Many “gun rights” activists are claiming that the decision, written by Justice Scalia, is a “win”. By considering only the way it could have gone otherwise could this decision be considered anything like a positive for gun rights. The second amendment is written in clear, concise terms and its meaning and intent should be perfectly clear to anyone whose IQ is above room temperature and has any grasp of the English language: “...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It would take a complete maroon, or a liberal/socialist gun grabber - but I repeat myself- to think that it states anything but what it does. However, there has been great controversy and voluminous high level discourse picking apart each and every word, phrase, punctuation point, nuance and penumbra by both proponents and opponents. This in itself is rather disheartening and shows just how far down the slippery slope to tyranny that we are today in these United States.
Most people who were anxiously (need I say apprehensively?) awaiting the ruling will probably not read past the second paragraph:
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.
Many rather nearsighted - or illiterate- people will only get through to the first comma in that sentence and start gleefully rejoicing and celebrating, thinking that they have been vindicated by this opinion and their rights have been upheld. However, after reading almost every word of the majority opinion, the parts that are extremely troubling- no, terrifying - are buried 54 or so pages into the verbiage proclaiming and justifying the Court's holding that the amendment confirms an individual right to possess firearms. Well, DUH! It doesn't take years wrangling and arguing about the nuances of the simple words. What part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is beyond even the simplest gradeschooler’s grasp of the language?
So after all the pages of justifying what everyone who even has a passing grasp of the English language already knew, we come to the most terrifying part of the “ruling”. If you think that the most terrifying words in the English language are “We're from the government and we're here to help you”, feast your eyes upon the latest perversion of that:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose...[cites omitted]. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues...[cites omitted] Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the
full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion
should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions
on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the
commercial sale of arms.
Note very carefully the statement:
*** “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”***
If anyone can show me the “win” in that, I'll be happy to point out their loss of rationality. Maybe my grasp of the language isn't as functional as it should be or I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the Court is saying that the government, contrary to the “shall not be infringed” part of the Second amendment, can go ahead and infringe all they want. All they have to do is make “reasonable” regulations that set prohibitions, conditions and qualifications, or designate public areas as “sensitive places” in regards to firearms.
What is absolutely hilarious about the ruling is the stretch made to reconcile absolutely contradictory parts of the opinion. Contrast the above outright prohibitions, conditions and qualifications with the following:
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right
whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding
‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of
the right takes out of the hands of government—even the
Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad.”
“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government... the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon”. If this is so, how can laws creating prohibitions, conditions or qualifications completely contrary to the “shall not be infringed” decree of the amendment be established and upheld by courts- other than on a case-by-case basis?
Many point out that there are restrictions on the first amendment, by claiming that you can't shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That is totally, absurdly wrong. Anyone can shout “Fire!” in any theater or other establishment any time they want to. Or any other word. They do not have to obtain a permit in advance by being unusually qualified in the English language, nor are they restricted from using the word “Fire” on any property or public land. They are not required to cloak or whisper the word “Fire” in their speech, nor are they fingerprinted, photographed and required to carry their “license” with them any time they want to use the word “Fire”. Anyone can discuss “Fire” or write articles using the term, or do just about anything they want with the word. Or any words. Admittedly, if someone should shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and a stampede ensues or someone is injured, there would be some kind of consequences or liability for the shouter, but there is no prohibition, prior licensing requirements, conditions or qualifications imposed upon such person. They would not even be charged with “shouting fire without a license” or “shouting fire in a crowded theater”, as there are no laws covering that. Why should there be any law imposing qualifications, prohibitions, restrictions or requiring government permits or licenses on lawfully owning, buying, carrying any firearm? Where do we start drawing the line of “reasonable”? When does the government start “infringing”?
Just watch what happens. “Reasonable” laws, regulations and prohibitions will start popping up everywhere. Gun-control proponents have already made the case that it's “reasonable” to prohibit firearms from school property- after all it's for the chilluns. And firearms are easily prohibited in government buildings or on government property. After all, those are all “sensitive places”, because frustrated citizens, unhappy with government regulations and bureaucratic policies, may come in with guns blazing- it's happened before. And there certainly shouldn't be any “reason” to allow firearms on any public recreational property- as this is a “public safety” issue and therefore “reasonable”. And because of the possibility of “road rage” which is ever increasing on a daily basis, there should be no reason for anyone to need to carry a firearm in their vehicle when not on their own property- again as a “public safety” issue.
After each of these “reasonable” restrictions and prohibitions are upheld by the Court, then the only place you'll be able to legally have a firearm is on your own property. But again, there will be certain “reasonable” restrictions, qualifications and licensing put in place because of the possibility of fire, police, post office, utility and other personnel having the need to access your property. You certainly shouldn't mind taking a one year, college level firearms safety course at your own expense, paying a very reasonable $500 “licensing” fee, being fingerprinted and photographed and then registered as a potential firearm abuser in our friendly, publicly accessible government database, would you? It's entirely “reasonable”. Along with the “reasonable” registration and licensing of each and every firearm, piece of ammunition or component you have in your possession. And those will be the “conservative” areas of the country. Chicago, NY and LA will be worse- far worse.
And of course, it would be entirely “reasonable” to restrict firearm ownership to property owners only and only on their property that they actually reside on. After all, there's no “reasonable” way to track transients who do not own and reside on their own property. That's reasonable isn't it? And naturally, since firearms are so dangerous, “reasonable” regulations prohibiting transfer of all firearms or ammunition or any components by any licensed carrier will have to be instituted, since it's a matter of public safety. So if you want to purchase a firearm or ammunition, you will have to go get it yourself. Except that you will have to have a “firearms and ammunition transport license” in order to transport anything by any means whatsoever. It's for public safety you see. And it's very reasonable. And every component of any firearm ammunition shall have or contain unique identifiers, such as serial numbers, so that firearms used in crimes can be tracked properly. This is entirely reasonable, and again for the safety of the public.
