future. I anticipate a luke warm majority opinion, and a strong concurrence from Thomas or Roberts.

[NormsRevenge]

a guess..

early summer

[KoRn]

" Of course, he really means only 5-Star Generals have the right to own a firearm."

Sadly, with Kennedy we also can't rule out how the term "general" is defined by international law....

[longtermmemmory]

General Right?

Is that like a collectivist right? General to the public but not the individual?

Can anyone clarify what kennedy meant?

[TChris]

...advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.

The journalist certainly did a nice job of artificially framing the debate. "Advocates of...rights" vs. "Opponents of...violence"

They make it come down to a question of rights vs. violence, as if the existence of the individual right to bear arms must necessarily cause violence. And, since the left views gun "rights" as, at best, unimportant, there's really no contest in their minds when those rights are compared to an overriding concern about violence.

Why weren't protesters described as "Advcates of gun rights and advocates of gun control"? Or, "Opponents of violent criminals and opponents of self defense"?

Journalists are snakes.

[longtermmemmory]

DC’s argument is absurd. Its logical conclusion is that “executions will continue until moral improves.”

[jrp]

I’m expecting a mealy-mouthed “have it both ways” ruling.
Something along the lines of yes, the 2A recognizes an individual right, but the right is subject to reasonable restrictions. And they’ll punt on defining “reasonable” and says it’s up to the people, acting thru their federal, state and local representatives, to decide.

[longtermmemmory]

notice how no numbers were given. When the DBM does not give numbers you can bet the pro-conservatvie numbers outnumbered the kook left.

Probably just the DC HQ of handgun control inc.

[Spirochete]

That could be a very encouraging sign of things to come. I'd like to know what his idea of "general" is.

'General' as in 'not specific', IOW, no specific right to own guns.

[longtermmemmory]

Well Ginsberg and Kennedy are apparently gone to the wrong side on this.

So now the issue is if Thomas, Alito, Scalia are on the correct side will the others follow them or the effete elite mode.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Everybody over age 18 should have a submachine gun rifle or intermediate caliber battle/assault rifle. Next?

Submachine guns are of limited utility. Of course, they ARE fun, especially suppressed.

[xsrdx]

Of course, they ARE fun, especially suppressed.

Just looking out for the differently-abled.

Plus, SMG's are easier to conceal under a skirt.

[Manly Warrior]

The US Government and most states already add to minimum sentecnes for firearms use in crimes (not really sure why a firearms is any more threatening that a golf club, in most situtations anyway).

Well, I guess the same logic must apply if an unauthorized person talkes the family car, butcher knife, prescription meds etc and uses them illegally as well. Certainly there is a reasonable amount of care and concern in securing/preventing all of the above “things” as wellas firearms from inappropriate use, but then let laws relflect the concept, not the individual item.

there is so much negative press concerning firearms, we all to often forget that vast numbers of our populace maintina, use and keep firearms of every flavor with no harm or foul to the neighbor-kinda like most other things....

Demonize and punish criminals, not the things they use or take; we the people cannot afford to surrender every freedom and individual liberty for some purported feel-good security.

I am responsible for my own safety, not the government; I possess/carry a firearms since it is my decision making that employs it and besides, cops are too smelly and heavy to carry (nor do I trust anyone else for my safety or that of my loved ones).

Lastly, this whole event is not very relevant to my right to self-defense anyway; the US Constitution and the BOR does not grant me anything, rather “in order to form a more perfect union....”; I have already been granted these rights among others by my Creator, it (we) grant the government certain powers that are specifically restricted and can be even more so.

MOLON LABE

God Bless

[Manly Warrior]

Sorry for the poor typing-I must turn on that pesky spell check....

Mea Culpa...

[Joe Brower]

[Rick.Donaldson]

How do you all feel about raising the mandatory sentences for crimes where a gun is involved (robbery, assault, and worse)?

Most jurisdictions already have stiff penalties for using guns in crimes, not all but most.

And in a similar vein, what about as gun owner who has their weapon used in a crime they didn’t commit (a kid takes a parent’s weapon from a secure locale and does harm)?

Kids are, as minors not responsible for their actions, most of the time - the parents in most states are. I know that in the states I've lived in (several) that each of those states have laws that cover damages when a child commits a crime. However, that doesn't make the parents 'responsible for the actions' of their kids. A child is someone who is under 18 years of age, however, anti-gun people would have you believe that "children" is anyone up to the age of 23 or 24, and even sometimes 25 (look at "crime statistics" generated by anti-gun people.

As a law-abiding gun owner, who has raised 5 children, and has 11 grandchildren, I can tell you that the most important aspect of ALL of this is teaching children GUN SAFETY at a very young age. As soon as they are reasonably able to understand and comprehend. In some cases, as young as 2 years old, it's a good idea to start teaching gun safety (that doesn't mean handing guns to children, it means teaching them what a gun is and what it can do even if it is 'this can hurt you, don't touch this without mommy or daddy being with you and letting you' type of stuff).

There are already a LOT of gun laws on the books, where using one in a crime gives you a stiffer penalty. It's not about making laws tougher at all. It's about simply enforcing CRIMINAL LAW first and foremost. If you murder someone you should be in jail for as long as possible. If you do it deliberately and you're not in a situation defending your own life, then sorry, it ought to be execution.

But, look around you at the idiocy of the laws. The same people that want to BAN GUNS are the same idiots that think abortion is OK, but executing a criminal is BAD.

We don't need more laws. We need to get rid of a few.

[Lee'sGhost]

“The 2nd amendment ennumerates the God-given right of individuals to own weapons.”

And in general terms, The Bill of Rights — first 10 amendments — enumerates the God-given rights of individuals. It was not written to enumerate rights of militias.

It is a simple concept that even liberals can grasp. They might refuse to embrace it, but that’s what it is regardless of they FEEL about it.