Supereme Court decision on Right to own guns

[MikeC]

For self-defense AND hunting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_ ... cotus_guns

Another small step in the right direction...

MikeC

[Dmitri]

[Darthwing Teorist]

Dudes, didn't you hear that interest in guns now means that you have terrorist inclinations?

[DeusTrismegistus]

[strawdog]

5-4, not bad, maybe something really good will come out of it for the gun owners here in Kalifornia.

[ashe]

i don't know... you'd think that "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" to be pretty cut and dry.

[Dmitri]

Exactly.

Here's a good article that takes it apart linguistically:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 05229.html

... Suppose the Constitution provided:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate's educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.

[Steve James]

Fwiw,

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

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

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's always been a question about what a Militia is, of course; but, the statement as written seems to suggest a connection. No? There's also a question of the conflict between this and states' rights.

Anyway, I don't think it's just a grammatical argument. It's an argument about the intention of meaning. In the example with education, there's no necessary connection of education and books. The Founders, had they wanted to interpret it as clearly as some would suggest, could have written it much more clearly. For example, simply take out the "militia" and write "The ability to protect house and home, being necessary for...., the peoples' right to ...."

That is the argument that is made in such cases: I.e., that that is what the Founder's meant. Personally, I don't think so. I think they would have assumed that people would have arms, and that the gov't should not infringe upon that right. Now, another Constitutional argument revolves around what is considered "infringement." Does asking whether someone owns a gun an infringement of his 2nd amendment rights? Or, is it when the gov't tries to actually take it away?

[MikeC]

Anyway, I don't think it's just a grammatical argument. It's an argument about the intention of meaning. In the example with education, there's no necessary connection of education and books. The Founders, had they wanted to interpret it as clearly as some would suggest, could have written it much more clearly. For example, simply take out the "militia" and write "The ability to protect house and home, being necessary for...., the peoples' right to ...."

That's been the back-up argument that I've seen people make who are generally against the 2nd Amendment rights(not necessarily saying you are BTW). "What did the Founders really mean?" I've seen some quotes here and there from Thomas Jefferson and from what I've read of them to me it seemed that he thought in his mind that a side-arm(Rifle or otherwise) should be part of your personal artifacts.

That is the argument that is made in such cases: I.e., that that is what the Founder's meant. Personally, I don't think so. I think they would have assumed that people would have arms, and that the gov't should not infringe upon that right. Now, another Constitutional argument revolves around what is considered "infringement." Does asking whether someone owns a gun an infringement of his 2nd amendment rights? Or, is it when the gov't tries to actually take it away?

To me it's pretty clear, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, what does 'Keep' and 'Bear' arms mean?

Mike

[Teazer]

To me it's pretty clear, the Right to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, what does 'Keep' and 'Bear' arms mean?

Prior to the recent ruling, one interpretation was: if you were part of a well regulated militia, such groups (IE "the people" needed to have quick and unfettered access to weaponry used for such a function). Which linguistically is a pretty reasonable way of interpreting the sentence. However this disregarded the usage of the term "The People" in such documents in that time period.

Still, if it were that cut & dried an issue, it should not have taken decades of discussion before a Supreme court opinion was made.

[Steve James]

People are allowed to bear arms in this country. The question for the NRA and most others has always been about "infringement."

And, the fact that smarter people than you or I have argued about the "interpretation" MEANS that it is not trivial or black and white. T

[klonk]

Here's a link to the ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf You will find it well crafted and detailed as to the different points of interpretation. I am pleased with the ruling, though I wish it had been 9-0 insteaad of 5-4. It's obvious to me what was obvious to Jefferson and that crowd, only a people free to be armed can resist tyranny, at need.

[Darthwing Teorist]

So, let me ask this: how did you guys resist the present tyranny? By voting Bush for a second term?

[qiphlow]

So, let me ask this: how did you guys resist the present tyranny? By voting Bush for a second term?

zing!

[klonk]

So, let me ask this: how did you guys resist the present tyranny? By voting Bush for a second term?

You might reasonably conclude that this George did not upset us as much as that other one.