Apparently the Supreme Court has agreed to hear and decide a case that squarely addresses the Second Amendment.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9389828#post9389828
Predictions about how the Court will handle this issue?
My predictions are:
First, the Court will not squarely adopt a sweeping NRA-style interpretation of the Second Amendment. As much as I would like them to, it’s just too out-there politically. I just can’t see them telling NYC that it has to let everyone pack.
Second, the Court will probably NOT adopt a gun-control lover’s interpretation (i.e. the second amendment is not an individual right.) I’m not as sure about this one, but again, it’s similar reasoning at work.
Third, I predict that the Court will find some narrow way to invalidate the DC gun ban. As far as I know, DC is the only part of the country that has an outright ban on private citizens keeping firearms in their residences. Even places like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts allow you to purchase and keep guns in your residence if you are willing to get the necessary permits. So if the DC gun ban is invalidated, it won’t have a huge effect anywhere.
Possibly my predictions on this are informed by a little wishful thinking, since I am somewhat on the NRA side of the gun debate.
What DC did back in the '70s was to make handgun ownership illegal without a permit, and then after a very short time stop giving out permits altogether. A very small number of people were grandfathered in.
This amounts to a de facto gun ban, and is one of the things being challenged. One of the plaintiffs actually went to City Hall and asked for a handgun permit, and was basically laughed at. He owns guns that are stored in another state.
It would be a simple matter for the Court to direct DC to issue permits with reasonable regulations, without addressing the fundamental underpinnings of the Second Amendment.
The same, essentially, goes for the onerous storage regulations for rifles and shotguns. These can be addressed as well.
I believe only handguns (not all “firearms”) are (practically speaking) prohibited outright.
I think that’s a good point. Naturally both sides would claim victory.
Didn’t Chicago do the same thing with handguns? There legal if you have a permit, but we know longer issue permits.
Just another thought. I’m far from some of the rabid pro-gun people that exist. But I am ‘pro’-gun.
REASONABLE controls and requirements would be OK, if the anti-gun crowd would be honest about it.
But to make guns legal with a permit, and then make permits impossible or very difficult to get is dishonest. This (IMHO) is why gun owners will never trust those that want to put more restrictions on firearms.
I do believe it’s a slippery slope. And anti-gun folks grease it buy doing stuff like this. I’m sure there are plenty of well intentioned people that would like to see more or better gun control. The problem is, when bullshit laws are passed, they don’t pay attention or care.
In this way, the zealous anti-gun folks have many people in the middle on their side.
Apathy.
:sigh: I had a discussion with a cousin of mine whom I consider to be quite intelligent. She could not seem to grasp the difference between a semi-auto and a full auto. She was very concerned about the appearance of the gun. (what are all the holes on the side of the barrel? Was a big question from her. I suspect she was talking about some sort of cooling shroud or something).
Agreed, the well has been pretty thoroughly poisoned.
In theory, there is a case for requiring evidence of competence and trustworthiness before you get to own a gun. In theory, there is a case for requiring evidence of literacy and knowledge before you get to vote. In practice, both of these concepts just have too much history as excuses for arbitrarily denying people their rights.
I totally agree. Maybe that’s all the Supreme Court needs to do: Direct DC to implement a licensing system with clear standards and require them to issue a license to anyone who meets those standards.
What’s to stop them from making those standards near impossible, as a practical matter, to meet?
Just asking.
Perhaps there needs to be a reasonableness requirement too.
reasonable meaning? You’re not talking need are you?
They’ve done that already, and that very thing has landed them in court, where the whole structure of their gun-control regimen is now under very strict review.
They’re actually in the position now of appealing a law already found unconstitutional by a lower court, and enforceable only because that decision was stayed pending Supreme Court review.
If the Court shows mercy to them and dumps the mess back in their lap with instructions to fix the problem, it would be in their interest not to screw it up. Otherwise, they’ll have no gun-control laws at all, save what exist at the federal level.
Meaning that any requirements can be met by your average law-abiding citizen.
No.
If they’re going by the Constitution, then:
The militia part is antiquated these days. But to me the last part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is crystal clear.
OK. Good.
I don’t ‘need’ the single shot .22 that my Dad bought in 1929. But I would like to keep it. I don’t need the shotguns that have been handed down to my either.
There is a law in Colorado that states that any LEO (Law enforcement Officer) can request that his home address is not available on-line.
I see where they are coming from, but I, as a programmer that has to deal with these databases and front ends can’t request that my home address not be available online.
This also includes Members of the National Guard. And about 30 other LEO agencies in Colorado.
“Information not available.” Heh.
That shit scares me.
Seems to me that some people are more equal than others.
There’s that pesky comma, though. Grammatically speaking the intent of the 2nd Amendment is not crystal clear, and that’s always been the problem. A strict, constructionist reading arguably shows only that it permits the existence of citizens’ militia and that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” is only a figurative reference to militias.
I don’t know how the Court will decide this. My guess is that it’s stacked with enough right-wingers that they’ll rule in favor of a Wild West interpretation but you never know. I don’t really care, personally.
4 justices side with D.C.
4 justices side with the NRA
And Kennedy writes a twisting, ambiguous 50 page narrative that solves nothing, making everyone do it again a few years from now…
The entire amendment is antiquated to the point where neither cause is crystal clear. A modern militia might use anything from a .22 to a tactical nuke, if it could afford one. If you want to argue that it’s constitutional, therefore, for a citizen to keep a tactical nuke, have at it. You won’t garner much support that the framers had that in mind.
We need a new amendment. That will never happen because we can’t even agree what the original one says.
A hypothetical question for Second Amendment supporters. How would you feel if gun ownership was an assumed right but not an irrevocable right? In other words, every citizen would be presumed to have the right to own guns. But a means would exist for some individuals to lost that right. I’m thinking of a due process procedure where a person would be told the reasons why he was losing his right to bear arms and would have the opportunity to defend himself. And it would be applicable on an individual basis; no law could call for any group to lose their gun rights on a collective basis.
The issue I think a lot of gun control people have with gun ownership is that are people who genuinely are recklessly irresponsible and, worse yet, criminally dangerous with the firearms they own. But anti-gun control group are out fighting hard for the rights of these people to still own firearms.
I can see their point of view; they feel if they don’t take an absolute view on the issue, that gun control advocates will use a procedure like this to get their foot in the door and then start chipping away at further gun ownership rights. But I think it’s also true that by taking some an extreme stance, anti-gun control groups are helping to create opposition to their position among the undecided genral public.