6 ms·

Demoralizing that 3 judges ignore obvious Constitutional rights, yes, but at least hopeful that twice that many disagree with them, and may apply the same reaso

Demoralizing that 3 judges ignore obvious Constitutional rights, yes, but at least hopeful that twice that many disagree with them, and may apply the same reasoning to other equally obvious Constitutional rights. The right to own & carry weapons, explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and held as a clear right by the Supreme Court, may benefit from this ruling (to the surprise & dismay of some). Laws delaying (often for days or months) purchase of weapons, or of obtaining licenses to own or carry (themselves subject to debate for other reasons), may be challenged in court with the same reasoning as "briefly" holding someone without cause, regarding anything more than a 5-minute background check for adjudicated felonies or mental illness. From this ruling, we might actually get to one that acknowledges "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

Frondo 12y ago
I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".
- ghshephard 12y ago
  A topic on which thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hyper detailed essays and published articles have been written. Whether what a "well-regulated militia" meant in 1776 has any relevance to 2015 is also a topic upon which many, many essays have been written.
- MCRed 12y ago
  You might enjoy reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. I could tell you, but you'll appreciate it more when you see it yourself. It gives context to the Bill of Rights that I think most people have forgotten. It also makes it clear that no interpretation of that phrase could undermine the right.
- deciplex 12y ago
  What do you want clarified? The meaning is very clear, and well-established by the courts. The prefatory clause it's a part of is a matter of some dispute and interpretation, but the meaning of "well-regulated militia" itself, is clear. (Which is to say, "well-regulated" here is not used in the same sense as it would be in the phrase "a well-regulated broadband industry", on the off chance that's what you're getting at.)
- rainbowtrout 12y ago
  Perhaps what you're getting at was addressed in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
- chroma 12y ago
  "The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." (A silly example, but hopefully effective in showing the trick of language.) It's pretty clear that the founding fathers thought civilians should be able to own deadly weapons. The purpose for this was defense not only of the state, but of the individual. But even though I am a gun owner, I think the second amendment is extremely dated and should be ignored. So what if the founding fathers thought civilians should own guns? However intelligent and knowledgable they were, they have been superseded in all dimensions by two centuries of scientific and technological progress. If gun ownership decreases crime, OK. Tweak the laws to increase gun ownership. If it increases crime, OK. Do the opposite. If some middle-ground licensing thing works, do that. I find firearms fun to shoot, and I could see how they could be useful in self-defense, but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. Fortunately, if the Talmud and D&D have taught us anything, it's that people can interpret any rule to match their existing view. In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution.
  - rainbowtrout 12y ago
    > In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution. What about this ruling? Is this in favor "of public safety no matter the text of the constitution"? It sounds like the cop was trying to get meth off the streets, isn't that a matter "of public safety"? > ..., but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. The problem, as you point out, is that not everyone interprets "well-being of people" the same way. For some, it means largely sticking to this centuries-old text.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    Wow, thank you for the clearest response I've ever seen on the 2A puzzle! Yes, exactly, you got it exactly right: whether the founding documents were ever useful, what governing principles do we want to live with now? We obviously constrain people's agency in lots of ways that are non-controversial, like requiring that people drive on one side of the street or the other, or requiring that people not dump toxic waste in public parks. How do guns fit into that picture? How does speech, for that matter? These are good and important questions to think deeply about, and I'm so glad you raised the issue so articulately. My background, by the way: not a gun owner now, but I've used them enough to have a pretty good familiarity with them (and was once licensed to do armed security work, even). I'd fully endorse gun ownership restrictions, background checks, etc. I have never seen any rational argument against such laws; to me, it just goes to show how the NRA has done an amazing job conning a lot of people into becoming their own private gun lobby army, heh heh.