The Supreme Court has issued another 5-4 opinion, this one addressing the Second Amendment which the Supreme Court has long dodged. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy. I’ve only read the syllabus, but generally, it appears that the Court is recognizing an individual right to bear arms as opposed to one conditioned on being in a militia. To me, this has always seemed like the correct way to parse the text of the amendment:
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.
The Court decided that the prefatory language announces a purpose, but does not limit the scope of the right. The Second Amendment right is not an unlimited right to possess any weapon one chooses for any reason, but rather those in “common use” for “common purposes.” The gist of the opinion seems to be that people have to be allowed to have ordinary weapons for lawful purposes such as “self-defense” and laws that make those weapons useless for self-defense are unconstitutional. The court specifies that the opinion should not be read as casting doubt on prohibitions on possession of weapons by felons and the mentally ill. D.C.’s trigger lock ordinance was found to be unconstitutional because it rendered permissible weapons useless for self-defense in the home.
That was my take based on a quick reading of the syllabus. If you see something more reliable elsewhere, you’ll probably want to go with that. From the syllabus, anyway, it seems like a reasonable decision. I’ll have to read the dissents to see if they change my mind.
Ugh. Another 5 to 4 rulling.
See a pattern here?
Yeah, the “easy” SC rulings were done years ago, and everything we’re taking to the SC now can be looked at 1000 ways when comparing it to a more than 200 year old document.
And people wonder why Christians find so much variation in a document that is, at its youngest, almost 2,000 years old…
Oh wow, the heresy I am about to commit… you’ll find a good many people who agree that the Bible needs to be interrpreted in context with the way society is today (vs. that of 2000 years ago). Does the same hold true of the U.S. Constitution? While that document is only 200-ish years old, we certainly have a different society today…
I am of the opinion that it’s called a “Constitution” for a reason. It’s the vitality of the organism; in our case, the federal government. It has an organic component – which means evolution. The text forms the boundaries of the organism, but text never perfectly articulates an idea; and our interpretations will vary but remain within the textual limits.
My understanding of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is a limitation on government, not a limitation on individuals. That context has no relation to a specific time in history.
As to Buzzcut’s question- sure, the pattern is political. This bothers me a great deal. The SC has become entirely partisan over the years. I don’t believe it should be any such thing. Strictly analyzing Constitutionality shouldn’t be swayed one iota by ideology, and it wasn’t so much before- which is probably why the 9-0 and 8-1 decisions happened 100+ years ago, and rarely anymore, apart from being ‘easier’ or ‘less complex’ cases.
As a gun owner, I do support the 2nd ammendment and Doug’s interpretation of this ruling. But we absolutely have to do something about gun violence in our cities. I don’t know what that “something” is but what is happening in our cities is just too tragic.
Sorry Brenda-thought I closed the blockquote. She only said the first paragraph.
My bad!
Look, if you don’t think the court has been political over the centuries, look back at the Midnight Judges case (Marbury v. Madison) and the establishment of judicial review. From the very beginning, it was designed as a co-equal branch. Sooo… it DOES matter who wins the Presidency and takes the Senate.
So nice of them to address the Second Amendment. Now, if it pleases the Court, could we have a look at the Fourth Amendment?
Next year might be a better time to look into that one!
BTW T, since you posted that, I’ll bet the FBI is waiting to seize your computer right now;-)
Heh, Doug, I think you’re showing your true Republican colors here (like you said you used to be)! Pro-death penalty, anti-gun control…Just joshing of course. I’m with you on the death penalty thing–I’m not a huge fan of it, but if you’re going to have it, I’m not sure murder is categorically much more heinous than repeated child rape. Not sure I agree on the gun case…hard for me to separate the purpose of the 2nd amendment from the scope of the right it confers.
What scares me is four judges having problems applying a pretty straightforward part of the Constitution.
Why don’t we just let Kennedy decide everything and the other 8 judges can just take an extended vacation?
I still haven’t had a chance to read the opinion, but I read a critique that said that Scalia started out reasonable and then started ducking and weaving when he tried to articulate why citizens couldn’t necessarily have an automatic rifle comparable to those issued to your average soldier. Somehow, he allows as how permissible weaponry has evolved beyond the flintlock or whatever the average soldier had at the end of the 18th century, but he doesn’t quite articulate when or how the range of permissible firearms started coming up short of that possessed by the average soldier.
What bothers me about this SC decision is not so much the legalities and the fine points of law,which are beyond me anyway,but immediately the NRA is going to sue Chicago and Fransisco for their restrictive gun laws.Why is there such a hurry to legalize illegal guns in high crime areas? I wouldn’t blame police enforcement in major cities to just walk of the job.Everything is done to appease gun ownership ‘in principle’ with a blind eye to local circumstance and local crime enforcement. Do I have to pack a gun when I go to Chicago now? I’d only shoot mysef Im sure.
