Little-Acorn
New member
Oral arguments are today, and the ruling is expected I believe in midsummer.
The 2nd amendment, in modern language, says:
Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
Surprising how many people have trouble with it, though. Talking like Shakespeare talked, is difficult for some, I guess, though people of that period had no problem reading and understanding it. It still means now, exactly what it meant then. Neither the 2nd amendment, nor the society it is meant to protect, has fundamentally changed. Cars, iPods, and computers don't change human nature.
The gun issue, generally, revolves around the question of whether politicians trust the citizens to make their own decisions about guns, personal protection, etc. Conservatives (when you can find them) do trust people to do so and learn from their mistakes. The southpaws among us mostly don't, and feel that government (that is, the southpaws) should take that responsibility from them.
The Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether in DC, an attempt to take that right (and responsibility) away from the people, violates the Constitution.
----------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579647855943453.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Gun-Rights Showdown
by RANDY E. BARNETT
March 18, 2008
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:
- Heller will be decided on originalist grounds. Among law professors, enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution is highly controversial. Critics of originalism deny that we should be ruled by the "dead hand of the past." They prefer following Supreme Court precedents that may or may not be consistent with original meaning. Any justice who today professes a commitment to originalism is branded a radical; and all Supreme Court nominees are now grilled on their commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis. But what are old precedents if not the "dead hand" of dead justices?
Significantly, then, both sides in Heller are making only originalist arguments. The challengers of the law contend that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects an individual "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed." In response, the District does not contend that this right is outmoded and that the Second Amendment should now be reinterpreted in light of changing social conditions. Not at all. It contends instead that, because the original intention of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of "a well regulated militia," the right it protects was limited to the militia context.
So one thing is certain. Whoever prevails, Heller will be an originalist decision. This shows that originalism remains the proper method of identifying the meaning of the Constitution.
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1960s, gun control advocates dismissed the Second Amendment as protecting the so-called "collective right" of states to preserve their militias -- notwithstanding that, everywhere else in the Constitution, a "right" of "the people" refers to an individual right of persons, and the 10th Amendment expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is "conditioned" on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won't be based on a "collective" right of the states.
Still, a ruling upholding an unconditioned individual right to arms and invalidating the ban is unlikely to have much effect on current gun laws. Here's why:
- Heller is a federal case. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
The 2nd amendment, in modern language, says:
Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
Surprising how many people have trouble with it, though. Talking like Shakespeare talked, is difficult for some, I guess, though people of that period had no problem reading and understanding it. It still means now, exactly what it meant then. Neither the 2nd amendment, nor the society it is meant to protect, has fundamentally changed. Cars, iPods, and computers don't change human nature.
The gun issue, generally, revolves around the question of whether politicians trust the citizens to make their own decisions about guns, personal protection, etc. Conservatives (when you can find them) do trust people to do so and learn from their mistakes. The southpaws among us mostly don't, and feel that government (that is, the southpaws) should take that responsibility from them.
The Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether in DC, an attempt to take that right (and responsibility) away from the people, violates the Constitution.
----------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579647855943453.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Gun-Rights Showdown
by RANDY E. BARNETT
March 18, 2008
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:
- Heller will be decided on originalist grounds. Among law professors, enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution is highly controversial. Critics of originalism deny that we should be ruled by the "dead hand of the past." They prefer following Supreme Court precedents that may or may not be consistent with original meaning. Any justice who today professes a commitment to originalism is branded a radical; and all Supreme Court nominees are now grilled on their commitment to the doctrine of stare decisis. But what are old precedents if not the "dead hand" of dead justices?
Significantly, then, both sides in Heller are making only originalist arguments. The challengers of the law contend that the original meaning of the Second Amendment protects an individual "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed." In response, the District does not contend that this right is outmoded and that the Second Amendment should now be reinterpreted in light of changing social conditions. Not at all. It contends instead that, because the original intention of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of "a well regulated militia," the right it protects was limited to the militia context.
So one thing is certain. Whoever prevails, Heller will be an originalist decision. This shows that originalism remains the proper method of identifying the meaning of the Constitution.
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1960s, gun control advocates dismissed the Second Amendment as protecting the so-called "collective right" of states to preserve their militias -- notwithstanding that, everywhere else in the Constitution, a "right" of "the people" refers to an individual right of persons, and the 10th Amendment expressly distinguishes between "the people" and "the states." Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is "conditioned" on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won't be based on a "collective" right of the states.
Still, a ruling upholding an unconditioned individual right to arms and invalidating the ban is unlikely to have much effect on current gun laws. Here's why:
- Heller is a federal case. Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government. Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
Shows some President made a good choice at some point.
