TheAgitator.com
The Second Amendment Wins
Thursday, June 26th, 2008I’d suggest keeping an eye on the Volokh site or Hit & Run for more details.
47 Responses to “The Second Amendment Wins”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
This line from the end of Justice Scalia’s opinion made me laugh:
“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem.”
Maybe “well-trained police” provide “personal security” for Scalia, but as our friend Radley has shown time and again, the regular citizen doesn’t quite get that level of “personal” service.
The “NO DUH” provded by Breyer (via Rueters):
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.”
So let’s see now if crime will drop dramatically in DC, as is often the claim about gun ownership. Will either side conceede the point if reality doesn’t fit their hypothesis? I doubt it.
Eh, I could care less either way. I was kind of hoping they’d lean this way, tho, just to piss the DC government off, but not because I agree with this position. I think the constitution is vague and lucid, intelligent arguments can be made for either side.
Regardless of the arguments, I believe the amendment was there to protect an individual’s right to rebel against the government and to possibly overthrow it, if necessary. However, given the increasing level of arms owned by the government, it’s truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take on a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons.
Chance,
I would wager you will see a very slight reduction, if any at all. The gun crimes in DC are mainly savages killing each other for various black market concerns (drugs, gang property disputes, etc). Even beltway libertarians don’t live in areas that embody the idea of unregulated immigration. :)
Here is the decision.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Sorry for the double-post, didn’t see Nando’s reply before I made my first one…
Nando,
You don’t need a few hundred thousand people marching to DC to overthrow the government. You just need a few million people armed in their homes able and willing to make the goons of the state disappear when they come to visit. Which is pretty much what we have now, except for certain “gun-free” zones where only criminals (and the government, but I repeat myself) are armed. The recent SC decision should help remove these zones of appeasement – NYC, I’m looking at you!
What I found most fascinating in this case was the diverse group of organizations that filed amici briefs in support of Heller. When gay rights and feminist groups are joining police organizations in supporting the right to carry handguns, it shows that 2nd Amendment interpretations don’t fall into a neat, predictable left/right split.
How, if at all, will this decision affect stories like this:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1022974,CST-NWS-stebic25.article
I found that story last night and its regarding Craig Stebic and Drew Peterson. Apparently, even tho both of these people have not been charged with a crime, both of them appear to have lost their right to own guns. Seemed kinda strange to me when i read it. How exactly can this happen?
Will DC just pass a law that requires a waiting period for guns? Can they make it as long as they’d like? If so, they’ll probably pass a 100-year waiting period to purchase a gun or to get a permit for an existing gun, just to snub their noses at the SC.
Reading more of Breyer’s dissent…he actually writes that the DC laws have not reduced crimes as intended! Jeebus! What more could you want?
If a resident has a
handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then
he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit
suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.-Breyer..
I do not like Justice Breyer.
“You don’t need a few hundred thousand people marching to DC to overthrow the government. You just need a few million people armed in their homes able and willing to make the goons of the state disappear when they come to visit. ”
The operative word there is “willing”. Most people wouldn’t be willing, and a significant number would side with the government no matter what the issue. Besides, unless they have significant outside support, most insurgencies tend not to be very sucessful. Every sucessful one I can think of from the American Revolution to the current Iraq insurgency had outside actors contributing significant aid to the rebels.
If a resident has a
handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then
he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit
suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.-
You might not like it, but it’s uncontroversially true. Of course, he probably has a roasting fork in his home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in an act of domestic violence with, too.
Will DC just pass a law that requires a waiting period for guns? Can they make it as long as they’d like? If so, they’ll probably pass a 100-year waiting period to purchase a gun or to get a permit for an existing gun, just to snub their noses at the SC.
Cute, but that wouldn’t fly either.
Best news out of the Supreme Court in a while IMO …. every city with a ridiculous complete ban on guns will now be challenged. Of course, they could do something crazy like like Nando suggests and make it nearly impossible to get a gun, but that’ll be the next battle.
Wow! I wonder if this mean they’re start taking the other nine amendments seriously as well.
That’s the problem of trying to justify (or negate) a right based on its effects. A right isn’t something that is circumstantial depending on statistics. It doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the crime rate is too high.”
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (usually by a 5-4 vote) too often seems to think that a “compelling state interest” trumps anything in the Constitution.
And for those of you trying to talk yourself into voting for Obama; the 4 justices he ‘most admires’ are the ones on the wrong side of this argument.
And Chance, I DO think crime will drop dramatically … I’ve seen countless criminals interviewed who say “I’m not afraid of cops or going to jail, but I AM afraid of busting into someone’s store or house and having them whip out a .44 and blow me away!”. I’d say that’s a good ‘deterrent”.
Exactly one justice voted in favor of this, and also in favor of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Anthony Kennedy.
So it appears that the Supreme Court consists of 4 knee-jerk liberals, 4 knee-jerk conservatives, and one justice who actually understands the Constitution.
“If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.-Breyer..”
