Anti-gun control folks, a question

I’ve been wanting to do this for a while, but I keep forgetting. The latest thread on guns, the fearmonger one, reminded me.

According to the ACLU website, the Supreme Court made up its mind in 1939 (US vs Miller) regarding their interpretation of the Second Amendment. These are the final two paragraphs of the brief found here:

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states’ rights to maintain and train a militia. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,” the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case." (bolding mine)

This, to my mind, make it obvious that regulation and control of Americans’ use and ownership of guns is allowable, reasonable and legal. Those that would stand behind another interpretation of the Second Amendment are wrong, according to the Supreme Court.

What do you gun guys and gals think about this? Again, it seems cut and dried to me. I’d love to hear what anyone, gun or anti-gun, has to say about this info.

For the record, my position on gun control is that handguns should be banned, period. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons as well. Good ol’ rifles and shotguns are fine, as I believe that hunting is a good thing, and frankly is the only personal use of guns that makes any sense to me. But thems who like to shoot and have contests and such could still do it.

I’m starting this thread at an inconvenient time, I know. But if I wait I’ll forget again. I put this in the Pit because I never go to GD, plus I imagine the fur could start to fly. Thanks for reading.

Two things. Mods, my apologies if this topic has been covered before. And, um, please fix the thread title? Please?

Is fixed.

You mean there were activist judges way back in 1939? I am shocked, SHOCKED! Quick. someone alert Tom DeLay!

Because you know…everybody needs one. Even terrorists.

It’s not cut-and-dried if no living judge has issued an official statement about the current court’s position. Paraphrasing Cecil, it makes no sense to give a right to the people in the main sentence only to take it away with the subordinate clause.

I don’t want to ban hunting, but that’s not as important to me as self-defense. Despite the counter-arguments to that re: safety, I see it not only as a deterrent against random violence but also as a deterrent against unofficial militia. I don’t believe it would be as easy to pull off a Bosnia or Rwanda in America as it would be in a random European country. (Granted, small scale guerilla warfare of an unpopular group would be easier but America is a bigger country with more places to hide.)

It takes hundreds of years of lawyerin’ up the constitution to get to the point that such a simple amendment could be turned bass ackwards by contortional paternalists.

Of course there were. How else do you think the New Deal bullshit got the green light?

ISTM that neither the anti- nor pro- New Deal judges on a whole were more activist than the other. Some of the New Deal was covered by even a trivial reading of the Commerce Clause, but Gilded-era mindset judges stubbornly revoked even slam-dunk legislation. On the other hand, some of New Deal would appear to be questionable according to a strict reading of the CC and the 10th Amendment.

I, personally, am not sure of the appropriate level of judicial “activism” in general. Once you agree that a particular phrasing of a law has no absolutely fixed meaning – and it doesn’t, that’s what lawyers are for, we don’t have legal robots as of yet – then it’s just a matter of how much do we want judges to interpret the Constitution. I don’t see a right to Privacy in there, no matter how hard I look, but nonetheless it seems too obvious to even have to pass an amendment that the government should not have the Constitutional power to monitor your sexual habits.

Btw I have no idea of the seriousness level of ETF’s and yBeayf’s posts, even though I responded seriously.

So you want to ban handguns, but allow shotguns and rifles? Sounds benign, until you get the handguns banned, then use that as a cite to ban shotguns and rifles. Slippery slope and all that.

There are rules concerning gun ownership. Felons are banned. Minors are banned from handguns. Many states require passing a course to carry a gun. Even after passing the course, you have to apply with the Sherriff to carry it. Before you buy a gun, you have to pass a background check. Now to the “gun show” rule.

If you have a CCP, you can buy any gun with no background check. That’s because the CCP already covered the background check and proof you know gun safety and competent use. (You basically have to have the skill of any cop). But most think the “gun-show loophole” means anyone off the street can show up at a convention center and buy a Tech 9. :rolleyes:

We have a shitload of laws concerning guns in the US. The problem is people not obeying the laws. What makes you think a ban or new laws will stop it?

I’ve seen some of your responses to me in other threads and can only think that you hate Bush with the passion of a Viagra-laden porn set. Why wouldn’t you want the right to arm yourself against Satan? If you really think Bush is the anti-Christ and out to shut down your freedoms, you should be the first to arm yourself.

Not to step on one side or the other here duffer, but people were bringing up the slippery slope idea in AirmanDoors thread and it seems not to have happened. The assault weapons ban came and went without much slippage. The NRA is firmly entrenched in congress, and the 2nd amendment is in the constitution.

Your slope doesn’t have a lot of slip to it.

That is, the right to keep and bear arms guarantees you the right to keep and bear the sort of weapons commonly carried in militia service. The Court was addressing the limits of which types of weapons are covered by the Second Amendment, not inferring a limit on who may bear such weapons.

In effect, they were shooting down (rimshot) the “nukes and nervegas” straw man.

As the Master put it, “The framers… did not propose to have armed gangs of self-appointed militiamen roaming the streets”. It’s reasonable to infer from the militia clause that the government may limit the right to keep and bear arms to loyal law-abiding citizens (as opposed to rebels and thugs) – but that’s pretty much it.

So, the supreme court made up it’s mind (no matter how long ago) and that’s it, huh?
Regardless of your interpretation of their ruling (and good points have been made on that in this thread), I’d like to take issue with your basic premise.

Because if we do agree to your premise, things get ugly quickly - only have to look at the Dred Scott case for an example where the impermanence of Supreme Court decisions is an obvious Good Thing

It’s unlikely that any lawyer woiuld support Dred Scott, even in its original context, today. But Dred Scott is no longer good law because the US Constitution has been amended since that decision to ban slavery and make all people equal regardless of race.

Until the Constitution is amended to say otherwise, or the Court reverses itself, yes, that’s it. That’s how the system works.

Yes, obviously it can be done. But it’s still wrong. Supreme court decisions may be legal and all that, but it doesn’t make it right. A court should not be able to tell me that I’m not allowed to own handgun to defend myself. When it will ALWAYS be the case that criminals will own handguns.

The whole idea of personal defense is baffling to me. First off, a shotgun is pretty effective protection against burglars and such. Second, how many concealed carry folks and the like have actually successfully “defended” themselves? We all are aware of the statistics around handguns and gun ownership, how they kill way more family members and friends than they do intruders or attackers.

Second, duffer, if they, Satan or whomever, are “coming” for me, I don’t see where a personal gun repository is going to help much. To me, that sounds like paranoid and ridiculous, not to mention desperate, rationalization. Meanwhile, a police officer here in the Bay Area lays close to death because despite body armor, he was mortally wounded by a teenager with a semi-automatic pistol. (insert roll-eyes smiley here)

The point of this thread, I guess, was to address the frantic flag-waving of the Second Amendment bunch by pointing out that the branch of government we as a democracy turn to for such things has decided, in modern times, (1983), that controlling ownership of guns is constitutional. But, according to moral arbiters like PAdvisory, that doesn’t make it right. Well then.

Sorry, forgot to provide the link to the downed officer story.

You, know, i’m not sure it has. Can’t say i recall a single guns thread on this message board.
:slight_smile: