The Supreme Court of the United States has finally settled one of the most contentious constitutional questions in decades. Do individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment or can governments disarm their people? In one of the few cases that wasn't depressing to read, the Supreme Court ruled individuals can keep weapons for self-defense by a 5-4 vote.
Justice Scalia, in writing the opinion, struck down the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns and the "trigger lock" requirement. The opinion strongly indicated that while the case at hand was the District, it would be applied to the states as well. Reasonable regulation can still exist, as well as banning firearm ownership by felons, the mentally ill and children.
The case at hand involved an armed security guard, Dick Heller, who applied (and was rejected) to have a weapon in his home for self-defense. The District had a total ban of handguns without a special permit reserved for mostly law enforcement. Additionally, the court ruled that trigger locks are unconstitutional because it greatly hinders self-defense. Attackers tend not to wait while you get your keys and then unlock your gun.
Not so surprisingly, these draconian restrictions haven't seemed to make much of a difference in the crime rate in one of the most crime-ridden cities in America. Critics say the ruling will make Americans less safe, but that's hard to envision when criminals are fully armed and citizens are unarmed. A look over to Britain shows how bad crime gets when people are prevented from defending themselves.
Scalia was clear that, on certain classes of people (i.e. felons), registration and limits on owning guns is still sound. This makes sense. Gun control advocates have a long-standing routine of saying that citizens cannot be trusted with guns. In short, they believe policy should be based on an irrebuttable presumption of guilt. Because some imagined person out there is too dangerous to have a gun, no one can. This line of argumentation is, quite frankly, un-American.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Pablo
John,
And what to the words (shall not be infringed) mean to you? Also there is a clear difference between "keeping" and "bearing". Again I ask you what these words mean to you?
My opinion is that this case means diddlysquat regarding the true meaning of the 2nd amendmant, which has more to do with a last resort of the citizenry against tyranny, which the court conveniently did not address.
Shall not be infringed my ass.
2 - whatever
"A look over to Britain shows how bad crime gets when people are prevented from defending themselves." --- BULLSH!T
It has been discussed and proven here many times that the US suffers from its ridiculous gun laws, having the highest rates for murder per capita than any industrialized country.
Of course, the NRA lobby, the gun industry and its activists here and elsewhere in US are very well organized and influential and they are the ones that uphold the status quo against common sense and reason.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Well, Dan, I guess John beat us both to it!
It's a pretty sound decision. I had my doubts when early media reports seemed to suggest that Scalia was denying out of hand that there was any link between militias and the right to bear arms, when in fact he recognizes that they were only invoked as one justification for that right. Just because there are circumstances in which the need for a militia vanishes doesn't mean that the right to bear arms vanishes too.
Although it will upset some of the gun nuts, I like too that the court acknowledged that the right isn't unlimited. Mind you, that in itself opens up a whole new can of worms... does it mean I can't own a bazooka, or just that I have to give up my private, lovingly restored, nuclear-armed B-52? (for example)
On a personal note, while I enjoy shooting as a sport, as a Brit I'm uncomfortable with gun proliferation. Nevertheless, the 2nd Amendment has always seemed pretty unambiguous to me. The root of much of the acrimony over gun rights has its root, IMHO, in the failure of certain factions to face up to the near certainty that there is a link between gun proliferation and the ridiculously high level of gun-related crime in the US.
4 - Baritone
Well, one step forward, fifty years backward. I guess it's the best one can hope for.
I will never understand the minds of gun owners. The love of guns and other weaponry is about as infantile as it gets. The one and only purpose of virtually all handguns and assault type weapons is to kill other human beings. One does not hunt with a handgun or an Uzi. One prepares him or herself to kill somebody else with those types of weapons.
Essentially, Americans hate each other, suspecting that any and everyone wants to get into their homes and do what? Steal their fucking guns! - Oh, and perhaps to rape their wives and daughters.
The good folks at the NRA are literally creaming themselves. There's guns blazing and wild fucking going on the corridors.
The next hope is that we can get all of our college kids packin' heat. (Fuck man, you gave me a "D"? I got a "D" for you right here motherfucker!)
Well, it's a truly great day for all of you. You can all go shoot something (or someone) in celebration. Whoop tee do!
B-tone
I guess I shouldn't use such bad language. Someone might take offense and shoot me.
5 - Dr Dreadful
LOL, B-Tone. That's quite an image you conjured up there.
6 - Clavos
I take it you aren't a gun enthusiast, B-tone?
7 - Baritone
Well, no. I was hoping ya'll wouldn't notice. I don't like being too obvious. I have long prided myself in my subtlety, my deft use of nuance, goddammit!
B-tone
8 - Dave Nalle
It's a remarkably clear and coherent decision - for once - and may actually be definitive enough to end the travesty of gun grabbing by local jurisdictions once and for all. A real victory for liberty.
Dave
9 - Mooja
This decision restores some of my belief that the U.S. Justice system has not become completely bastardized. I’m frankly amazed that 5 of 9 Justices actually took the Constitution at its word without being sidetracked by modern political correctness or global opinion.
How anyone in good conscience can be against an individuals right to protect oneself and ones family is beyond my comprehension. Disarming honest, law-abiding citizens is not the answer to curbing gun related crimes.
10 - Matthew T. Sussman
Baritone, by that same logic you can also say that people who take up archery as a hobby are also doing nothing but practicing to kill.
11 - Ruvy
Baritone,
Funny how different cultures make the same instrument so different in perception. In Israel, two Jews, both armed with pistols, can scream at each other, yell at each other and even get into a serious fistfight drawing blood and all - and neither will think to draw a weapon and kill the other. I could never say the same thing in the States where even passing somebody on the road is enough to cause a weapon to be drawn and fired at the "offending" person - with murder in mind.
When using the following sentence "I will never understand the minds of gun owners. The love of guns and other weaponry is about as infantile as it gets." one needs to use the adjective "American" in front of "gun owner". When I see my fellow Jews carrying a weapon, particularly if they are out of uniform, I feel safe, not threatened. Here, we civilians understand what weapons are for. I can't say the same for the government and its goons.
12 - Dan Miller
Doc,
There may be some validity to your point, but I don't think that many people who own guns legally are the ones using them to commit crimes. The Court's decision does not impinge upon the right of states reasonably to require registration of firearms, or to deny them to convicted felons, people of diminished mental capacity, or others who clearly should not have them. Nor does it even suggest that use of a gun during the commission of a criminal offense can't be treated as an aggravating factor. The Court does emphasize that the right of self-defense is very important, and that use of a gun for that purpose is legitimate.I agree that the decision was a good one and that the majority opinion explaining it was as well. However, you say,
I should perhaps add that I do not own a firearm, never have, and don't want one. Back when we were sailing around the Caribbean, some people carried firearms, and IMHO were foolish. Leaving aside the necessity to report them at the port of entry, often to hand them over to the officials there, and to return (inconveniently) to the same port of entry to retrieve them before leaving, they were dangerous. I have heard many stories of unarmed "pirates" taking over a vessel, and then using the owner's gun on the owner and crew.
Dan
13 - Dan Miller
Even Candidate Obama likes the Court's gun ban decision, and thinks the Court went overboard in its child rape decision.
It's wonderful to see him flip-flop. Perhaps someone can compose appropriate music for his acrobatic performances.Dan
14 - Dr Dreadful
I agree that legitimate gun owners, for the most part, handle their weapons in a responsible and law-abiding way. But the very fact that guns are a (fairly) readily obtainable and widely manufactured commodity in the US makes it that much easier for those with evil intent to acquire and use them.
Your pirate story illustrates very well how easily guns can get into the wrong hands and how quickly a means of self-defense can be turned against you.
The means by which most criminals get their weapons are of course usually a bit more subtle than that, but what galls me is the absolute refusal of some in the firearms lobby to recognize that there is any sort of connection between gun availability and gun crime.
15 - Dr Dreadful
I think Obama's comments on gun laws were reasonable. I wish he had remained more steadfast in his opposition to the death penalty, though. It doesn't really give the electorate much of a choice if both candidates are going to just jump on every bloody bandwagon that trundles by.
That said, I disagree with the Guardian writer's assessment that: "the hard line was seen at variance with comments in his memoir that the death penalty was not a deterrent to crime". Obama is right about that, and furthermore he made no reference to any deterrent value in his statement: he was speaking purely about the appropriateness of the punishment.
16 - Clavos
"But the very fact that guns are a (fairly) readily obtainable and widely manufactured commodity in the US makes it that much easier for those with evil intent to acquire and use them."
True, but ease really has very little to do with people acquiring them; I believe it's the general openness and freedom of this culture that makes acquisition of just about any restricted item short of enriched nuclear materials child's play. Even nuclear materials are increasingly being found in the wrong hands these days.
In short, no matter the item, if you want it, and know where to look, you can get it in the USA.
Outright prohibition of guns will take them out of the hands of the "law abiding" owners (most of 'em, anyway); it will do little to keep them out of the hands of those bent on far more heinous crimes than possession of a gun.
I've said it before on these threads, but it bears repeating: One has only to consider the failure of Prohibition and the ubiquity of illegal drugs in contemporary society to predict the certain outcome of an outright ban on guns.
17 - Deano
Re: Comment#10,
Well, it is hard to tuck a longbow into your pants when you are taking down the local 7-11....
As archaic weapons go, bows can be plenty dangerous in the right hands but not too many average people can shoot a bow, even fewer with any accuracy. It takes years of work to get good and to shoot accurately and swiftly.
As has been pointed out, guns are the great equalizer and you can train someone on them very quick.
18 - Dr Dreadful
True dat, Clav. I don't dispute it. My concern is with the sheer ludicrous level of gun-related crime - particularly homicide - in the US. It depresses me that the latest shooting on the local news here is usually reported in an 'eh - whatever' sort of way.
I don't pretend to grasp all the dynamics of why the air in certain precincts of American cities contains more flying lead than a radiologists' strip poker game, or what the solution is. Prohibition would, I agree, be a disaster, as has been proved multiple times in the past with other commodities. Acknowledging that guns do cause high levels of gun crime would, IMHO, not be a disaster.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Deano, I frankly can't recall where my ex-father-in-law got hold of the bow, why he thought it would be a neat idea to let people try it out in his backyard, or whether he'd considered the potential consequences of accidentally skewering a few of his neighbors.
I merely use the anecdote to show that I can testify from first-hand experience that shooting a longbow without any training is both dangerous to anyone within a 200-yard radius and extremely painful to the shooter!
Eh, I wasn't using the skin on my inner arm anyway...
20 - Clavos
This is priceless:
"the air...contains more flying lead than a radiologists' strip poker game..."
Props for that one, Doc!
"Acknowledging that guns do cause high levels of gun crime would, IMHO, not be a disaster."
Agreed. And to that end, I think making the punishment for commission of a crime with the use of a gun truly draconian is a good place to start. A number of jurisdictions have already set greater punishments for crime with a gun, but I have yet to see life without possibility of parole for holding up a convenience store with a gun.
It might take a while to sink in, but eventually, even the moron criminals will get the message and take up longbows.
21 - Deano
Long bows, like any other weapon, can do hella-damage to people who don't know how to use them.
We had a kid at a range I used to practice at who didn't check his arrows prior to shooting (this was in the good old days of wooden arrows, now everything is high-tech materials). One of them must have been cracked becasue it shattered when it left the bow. It drove the back half of the arrow into his bow hand and half-way up one extended finger. Much plastic surgery was the result.
And this wasn't even a proper bow, just one of those light-weight thirty pound bows that the youngsters use. If he had done that with a full compound bow or a proper long bow, he'd probably have ripped a major part of his hand off....
22 - Baritone
I must agree, bow and arrow deaths are way down. The only archer I know of who could stand in against an automatic weapon might be Legolas of LOTR fame. But, alas, he has hung up his quiver and gone to residing at Valinor after a brief stop at the Grey Havens 7/11 to get some Pabst and pork rinds for the trip.
One thing pointed out in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine was that Canada has about the same ratio of guns to people - something like 457 guns for every humble Canadian, more or less ;-) - as here in the good ole US of A.
But Canadians rarely shoot each other. And as Ruvy states, few Jews ever consider shooting each other even though many are armed to the teeth.
So, it's an American thing. As I stated above, generally we neither trust nor like each other very much. The supposed American melting pot hasn't very successfully gone into solution. Our gun totin', wild west, pioneer spirit lives on in our penchant for blowing each other's nuts off. It has become for many the measure of a man (and sometimes, a woman) in just what kind and how many guns one has and one's skill and willingness to use them. To some, a man with no guns may as well have no dick. One must have either a gun or a dick to even shoot blanks.
B-tone
23 - STM
Longbow deaths ARE way down. They have been since Robin Hood shot a nice big dart into the Sheriff of Nottingham's substantial blurter.
I do love the bow and arrow though. I CAN hit an apple at 50 yards - eventually :)
My grandparents' village near the Scotland/England border had an archery stone on the village green - used for sharpening arrows.
And Americans think their history goes back aways.
I have actually contemplated taking my bow on trips to America for protection, but you just get tired of carrying the bastard things around, especially in the pub where it's a particular nuisance.
In reality a boomerang is better (or even a woomera), as Paul Hogan illustrated. Plus, they're green weapons.
You can use 'em over and over again, once you pulled 'em out of someone's head.
24 - Deano
The low number of longbow deaths is entirely due to the new Longbow Bowstring lock, which prevent full draw and accidental discharge of your longbow...:)
25 - Baritone
The rather sad thing is that so many people feel it necessary to be armed at all. There are certainly places in this country where it would not be wise to wander without packing some heat, I suppose.
But I have lived over 60 years in various places in the U.S. and have never carried nor owned a weapon. With very few exceptions I have never felt particularly threatened personally, nor had any great concern for my property. I have been victimized a few times from theft and vandalism, but who hasn't?
It seems to me that a great number, perhaps the majority of people who keep and bear firearms do so without any real need. That is, they have never really been threatened, nor do they live in a particularly dangerous environment. Rather, they manufacture some kind of fictitious "threat" to their well being and/or their property to justify in their own minds the accumulation of weaponry to have at hand for the coming conflagration.
I would, if I felt it necessary, defend my hearth and home by whatever means, including guns if I truly felt the need. I'm betting, though, unless society really falls apart, that need will never arise.
B-tone