Gun ban overturned.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Soriak

A few people with guns aren't a match for the armed forces, but for soldiers to fire at their own people would be crossing quite a serious line. Especially if it's not just 5 people in a lodge, but hundreds of thousands all around the country.

How is this any different if those people have guns, as opposed to if they don't?

And yeah, I'm not saying that the SCOTUS doesn't have the right to rule the way they did or anything like that. I'm just saying that to pretend that it's an originalist reading of the Second Amendment is pretty laughable.

It's interpretive at best, if not an outright misreading of the meaning.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Duppin

How is this any different if those people have guns, as opposed to if they don't?

If you're not armed, you get rounded up and put in camps. There's no real barrier there for soldiers, police officers do it every day; it's normal and "clean."

When you actually have to shoot and kill your own countrymen things look very differently. It's already bad for them overseas, which is nothing like doing the same at home to people you can closely relate to.

Just fighting on your own soil might actually be a downer, there are a few recent articles on the Pakistani military morale... at the end of last year, almost 300 soldiers (including many officers) surrendered to a small group of Taliban. And those aren't innocent civilians they may feel for!

[TKarrde]

Because, if they can just subjugate the people, they don't have to have the moral question of whether or not to fire. If the people are fighting back from oppression, the question does come up.

[Heavens_Myst]

The term "well regulated" in the 18th century is not meant to be taken as "many regulations" but rather "well equipped"

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Duppin

How is this any different if those people have guns, as opposed to if they don't?

And yeah, I'm not saying that the SCOTUS doesn't have the right to rule the way they did or anything like that. I'm just saying that to pretend that it's an originalist reading of the Second Amendment is pretty laughable.

It's interpretive at best, if not an outright misreading of the meaning.

People didn't own guns in the 18th Century? is that what you're arguing? I think it's hardly laughable to assert that the original intention if the 2nd was directed at the vast individual ownership of guns way back then -- particularly given that many of those guns had just been used in a sucessful civil war.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by tad10

People didn't own guns in the 18th Century? is that what you're arguing? I think it's hardly laughable to assert that the original intention if the 2nd was directed at the vast individual ownership of guns way back then -- particularly given that many of those guns had just been used in a sucessful civil war.

Where do you get that from what I was saying?

What gun rights advocates are saying is that everything before the comma has no meaning. I'm disagreeing.

So, my reading is the originalist reading, the reading reaffirmed today is an interpretive one.

[Duppin]

Also, here's a good summation of a lot of things I agree with, from a post on a discussion thread about this at my local paper's website:

Originally Posted by some guy

I applaud you looking beyond opinions and posting Federalist text as for all citizens. Scalia's analysis starts defining to whom the right is granted (the "people") and skipping over the "militia" analysis until the end. Scala also admitted in the opinion that original 'text' discussing of "arms" did, in fact, mean ALL arms - machine guns, bazookas, you name it. As such, I do predict challenges to bans on semi-automatic or automatic weapon bans but I also predict that the court will say "well, it's not commonly owned by Americans," which is the actual legal rule handed down here. (A sheer logical problem here is the circular nature of Scalia's rule - "it must be commonly owned in order to be legal" or "it's legal so it's commonly owned". Thus, courts must do a 'Which came first - the chicken or the egg' analysis.)

However, the inherent problem every Supreme Court runs into during a gun legislation argument (and every gun's right advocate misses) is that the same text used in the Second Amendment (militias) is also the same language of two explicit Constitutional powers granted to Congress (to organize the militia).

That is to say, the conflict here is between three Constitutional texts - 1) two enumerated powers of Congress and 2) an articulated right to the people.

The last Second Amendment ruling of the Supreme Court (pre-bomber, pre-nuclear weapon, etc) re-inforced that this relationship between the two is at the heart of the legal analysis. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939). Here, Scalia & Co. scrape out the relationship saying that the courts must look at the "kind" of arm (again, that 'gun most Americans own are legal' or 'legal gun so most American's own it' analysis).

