DC v. Heller Ruling: SCOTUS Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

How could 4 people vote against it?

 

Scalia writes the opinion, which pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of textualism and originalism as anything other than an intellectual fraud/pretext. of course, Bush v. Gore showed this but that was such an extreme case it could be considred as an exception.

Which is fine with me - I've always agreed that they were silly. It's the dishonesty and disingenuity of it that is bothersome.

because they read the text of the second amendment.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-rig_n_109365.html

Here's another article on it with some more details. The general gun ban, I can understand. This part is a bit disconcerting:

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

Does that suggest that government can't regulate firearm safety? I don't see what that would have to do with the 2nd Amendment, though I haven't read the ruling or know much about the particulars of Washington's trigger lock laws.

 

With all the hubbub Scalia makes about the phrase "the People" - he does know that he's effectively saying that illegal & legal aliens, possibly felons, all now have 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?

Good to know!

 

[rquoter]“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.”[/rquoter]

Scalia > Fisher

 

Yeah - nice to see you omitted the historical evidence that goes against you..

That's exactly the argument that he made - that the collective rights of defense against tyranny is not always the same thing as self-defense.

"Spinning for the sake of spin" is a pretty sh-tty analysis of his dissent on your part. I would call it "spin" but I don't think you even made it over that low hurdle.

 

Thank you for proving my point about his dishonestly - Prior case law pretty clearly says that "the people" and "person" applies to aliens & felons.

You can't say "the people" should be interpreted as ALL the people and not just the army here - becausee that's the way we interpet it in context A, where context A interprets it to mean aliens, felons etc - and then, by pure judicial fiat apply context A except for the parts you don't like like aliens, felons etc. If you're going to base it on context A - you should adopt that meaning - especially if you are a blowhard about consistency like Scalia. But no - he just manufactured a new one.

You can't just say "MY REASONING IS X, BECAUSE X IS CONSISTENT AND CORRECT - I KNOW IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH SOME OTHER STUFF, SO YOU SHOULD JUST KINDA SORTA IGNORE THOSE PARTS!"

I mean you CAN say that, but don't expect anybody to not notice it.

 

I always thought gun nuts were paranoid and just that - gun nuts. But when you have 4 Justices saying there is no right to guns (assuming I understand the dissenting opinion correctly) I guess I can see why gun owners are worried. Can only imagine the uproar if the composition of the SCOTUS was different. I wonder if there would be enough support to pass a new amendment to allow guns if this one had been overturned.

 

I think the argument makes an awful lot of sense in the 18th century.

I don't think it makes a lick of sense in the 21st century. Musket against musket is one thing. Pretending you can outfit your defense against the military might of the United States government with some equipment from Academy Sporting Goods is another.

 

Nice of you to specifically disprove something you obviously haven't even glanced at - Stevens' opinion contains numerous quotes from multiple framers, including the Federalist papers and Madison himself. See pages 19-25 or so.

You should have said nothing.

 

Only real questions are:
Does this mean I can get a bazooka? [I really want to shoot one - it is on the bucket list]
Can I own a Nuke?
And Can I get a fully Automatic Uzi?

I'm no gun nut . . but . . .

Rocket River

 

That's what it takes to meet the burden of defending yourself from the potential tyranny of the US government. Have to be able to match arms for arms in order for that purpose to make any sense whatsoever.

 

The Uzi and bazooka were legal both before and after this ruling, as long as they were registered with the ATF. I can help you buy an Uzi today. The bazooka would be a bit more difficult, but given six months or so I could help you get one. IIRC the Uzi would cost about $12k. The cost of the bazooka would be difficult to estimate.

 

then we're even dumber than i thought we were.

 

And yet, nobody has ever been killed by a ATF registered machine gun or bazooka...

 

And get ready for a flood of lawsuits now that these restrictions are arguably unconstitutional - the future of second amendment litigation in the short term is going to be judges trying to determine what reasonable, constitutional restrictions on a flamethrower are.

 

we just kill each other with handguns instead. they're cheaper.

i don't mean to be a jackass about this. and i realize for some of you this is your livelihood. but i have a hard time grasping some of these arguments.