I suppose this might be true, but how is it relevant to the 2nd amendment? By this logic, any right that can be abused should be taken away. That pretty much covers all of them. And this guy is a Supreme Court Justice?
I have a car, I might drive drunk, we should therefore ban cars.
I have free speech, I might use that right to call for a violent attack on Paris Hilton, so let’s take that right away too. And it’s even worse, because a gun for defense has a benefit, while drunk driving does not. I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions about Paris….
The fact is, drunk driving is illegal, calling for violence against someone is illegal, and we (try to) enforce those laws when they are broken. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?
Another argument, that D.C. is a special case and special cases should be able to make exceptions, is equally flawed. Given that logic, States with a very low GDP should be able to declare themselves a special case w/respect to the amendment which gives the feds authority to levy income taxes, and instead take those taxes for themselves. You know, because they are a special case.
I just came across this nugget from Breyer:
“In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
On the one hand I’m stunned he can be so clueless. On the other hand, isn’t it reassuring to know that incompetence in the workplace can be found everywhere, even the Supreme Court? It’s not just us common folk having to deal with these kind of people.
That’s the problem with the Supreme Court. Even when they vote my way they still piss me off with some of their dumbass opinions.
“If a resident has a
handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then
he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit
suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.-Breyer..”
As Kevin mentioned, this is just silly thinking. I mean, Lorena Bobbit didn’t cut off her husband John Wayne Bobbits “pistol” with a handgun. She used a knife. Of course, I read recently she’s now a advocate for DV victims, well female victims of DV anyway.
Hell, lets ban rope, bleach, sharp knives (can’t use those in schools anymore to cut up things in a kid’s lunch box or even have them half buried under a car seat in a locked car) or frying pans from the home.
#9 claude
The Firearm Owner ID law in Illinois is probably unconstitutional and will be one of the laws being challenged because of this decision.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.”
What really is amusing about this quote is not that this is obvious as #2 points out, but that this is the purpose of the Supreme Court. The fact that a decision threatens the validity of some laws should have no bearing on your decision.
“And Chance, I DO think crime will drop dramatically … I’ve seen countless criminals interviewed who say “I’m not afraid of cops or going to jail, but I AM afraid of busting into someone’s store or house and having them whip out a .44 and blow me away!”. I’d say that’s a good ‘deterrent”.”
Perhaps. I will reserve judgement until I see the effects. I came from an area where everybody owned guns, and crime was still pretty bad.
To punctuate #20 Kevin’s point — I also have a copy machine here that I can use to make up flyers with hate speech on them. According to Breyer, we should do away with the First Amendment?
“The Firearm Owner ID law in Illinois is probably unconstitutional and will be one of the laws being challenged because of this decision.”
Thanks for responding. I am expecting the same thing. Ive never heard of anything like that happening, barring a conviction of some sort.
solarjetman said:
“Exactly one justice voted in favor of this, and also in favor of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Anthony Kennedy.
So it appears that the Supreme Court consists of 4 knee-jerk liberals, 4 knee-jerk conservatives, and one justice who actually understands the Constitution.”
….yea, but he forgot that the Constitution only applies to the US….not the whole world.
While I agree with your point I think you’re being unecessarily hyperbolic here. Countless? I’m willing to wager that you can’t find even one of these interviews on YouTube right now.
#17 Dave Krueger – Perfect response.
#3 Chance – Crime rates don’t have to drop at all to completely invalidate the reasoning behind DC’s gun laws. In order to justify taking away a basic right (if it can be justified, at all, ever… read #17) you’d have to show a pretty dramatic positive effect. But returning a right, with no negative effect, is a positive all by itself.
jwh,
No, the constitution only applies to the US government. The constitution does not give us rights. It limits what the government can do.
Nando:
“it’s truly idiotic to think that a few hundred thousand people armed with guns could take on a government that has tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons.”
It’s idiotic to think that the entire armed forced would blindly obey orders to kill the people they are supposed to protect. If citizens revolt en masse against the Federal government, it will because the President is acting in excess of the Constitution. Since our armed forces are sworn to protect the Constitution, I think a sizable portion of the armed forces would not follow the President’s unlawful orders. In fact, I’d wager you’d have lots of enlisted men tossing wrenches into the moving parts of tanks, planes, missiles, and other high-tech weapons.
Moreover, there are tens of millions of gun owners in the United States. Gun owners outnumber members of the armed forces by a couple of orders of magnitude. Furthermore, our military is very poorly situated (by design) to act within the borders of the United States.
I knew there would be only a slight mention of the ruling here, and I suspected Balko and the usual posters would be too cool for gun rights. This site is a fraud if it claims to be for individual freedom, but can’t enthusiaticly support the plain text of the second amendment.
Plus, so what if the DC crime rate actually goes up. The idea is not crime stats, it’s being in your home and feeling like you have a chance against an intruder.
“I knew there would be only a slight mention of the ruling here”
U mean like an entire thread devoted to this ruling, as this thread is?