Since felons and the mentally ill cannot own, possess or carry firearms, it is entirely reasonable apply the same restrictions to anyone who has been charged with a violent act, or is or has been the subject of a restraining order or domestic violence charge. After all, this is again a public safety issue. And extending these restrictions to anyone who has been charged with a violation of law, even a traffic ticket, is entirely reasonable. After all, if they would break simple traffic or other laws, they certainly would break other, more serious laws and therefore should not own or possess dangerous weapons like firearms. Isn't that entirely “reasonable”?
These laws, regulations, prohibitions and restrictions are entirely “reasonable” since they don't discriminate against any one person or class of people, or firearm or class of firearms. They apply across the board to all “subjects”. That's exactly what makes them “reasonable”. They are all needed for the “safety of the public”. Other than the fact that you cannot legally purchase, transport, store, carry or own a firearm or any ammunition without complying with such reasonable licensing laws and regulations, everything is completely reasonable. After all, the US Supreme Court said “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited”.
Yes, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm”. That is, subject to “reasonable” restrictions, prohibitions, qualifications and licensing. Mark my words well, as you will see that I am totally correct when I say that this USSC opinion was not a “win” for anyone but the government on the road to the installation of tyranny in these United States. These exact quotes from that opinion will be offered as legal USSC precedent for every restriction possible to imagine regarding firearms or anything related to them.
That we even had to have such a debate and resolution about this subject says all that needs to be said about the direction in which the socialist politicians are taking us. The tree is in dire need of watering.
You seemed to have missed part of the reference in the decision that cites that just because you can use an example ... such as ... it in no way serves as a restriction on the referrent.
For the first time, the USSC has ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right or a collective right. And it did so correctly. This is just the beginning -- the "incorporation" issue is next, as the NRA is already looking for a test case to challenge the Chicago gun laws.
While I find your tone insulting, I find that you have a point - see last para page 52, first para 53.
One example is that every news story I've read states that the ruling affirmed the right to keep a gun in your home. They are always very clear to point out the "in your home" part. This ruling scares the hell out of me.
As I read it, it basically said "Sure, you have aright to own a gun, and keep it in your home for self defense, but the government can regulate, license and restrict what type of gun, under what circumstances you can purchase one, and where, or indeed IF you can take it anywhere else, so long as it's not an outright ban.
So conceivably, they could pass a law stating you can only have a single shot black powder pistol, and it must never leave your home loaded.
Am I wrong?
Before we could at least argue that many of theses restrictions were unconstitutional. But this ruling has basically enshrined many of them.
I just don't see how this is a win for us.
I don't see how this stops the government form making any restrictions on firearms they wish, as long as it falls short of a complete ban.
I hope the future proves me wrong, but I just don't see it.
It was a win. It was not a big win, but it was a gain over before. It wasn't a knockout punch, but that was not possible in this case. Incorporation was not addressed. Gun laws outside of a total ban was not addressed. They couldn't be addressed as they were not challenged in court. Chicago is being sued right now. That's the REAL big one.
Now the part of concealed weapons is true. That has actually been only an accepted custom in society (in general) over the last 20 some odd years. Open carry has been accepted in general for a long period of time however until recently. Now I support CCW 100%, and prefer Alaska carry, but the court is right under an originalist view (although bans are unheardof).
The definition of reasonableness is a tricky one and will be fought in many courts over the next few years, and I wish Scalia put strict scrutiny in there. That did not happen and dampers this win. We'll see what happens.
Your post #900 should be required reading.
An excellent summary of what happened.
Let me add, there is no definition of “arms”. Courts will have to answer that question, especialy with regard to the recent .50 cal bans in California.
Where is the line on what is an “arm” and what is not? Do we use ATF definitions that could leave anything larger than .50 cal as a “destructive device”, not an “arm”.
What Scalia gave us is a future of battles defining our “right”.
We never have and never will get a decision out of the courts that is so broad in it’s scope as to fully restore our gun rights in one fell swoop. What this decision did was two very important things:
(1) Confirm that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a right is an individual right separate from any militia qualification.
(2) Give us a judgement from which to build future cases upon.
The practical implication as of this moment is that simply the most egregrious law in the country in DC has been stricken on a Second Amendment basis. Citizens living in DC had zero gun rights a week ago. They now have some.
What you seem to forget is that there is a political dimension to gun rights. The fact that you can carry a concealed firearm in Alaska without a license is a reflection of a political decision. Now that this court case has come about, the Alaska state legislature is not going to go back and say “well gee, this decision allows us to restrict the right to carry so we’re going to do that.” Their law will remain unchanged because politically speaking, the people in Alaska like their law just fine. There is also the issue of state Constitutions which are often far more explicit in their protection of gun rights than the Federal Constitution is.
You are correct in noting that the anti’s will selectively use portions of this case to try to justify gun restrictions. Then again, they would also seek to use the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west as justification for gun restrictions. They’re gun grabbers and that’s just what gun grabbers do.
In states like New Jersey, there are already widespread restrictions on carry. This ruling will eventually force that state to justify those restrictions against a judicial standard, which is something they did not have to do previously. We will probably never have as expansive a set a gun rights in New Jersey as we will in Alaska or Arizona or Idaho or Virginia. But folks in New Jersey will at least have a baseline set of gun rights.