Personally, I read this Scalia ruling more as "only the Federal government can regulate gun ownership and it can only be done through the guise of 'organizing' a militia.'" As such, if Congress does pass a 'Militia Organizing Act" requiring massive and complex registration, licensing, fees, training, and disclipine for failure to provide upkeep on weapons (ie - if you don't lock up your gun), which are all part of those enumerated militia powers, this Court has no power to strike it down.

As I've said before, the opinion is deceiving if one assumes that this opinion stands blocks Congress' ability to regulate guns into obsolesence. Congress fully retains that power; this opinion says the District of Columbia does not. That's about it.

Viewed in that light (the part about the conflict between the two sections of the Constitution is interesting; I tried to talk about that in an earlier post but I didn't say it very well), I can agree with this decision a little more.

That analysis seems to indicate the ruling is actually that activities that relate to "regulation of the militia", including any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, are reserved to Congress rather than to the states.

So, if anything, this might just bump gun legislation up to the federal level.

Thoughts?

[Tolanin]

I think its pretty funny that people just ignore the fact that most of the militias didnt have anything but a passing affiliation with the actual government of the states... its pretty revisionist to actually try to contend that they meant that state militias were what they were refering to the in 2nd when in fact the states really didnt pay for those militias and they were for the most part nationalistic gangs.

I dont know how anyone could look at the nature of the miltias at the founding and think that what the second amendment was protecting was anything but the right of private individuals to bear arms and form militias.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

I think its pretty funny that people just ignore the fact that most of the militias didnt have anything but a passing affiliation with the actual government of the states... its pretty revisionist to actually try to contend that they meant that state militias were what they were refering to the in 2nd when in fact the states really didnt pay for those militias and they were for the most part nationalistic gangs.

I dont know how anyone could look at the nature of the miltias at the founding and think that what the second amendment was protecting was anything but the right of private individuals to bear arms and form militias.

From article 1, section 8:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

So clearly, one of the goals of the Constitution is to change exactly what you're talking about. To bring it from "nationalistic gangs" to an actual organized militia that'd be useful for defending the interests of the country.

[Kolle]

You fucking dipshit, banning handguns in certain areas cause there are gangs in the area ? Gang members dont buy there fucking guns at gun shops dipshit. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

so if something is illegal, but people can get a hold of it/do it anyways, then it might as well be legal?

also let's remember that federal and local government already restricts your 2nd amendment rights. there are firearm types you can't own and places you can't carry any firearm. if some of the people arguing against the ban truly believed what they typed, then you would also believe we should be able to carry guns into government buildings, schools, airports, etc... if you say no then you do agree it's ok to ban guns in certain areas.

[Agraza]

Originally Posted by Kolle

so if something is illegal, but people can get a hold of it/do it anyways, then it might as well be legal?

Yes. Tax it and regulate it to keep it out of the hands of crazies, impulse buyers, and children, but outlawing it does not remove it from the hands of would-be criminals. Illegalizing substances and objects only helps to create a market in which these people can thrive and bring down those that surround them.

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Agraza

Yes. Tax it and regulate it to keep it out of the hands of crazies, impulse buyers, and children, but outlawing it does not remove it from the hands of would-be criminals. Illegalizing substances and objects only helps to create a market in which these people can thrive and bring down those that surround them.

your stance must also apply to acts, not just objects and substances. otherwise it's a contradiction of logic. in either case, you're basically supporting the abolishment of most, if not all, laws.

for example if you want to say it doesn't apply to acts then it could be legal to own/buy/sell pot, but illegal to actually use it. if you want to say that it should be ok to use the substances then the same logic applies to any act that is illegal. that includes things like murder. things that people do regardless of it being against the law.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Kolle

your stance must also apply to acts, not just objects and substances. otherwise it's a contradiction of logic. in either case, you're basically supporting the abolishment of most, if not all, laws.

Actually his position is pretty moderate, in that he advocates for the taxing and regulating of such things.

