Thank you Supreme Court for upholding our rights!

I just don't understand why the decision was so close, especially Ginsberg's comment:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Why would she wonder why the right 'should be extended to the states?'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...d_courts/

http://liveshots.blogs.fo...hts/

I just don't understand why the decision was so close

Because it goes against 200 years of jurisprudence and tradition Tracy. Plus, they're TAKING rights away from the states, I thought that was a big no-no.

Basically Tracy, if you don't understand why this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._v._Heller) was a big deal, you won't understand today's ruling.

I don't think the states ever had the power to infringe on the bill of rights.

It's a question of semantics. Does the second amendment refer to ownership of weapons by a state militia, or by individuals? It's my understanding that, up until recently, the Federal government had argued the former whenever the issue came before the supreme court. Therefore, to find otherwise required an overturning of precedent by the more activist members of the court.

I don't think that you will find a supreme court decision that says that. The supreme court has for the most part chosen not to rule on gun control in the past. You might say that they have spoken by their silence, but I don't think that the recent rulings reverse any major past decisions.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (6/28/2010)]

Definition of an "activist" judge: One who doesn't rule the way I want him to.

Stevens held in his dissent that overturning Miller was http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._v._Miller a violation of precedent. So.. opinions vary.

Regardless, Tracy seems ignorant of the context, so it's no surprise to me that he's surprised.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (6/28/2010)]

Ok peepol*! The next time the Court rules that a state law violates the Constitution I don't want to hear all the wailing about States' rights.


*misspelling intended

Haven't we had this discussion once before?

It's a question of semantics. Does the second amendment refer to ownership of weapons by a state militia, or by individuals?

Yeah, and the first amendment doesn't apply to TV reporters cuz they don't use a press.

It comes down to a little more than semantics. The 2nd Amendment was written as and always interpreted as an individual right. That's why it's part of the bill of rights. That was exactly the clear intent of the people who wrote it.

I've never seen any credible evidence otherwise.

Someone who wishes to change the bill of rights by parsing old language with newly invented standards is playing with fire.

Except that it wasn't. Please see US vs Miller, linked above.

by parsing old language with newly invented standards is playing with fire.

Hmmmmm. Good to see this rather ineffective practice is utilized in the secular world as well.

Please elaborate. I can't see where that ruling diminishes the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

Besides, doesn't intent mean anything? Does getting one SCOTUS victory seal the deal forever, as long as you agree with it? Or should we continue to look for the original constitutional intent?

Bridgier,

You stated:

Stevens held in his dissent that overturning Miller was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller a violation of precedent. So.. opinions vary.

Regardless, Tracy seems ignorant of the context, so it's no surprise to me that he's surprised.

Did you mean to say: "Regardless, Tracy doesn't agree with me, so he's obviously ignorant of the context, so it's no surprise to me that he's surprised.

You're right, I should not have been surprised about the closeness of the decision. It's not about law, it's about politics, hence the division down party lines. I shouldn't have said I was suprised, I should have said disappointed.

I'd always believed when growing up that the Supreme Court would rise above politics, but I was certainly naive, and perhaps am still so about people.

No, I didn't. In general, you seem to make a lot of statements that require further clarification once you're called on them. In this case, when you say that you can't understand why the ruling was close, that indicates that you're not aware of the case's context.

The ruling was close for several reasons, primarily (I feel) because it's an area that hasn't seen much guidance from the court, and what guidance there has been hasn't been particularly favorable to a finding of an inherent right of self-defense, which is where this ruling ended up.

Situations like that usually produce a 5-4 decision from the court.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (6/29/2010)]

Bridgier,

No, I didn't. In general, you seem to make a lot of statements that require further clarification once you're called on them. In this case, when you say that you can't understand why the ruling was close, that indicates that you're not aware of the case's context.

Thanks for that feedback, I wasn't aware of that. I'll try to state things more clearly the first time going forward...but forgive if I take a bit of time to change...old habits die hard.

Thanks!

I remember thinking, when I was young, that the Supreme Court somehow looked something up and found the "right" answer. I was sorely disappointed to learn that there isn't a "right" answer. There are opinions based on personal beliefs. There are no "impartial" justices and despite what the opposition says (whoever the opposition is at the time), everyone wants a justice who thinks the way they do and will rule in their favor.

I got over the truth about Santa. I'm still mourning my belief in an impartial Supreme Court.

In general, you seem to make a lot of statements that require further clarification once you're called on them.

Speaking of which, the Miller case above... where does it say that the 2nd Amendment is only about allowing militias, not about an individual right to bear arms?

I can't help it if you can't read Rick. Or was "opinions vary" too many words/syllables?

Come on, Bridgier... this is your big shining example that's supposed to bring the whole 2nd Amendment as an individual right into question.

And you can't even quote me anything you see as mildly convincing from the text?

Here's the relevant part, as I see it.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This case was really only about limiting which types of arms were protected to those with a practical military application. Even on that front, it was probably wrongly decided.

But the one thing it doesn't do is take away from the fact that this right is universally held by the citizenry. Unless you want to argue that this right only belongs to males. In that case, the floor is yours

If anything, this decision makes exercising our 2nd Amendment rights sound more like a civic duty than an option.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (6/29/2010)]

I remember thinking, when I was young, that the Supreme Court somehow looked something up and found the "right" answer. I was sorely disappointed to learn that there isn't a "right" answer. There are opinions based on personal beliefs. There are no "impartial" justices and despite what the opposition says (whoever the opposition is at the time), everyone wants a justice who thinks the way they do and will rule in their favor.

I got over the truth about Santa. I'm still mourning my belief in an impartial Supreme Court.

Well done, Amorette.