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  TL;DR - a proper & updated rephrasing of the right & clause would be "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The typical response equates "the people" with "well regulated militia" by observing that "well regulated" meant equipped & trained, which all able-bodied males were expected to be (per the Militia Act of 1792, each was to buy standardized weapons & gear and participate in local training). The typical dissenting response equates "well regulated militia" to "standing army", explaining the right as "of course active soldiers have a natural right to carry exactly and only what weapons their commanding officers order them to", which hardly constitutes a "right" requiring enumeration. An alternate response I'm growing fond of enhances the "the preamble was explanatory but ultimately meaningless" argument others gave here. The Founding Fathers had a strong dislike for standing armies, but grudgingly realized that one would be required because an armed populace was inadequate to the task of advanced national security. Citizens being an uncooperative & cranky & poor bunch, there would be a need for a well-equipped, highly-trained, severely-disciplined military body ... a standing army, necessary to protect the states individually and the country as a whole; the citizenry should be able to do the job themselves, but we can't be sure without formal troops. Should a standing army be created, they'd be faced with arguments (like we're seeing right now) that there would be no need for an armed population because a standing army was ready to protect the country...and then the government could proceed to disarm the people at large, leaving a situation that the Founding Fathers had just fought a prolonged war to eliminate. Ergo, the right as enumerated is best understood as "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed."
venomsnake 12y ago
Actually you cannot exclude felons and mentally ill people. The constitution is clear cut about it. They are people.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Alas, the Supreme Court and legislature at large have concluded that there should be "reasonable restrictions" whereby individuals can & should, for clear reasons ruled by a court, be prohibited from possessing weapons. While I generally agree with you, this is a reality we'll be hard-pressed to correct. Ergo, and in the interests of restoring the right to most people, we may have to settle for the disarming of people who, individually, due to particular conditions, as reviewed and declared by a court, and listed in public records (which may these days be checked "instantly"), declared individually unfit to be armed as they are a demonstrable threat to themselves and/or the community at large. Pushing for "they are people [too]" will require a very different approach than where this subthread is going.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  I don't think they should be restricted. If a felon is too dangerous to allow to legally own a gun which can easily be illegally obtained, then they are too dangerous to be released among the general public. As for the mentally ill, punishing the mentally ill by removing rights will only lead to them not seeking help. Since we assume people mentally competent til proven otherwise and since they will avoid seeking help, this results in an overall increase in danger. Also, if a poll fee is wrong because it limits a right, why isn't the same true for other fees such as that needed to register a gun?
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    I'd like to see some sort of "Prove that you can shoot what you're aiming at, store a firearm safely, and do basic maintenance" vetting process for guns. Right now it's about where you live, what country were you born in, have you ever been arrested... all things that have nothing to do with the physics and safety of firearms. I mean, we already do this with cars. (Incidentally, this would disqualify me - I can't hit the skybox in Team Fortress 2, never mind real weapons)
PaulAJ 12y ago
I've always wondered: does the NRA (or a majority of its supporters) believe that Americans have the right to buy a surface to air heat seeking missile and then hang around with it under the departure path of a major airport? If so, then they are nuts. If not, then they support an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Frondo 12y ago