“and I suspected Balko and the usual posters would be too cool for gun rights.”
R u even reading the comments here? To make that statement, u must not be.
“This site is a fraud if it claims to be for individual freedom”
Examples?
“but can’t enthusiaticly support the plain text of the second amendment.”
Yeah, u arent reading the comments here obviously.
“Plus, so what if the DC crime rate actually goes up. The idea is not crime stats, it’s being in your home and feeling like you have a chance against an intruder.”
Exactly right. Most of us agree with exactly that, at least from what im reading, which makes your post prior to this one and the observations u made, seem all the more odd.
Pat – You can’t possibly read this thread and think we’re all anti-2nd amendment. All of the comments that are cool on gun rights are the usual trolls that are just plain anti-freedom.
By “cool on gun rights” I meant “don’t like guns,” btw.
If the crime rate went up it would give the anti-2nd amendment crowd some factual ammo I’d rather they didn’t have. That’s all.
@15 and 24: (regarding state laws)
Sorry for the bad news, but this opinion doesn’t change your state’s laws.
The majority says its prior decisions against “incorporation” stand – meaning the 2nd Amendment doesn’t operate to restrict state laws.
Even the outrageously optimistic interpretation over at Volokh concedes the opinion doesn’t go so far as to “incorporate” the 2nd Amendment against the states.
So this opinion doesn’t make IL law or your city law any less (un)constitutional – unless you live in an area governed soley by federal law. (DC, obviously… Guam too? Yellowstone?)
“It’s idiotic to think that the entire armed forced would blindly obey orders to kill the people they are supposed to protect. If citizens revolt en masse against the Federal government, it will because the President is acting in excess of the Constitution.”
If Dr. Evil were elected president, sure. In a more realistic scenario, the president and his supporters would make a nice, plausible sounding argument and the vast majority of the military would go along with him/her, and a much larger portion of the country (including gun owners) would rally behind the flag or stay neutral. The word “traitor” is a powerful word, especially when said by someone in authority, and it has lulled many a population into doing stupid things in the past. Not to mention that an organized military can often take on unorganized groups many times it’s size.
“Plus, so what if the DC crime rate actually goes up.
____
If the crime rate went up it would give the anti-2nd amendment crowd some factual ammo I’d rather they didn’t have. That’s all.”
I’ll agree that for purposes of argument here it probably doesn’t matter if the rate goes higher, stays the same, or drops. From a practical standpoint, I would indeed use a rise in crime as a talking point.
true that:
If there is a large scale uprising by the public, it will be precisely because of a fairly obvious overstepping of the President’s Constitutional authority.
Amendments are a list of “SHALL NOTs” (they use these words), meaning it says what government SHALL NOT do, not what it should do. You have natural rights that are reiterated by the Bill of Rights.
Government is We The People, and when our representatives fail us, you have to look to yourself, your neighbors, and your community as to why you all failed to keep your representatives in check.
Look at post 3, 4, and 5. These are people with no clue about individual rights. THEY WANT TO GET HIGH AND NOT GET FIRED. They are liberals. I live in Minnesota, I know a liberal when I see one. Balko scores points with these non-thinkers when he talks about drug raids gone bad. But these people like posters 3,4,5 would cheer if we raided the homes of the rich and took away their SUV’s. I’m against all raids. I’m for all people deciding if they want to own a gun. I think pot stinks and people that use it everyday get lazy, look dirty, and smell bad, but it’s an individual choice nonetheless, and we’d be better off if it was legal.
The one thing that has changed this country for the worse is the rise of the female legislators and female mayors. They henpeck their constituents like they henpeck their husbands. They don’t understand the concept of needing a gun so it should be banned.
Matt Moore, I can’t find much but there is this from one of our favorite journalists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
(but I could have sworn it was something like 20/20 where they were interviewing a bunch of convicts and they all said “what scares me is a gun owner, not the police”.)
Look at #3 on this one:
http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
And I found this while looking too :)
http://funtasticus.com/20080313/armed-america-portraits-of-gun-owners-in-their-homes/
#40 RTFLaw
Doesn’t this only refer to the regulation of gun ownership. The decision states that States cannot prohibit the right to keep and bear arms. The referred article doesn’t give the cause for revoking Stebic’s FOID card, and if the card was revoked without a specific statutory cause. Then wouldn’t capricious application of the FOID law violate this decision.
Not to rain on everyone’s parade, but I see this decision not making much of a difference. There was no incorporation of the 2nd to the states under the 14th, so they can still pretty much screw us over any time they want to. It does nothing to revoke Lautenberg, it does nothing to force ‘may issue’ into ‘must issue’ and any cop that decided we need to be disarmed may do so without much in the way of penalty.
IMO, this decision was enough, just barely enough, to keep the “use it or lose it” crowd in check. Barely. It could have easily gone 5-4 the other way thanks to the completely fucked-up way the plaintiff’s attorney handled things.
Color me unimpressed.