Look, this is really quite simple: If you make something illegal, you greatly reduce the supply of something and thereby drive up the price. It thus becomes lucrative for groups to engage in the illicit sale of such items. Drugs are far and away the most telling example of this fact. It is BECAUSE they are illegal that so much crime occurs in connection with them; legalize them and much of the violence that occurs, for instance, between gangs fighting over who can sell on what turf, will abate.

If you make guns illegal, this same scenario will rear its head, though likely to a lesser degree. But it is far and away more deplorable because you are disarming law-abiding citizens while increasing crime -- and many of those whom the law would seek to prevent from acquiring arms will acquire them regardless.

Forget the 2nd Amendment; the Constitution at this point is, unfortunately, beyond meaningless and arguing on its behalf is fairly futile. All you need to realize is that government, rather than being omnipotent, is actually pretty incompetent. Just because a bill makes its way through congress, and the president signs it, does not mean that the state of affairs the bill is intended to bring about will actually come to pass; the reverse, in fact, is almost always the case. The War on Drugs has failed, the War on Poverty has failed. If government made abortions illegal, people would just get black market abortions. If government made the publishing of seditious pamphlets illegal, people would find a way to get them published despite the law. Look to Prohibition if you ever want some insight into how effectively government can enforce its edicts against an unwilling populace.

[Kolle]

This is what i'm getting at. If anyone has read my posts in other threads you know i support making drugs legal. At the same time I also support having gun bans in certain areas (like there already are and you all support). It's ok to have stipulations and drawn lines. The argument of "people do it anyway so it might as well be legal" is retarded for certain subjects. There are judgment calls to be made. You can use that for something like pot if you want, but it doesn't make sense to use it for something like murder. So when I state that it should be ok to ban things like handguns in certain parts of various cities, it's fucking retarded to reply that gangs will get guns anyways so there's no point in making laws against them.

I have no interest in banning guns in Bumfuck, Montana. However, there are areas where it does make sense to have stricter gun laws or even gun bans. There are already areas like that and the supreme court supports those bans even in their comments on the gun ban case. So even while they are saying a DC handgun ban is not ok, they are at the same time agreeing it's ok for federal and local government to designate areas where it's illegal to carry a gun.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Kolle

This is what i'm getting at. If anyone has read my posts in other threads you know i support making drugs legal. At the same time I also support having gun bans in certain areas (like there already are and you all support). It's ok to have stipulations and drawn lines. The argument of "people do it anyway so it might as well be legal" is retarded for certain subjects. There are judgment calls to be made. You can use that for something like pot if you want, but it doesn't make sense to use it for something like murder.

So when I state that it should be ok to ban things like handguns in certain parts of various cities, it's fucking retarded to reply that gangs will get guns anyways so there's no point in making laws against them.

You're arguing against a straw man. My point is that making guns illegal will do a great job of disarming law abiding citizens, who would use those guns only in self-defense, but will do a less great job (which is not to say a completely ineffective job) of disarming criminals. So what we're left with is a law abiding populace left with little recourse to defend themselves, and a criminal populace with reduced -- though still potent -- access to arms.

You say at the end of the above quote that it doesn't make sense to use this line of thought for something like murder; but I don't think anyone here has applied this line of thought to murder. You're conflating gun ownership with murder; it would be equally illogical to conflate alcohol ownership with DWI.

Edit:

I have no interest in banning guns in Bumfuck, Montana. However, there are areas where it does make sense to have stricter gun laws or even gun bans. There are already areas like that and the supreme court supports those bans even in their comments on the gun ban case. So even while they are saying a DC handgun ban is not ok, they are at the same time agreeing it's ok for federal and local government to designate areas where it's illegal to carry a gun.

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree vehemently. Let me ask this: Going by your line of thinking, Compton and Harlem aside, is there ANY city in the country that could 'benefit' more from a handgun ban than D.C.? I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure much of D.C. is impoverished and riddled with crime. No?