Lou –
Apparently the guns in Chicago have become limited to the police, the politicians, and the criminals.
Some folks think the general run of law-abiding citizenry should be able to get on an equal footing.
You can’t expect the police to always be there for you (and you REALLY can’t count on the politicians!).
Parker, why did you separate those three groups out? In Chicago, they have historically been fairly synonymous. lol
Parker,
But I ask the same question again( which you ignored): then we must all tote a gun and know how to use it just to survive each day? Do I take my gun to the opera and the Cubs game? It might at least come in handy to and from the parking lot . It’s like a science fiction novel come true.
What ever happened to common sense and being able to differentiate situations?
Parker ,
But what did the SC’s decision actually determine?’That just the DC law was too extreme’ is what many experts seem to be saying.What did the DC law prohibit? As long as gun owners still have to register their guns,and there are appropriate waiting periods and background checks,there may not be much of an over all change.
With gun chat we always seem to be forced into extremist pro or con views,which is the point I made badly above.
What about the prohibition, in a lot of communities, in hospitals and parks. I can concealed carry in Indiana, but just fifty feet from here is Tell City’s Ohio River floodwall. The little strip of land between the wall and the river’s edge is a park, and guns are prohibited. Should this ruling affect that?
People who insist that the Second Amendment is straightforward seem to overlook the “Well-regulated militia” part. The framers’ intentions aren’t straightforward on that. Had they just said, “The right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, THAT would have been straightforward. As written, it may (and according to the present court, does) grant that right. But it’s not obvious.
My understanding is that the militia bit was a compromise of some sort, and the garbled language was more or less a deliberate compromise.
Lou –
To answer your question briefly – no. You don’t.
Apparently you are surviving quite nicely so far – in a place where your odds of doing that are BETTER than they are in Chicago.
I got no problem with reasonable gun regulation. The DC and Chicago prohibitions are not reasonable.
In fact, I’d like Indiana’s conceal carry permit to be a little more regulated. It is far too easy to get one. I think that you should have to take a firearms class and maybe take a test on the law before you get a permit.
Right now, you fill out some paperwork, pay a fee to your local police, they do a background check, and you can get your lifetime permit. Seems too easy to me.
Buzzcut, it isn’t a lifetime permit. It must be renewed every 4 years.
Speaking of, I just saw that mine expired 5 days ago!
As to Lou’s questions, no, you do not. But you can if you want to. What had changed that makes you feel like you didn’t need a handgun before, but now you do?
Also, this ruling does NOT make conceal carry permitted, it just says you can’t tell people they’re not allowed to have a handgun in their OWN house. That is all.
So, it was illegal to own a handgun before in DC and Chicago. Now, it will be illegal to leave the house with a handgun on you. Why do you suddenly feel so threatened, Lou?
Jason, when you renew you will be given the option to purchase a lifetime license. And it isn’t much more than the 4 year version.
I renewed (a month late) recently and selected the lifetime option. Received it in about two weeks.
On the permit Expires is blank and License Type reads “Lifetime Pers Protect ($75)”
I don’t know the details of DC, but the way that it works in Chicago is that you need a permit to have a gun, and since the 1970s they haven’t given any out to average people. But if you’re an alderman, or a buddy of an alderman, you can get one.
There is no conceal carry anywhere in Illinois. If you are out of your home, your gun needs to be in a case, and the ammo needs to be in a different case. I don’t see why Chicago would be any different should its permit process be made more reasonable.
Thanks, Reuben. I never knew that was an option before, and it may not have been when I last renewed in 2004.
Georges Will pointed out in his latest column that the SC decision on guns will help Obama by taking the gun issue off debate.Probably the gun issue is a little too emotional for so many of us because it seems to be the only civil right that conservatives really cherish.But all civil rights can be modified in legislated,constitutional ways.
Ugh. Another 5 to 4 rulling.
See a pattern here?
I sure have, for quite awhile.
Forget supreme court. Let’s just call it the “old 5-4”.
“Parker,
But I ask the same question again( which you ignored): then we must all tote a gun and know how to use it just to survive each day? Do I take my gun to the opera and the Cubs game? It might at least come in handy to and from the parking lot . It’s like a science fiction novel come true.
What ever happened to common sense and being able to differentiate situations?”
I would argue that we’re not living in a common sense area.
Elements of this decision reminds me of that classic Archie Bunker rebuttal where he advocates giving everybody a rod as they board the plane to prevent hijacking.
correction-meant to say era not area