I'd rather they clarified "well-regulated militia".

ghshephard 12y ago
A topic on which thousands (if not tens of thousands) of hyper detailed essays and published articles have been written. Whether what a "well-regulated militia" meant in 1776 has any relevance to 2015 is also a topic upon which many, many essays have been written.
MCRed 12y ago
You might enjoy reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. I could tell you, but you'll appreciate it more when you see it yourself. It gives context to the Bill of Rights that I think most people have forgotten. It also makes it clear that no interpretation of that phrase could undermine the right.
deciplex 12y ago
What do you want clarified? The meaning is very clear, and well-established by the courts. The prefatory clause it's a part of is a matter of some dispute and interpretation, but the meaning of "well-regulated militia" itself, is clear. (Which is to say, "well-regulated" here is not used in the same sense as it would be in the phrase "a well-regulated broadband industry", on the off chance that's what you're getting at.)
rainbowtrout 12y ago
Perhaps what you're getting at was addressed in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
chroma 12y ago
"The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed." (A silly example, but hopefully effective in showing the trick of language.) It's pretty clear that the founding fathers thought civilians should be able to own deadly weapons. The purpose for this was defense not only of the state, but of the individual. But even though I am a gun owner, I think the second amendment is extremely dated and should be ignored. So what if the founding fathers thought civilians should own guns? However intelligent and knowledgable they were, they have been superseded in all dimensions by two centuries of scientific and technological progress. If gun ownership decreases crime, OK. Tweak the laws to increase gun ownership. If it increases crime, OK. Do the opposite. If some middle-ground licensing thing works, do that. I find firearms fun to shoot, and I could see how they could be useful in self-defense, but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. Fortunately, if the Talmud and D&D have taught us anything, it's that people can interpret any rule to match their existing view. In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution.
- rainbowtrout 12y ago
  > In the long run, judges will rule in favor of public safety no matter the text of the constitution. What about this ruling? Is this in favor "of public safety no matter the text of the constitution"? It sounds like the cop was trying to get meth off the streets, isn't that a matter "of public safety"? > ..., but what I really care about is the well-being of people. It's best to do whatever helps people, not what some centuries-old text says. The problem, as you point out, is that not everyone interprets "well-being of people" the same way. For some, it means largely sticking to this centuries-old text.
- Frondo 12y ago
  Wow, thank you for the clearest response I've ever seen on the 2A puzzle! Yes, exactly, you got it exactly right: whether the founding documents were ever useful, what governing principles do we want to live with now? We obviously constrain people's agency in lots of ways that are non-controversial, like requiring that people drive on one side of the street or the other, or requiring that people not dump toxic waste in public parks. How do guns fit into that picture? How does speech, for that matter? These are good and important questions to think deeply about, and I'm so glad you raised the issue so articulately. My background, by the way: not a gun owner now, but I've used them enough to have a pretty good familiarity with them (and was once licensed to do armed security work, even). I'd fully endorse gun ownership restrictions, background checks, etc. I have never seen any rational argument against such laws; to me, it just goes to show how the NRA has done an amazing job conning a lot of people into becoming their own private gun lobby army, heh heh.
ctdonath 12y ago
TL;DR - a proper & updated rephrasing of the right & clause would be "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The typical response equates "the people" with "well regulated militia" by observing that "well regulated" meant equipped & trained, which all able-bodied males were expected to be (per the Militia Act of 1792, each was to buy standardized weapons & gear and participate in local training). The typical dissenting response equates "well regulated militia" to "standing army", explaining the right as "of course active soldiers have a natural right to carry exactly and only what weapons their commanding officers order them to", which hardly constitutes a "right" requiring enumeration. An alternate response I'm growing fond of enhances the "the preamble was explanatory but ultimately meaningless" argument others gave here. The Founding Fathers had a strong dislike for standing armies, but grudgingly realized that one would be required because an armed populace was inadequate to the task of advanced national security. Citizens being an uncooperative & cranky & poor bunch, there would be a need for a well-equipped, highly-trained, severely-disciplined military body ... a standing army, necessary to protect the states individually and the country as a whole; the citizenry should be able to do the job themselves, but we can't be sure without formal troops. Should a standing army be created, they'd be faced with arguments (like we're seeing right now) that there would be no need for an armed population because a standing army was ready to protect the country...and then the government could proceed to disarm the people at large, leaving a situation that the Founding Fathers had just fought a prolonged war to eliminate. Ergo, the right as enumerated is best understood as "The existence of a standing army notwithstanding, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed."

venomsnake 12y ago

Actually you cannot exclude felons and mentally ill people. The constitution is clear cut about it. They are people.

ctdonath 12y ago
Alas, the Supreme Court and legislature at large have concluded that there should be "reasonable restrictions" whereby individuals can & should, for clear reasons ruled by a court, be prohibited from possessing weapons. While I generally agree with you, this is a reality we'll be hard-pressed to correct. Ergo, and in the interests of restoring the right to most people, we may have to settle for the disarming of people who, individually, due to particular conditions, as reviewed and declared by a court, and listed in public records (which may these days be checked "instantly"), declared individually unfit to be armed as they are a demonstrable threat to themselves and/or the community at large. Pushing for "they are people [too]" will require a very different approach than where this subthread is going.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
I don't think they should be restricted. If a felon is too dangerous to allow to legally own a gun which can easily be illegally obtained, then they are too dangerous to be released among the general public. As for the mentally ill, punishing the mentally ill by removing rights will only lead to them not seeking help. Since we assume people mentally competent til proven otherwise and since they will avoid seeking help, this results in an overall increase in danger. Also, if a poll fee is wrong because it limits a right, why isn't the same true for other fees such as that needed to register a gun?
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  I'd like to see some sort of "Prove that you can shoot what you're aiming at, store a firearm safely, and do basic maintenance" vetting process for guns. Right now it's about where you live, what country were you born in, have you ever been arrested... all things that have nothing to do with the physics and safety of firearms. I mean, we already do this with cars. (Incidentally, this would disqualify me - I can't hit the skybox in Team Fortress 2, never mind real weapons)

PaulAJ 12y ago

I've always wondered: does the NRA (or a majority of its supporters) believe that Americans have the right to buy a surface to air heat seeking missile and then hang around with it under the departure path of a major airport? If so, then they are nuts. If not, then they support an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.