SCOTUS Rules in Favor of McDonald

Read and enjoy... what a nice way to start the week!

High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban - CNN.com

It was a 5-4 decision. That kind of split bodes poorly with the age of the court.

Yeah, I think I heard someone else was quitting the Court this week as well. 50/50 checks and balances... I guess it all works out in the end.

baggss said:

It was a 5-4 decision. That kind of split bodes poorly with the age of the court.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of ideological SCOTUS decisions are 5-4 votes. Nothing new here.

Looks like the court was simply reiterating its decision in DC vs. Heller that also struck down a strict gun ban. Actually, this is even better since it was applied to Chicago and not a federal province like DC. Looks like we're finally going to see a slew of gun bans either being overturned across the country or local governments changing their gun laws to be in accordance with the Second Amendment.

Caught that in this mornings Supreme Court News. Very good news at that. Still I wince every time there's a 5-4 decision. the makeup of the court can change in a moment and so can the outcomes of the decisions in the future. I follow and write my Reps regularly but that's just me. I'm an old 60s activist anyway.

Sc00t

Glad that the highest court in the land can still read the Bill of Rights. It's not like it's ambiguous in its wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Yeah, well it seems 44% of them can't read it. And if something happens to one of them in the next 3 years we'll end up with only 44% that can read.

bobtomay said:

Yeah, well it seems 44% of them can't read it. And if something happens to one of them in the next 3 years we'll end up with only 44% that can read.

Click to expand...

Scary, but true.

cwa107 said:

Glad that the highest court in the land can still read the Bill of Rights. It's not like it's ambiguous in its wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Click to expand...

Well actually, it IS ambiguous, hence the controversy. You only quoted half the amendment. There are two clauses:

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
2. ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The problem is that some people don't see two separate clauses, they see just a single clause; to them only a militia is qualified to bear arms. There has been decades of debate on this issue. However, the court has now, for the second time, established that the two clauses are discrete entities and that private citizens do have the right to possess weapons.

Kash said:

Well actually, it IS ambiguous, hence the controversy. You only quoted half the amendment. There are two clauses:

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
2. ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The problem is that some people don't see two separate clauses, they see just a single clause; to them only a militia is qualified to bear arms. There has been decades of debate on this issue. However, the court has now, for the second time, established that the two clauses are discrete entities and that private citizens do have the right to possess weapons.

Click to expand...

Thank you Professor Kash, I understand that.

My point was that it seems pretty straightforward to my eyes.

Kash said:

Well actually, it IS ambiguous, hence the controversy. You only quoted half the amendment. There are two clauses:

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
2. ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The problem is that some people don't see two separate clauses, they see just a single clause; to them only a militia is qualified to bear arms. There has been decades of debate on this issue. However, the court has now, for the second time, established that the two clauses are discrete entities and that private citizens do have the right to possess weapons.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as two separate clauses, simply as one. I do believe that they intended the clause to mean that citizens could bear arm to form militias for defense. They neither specified nor implied, however, that citizens could not bear arms even when not part of a militia, or for any other reason. One could make an assumption either way, and that is where the issue comes in.

Then again, I've always been a "Middle of the road" kind of person....

Yay, now it will be that much more likely that I will be shot while visiting Chicago. This is a great thing?

You crazy right wingers and your guns! lol

I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's in the Bill of Rights. I just think I'd feel a little bit better on the South Side if I knew that it was harder for people to be packing heat.

cwa107 said:

Glad that the highest court in the land can still read the Bill of Rights. It's not like it's ambiguous in its wording "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Click to expand...

It all depends on what version you read and where that darn comma is at.

But really, I see the Constitutional question of whether the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation in the same light I view the ability to regulate freedom of speech. There sometimes is a need, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Not everything in the Bill of Rights should be construed to allow all behavior despite its cost on society. There has to be a balance.

DarkestRitual said:

Yay, now it will be that much more likely that I will be shot while visiting Chicago. This is a great thing?

You crazy right wingers and your guns! lol

I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's in the Bill of Rights. I just think I'd feel a little bit better on the South Side if I knew that it was harder for people to be packing heat.

Click to expand...

Right, because violent criminals always respect gun laws where enforced.

This was really a can't lose decision for me.

I live in a gun loving state so I'm not worried one way or the other. In fact I kind of wanted them to say the Chicago ban was kosher, had they done that the implication would have been wonderful.

No longer would the states be required to follow the bill of rights (as that was what the decision was about, not about how to interpret the clause as someone had posted it was simply a question as to whether states had to abide by the Constitution).

BUT if they had upheld it, all the God fearing Gun loving folks in the southern states could have felt free to ignore the other parts of the bill of rights... imagine, we could outlaw Islam, hand out any punishment we felt necessary without considering whether it was cruel or unusual (hanging car thieves would be a start) and pretty much ignored most of the Constitution with regard to laws within a state.

DarkestRitual said:

Yay, now it will be that much more likely that I will be shot while visiting Chicago. This is a great thing?

You crazy right wingers and your guns! lol

I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's in the Bill of Rights. I just think I'd feel a little bit better on the South Side if I knew that it was harder for people to be packing heat.

Click to expand...

Au contraire. There are numerous studies that have shown violent crime is higher in areas that have gun bans. In areas with sensible gun control laws, it's the exact opposite. There's just something about an armed populace that gives criminals pause. So if anything, you should be safer now.

schweb said:

It all depends on what version you read and where that darn comma is at.

But really, I see the Constitutional question of whether the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation in the same light I view the ability to regulate freedom of speech. There sometimes is a need, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Not everything in the Bill of Rights should be construed to allow all behavior despite its cost on society. There has to be a balance.

Click to expand...

Sadly the SCOTUS doesn't really know how to read that well. Look at the part about cruel and unusual punishment, it simply states;

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Any one that understand English can clearly tell that the ban on punishment was intended to cover punishment that was BOTH cruel and unusual. Yet the SCOTUS has bent over backwards twisting it to the point that a punishment need only be Cruel or unusual.... I mean seriously, the death penalty was never "unusual" in this country until the SCOTUS banned it. Prior to that time a good old public hanging was fine and dandy.

Yet now we have a SCOTUS that bans the death penalty if someone is too young, or because the person was too stupid.... Seems to me if they wanted to insure equal treat to all without regard to age or stupidity they would back off those cases and leg the states execute people as they saw fit.

Kash said:

Au contraire. There are numerous studies that have shown violent crime is higher in areas that have gun bans. In areas with sensible gun control laws, it's the exact opposite. There's just something about an armed populace that gives criminals pause. So if anything, you should be safer now.

Click to expand...

Actually I've also seen studies where it is shown that a police officer firing in defense of himself is more likely to hit an innocent, than a civilian drawing a gun in defense of himself. By those statistics one could argue that we should ban the police from carrying guns and only allow civilians.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. A civilian drawing in defense is likely to be alone and there are less likely to be others around to get hit by mistake. A police officer would almost never be alone, even if it is just his backup near by their is likely going to be someone other than the criminal so that raises that chances of him hitting someone other than the criminal.

In short, statistics are easily manipulated to tell any story you want. I simply believe its better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and never have it.

And that belief is well justified by numerous studies. We're both on the same page here

thomas998 said:

In short, statistics are easily manipulated to tell any story you want. I simply believe its better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and never have it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Quite honestly, I don't even own a gun. But I have taken gun safety classes and learned how to shoot - and if I lived in a high crime area, you can bet that I would own one. Regardless, I don't want my right to own one infringed.