if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms
by Hal_10000
Oh, hells yes:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation’s capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington’s ban violated the right to “keep and bear arms” by preventing individuals—as opposed to state militias—from having guns in their homes.
“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,” Scalia wrote. “That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.
District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose “reasonable” weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection. See how proponents, opponents argued »
In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.
It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds
God, I love judicial activism. I’ll admit that I was pessimistic. I thought Scalia or someone would defer to the government. This is a landmark, the most important decision since Garcia.
Yes!
Update: What’s interesting here is that a lot of libs, including those on the bench, are conceding the point on the Second Amendment. They’re falling back on the idea that a handgun ban was a reasonable restriction on Second Amendment freedom. In that sense, gun rights just took a step that the right of free speech and freedom of the press took over the last century, as “reasonable restrictions” on both were struck down.
Update: Further in the CNN article, it notes that 2/3 of Americans believe the Second Amendment is about an individual right and more than half of the current Congress urged the Court to affirm Heller. Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years. They must be crying in their coffee at the Brady Center and other such enclaves.
Comments
God, I love judicial activism.
I’m confused. Do you mind explaining this a little further?
I’m confused. Do you mind explaining this a little further?
I get annoyed when conservative decry “judicial activism” because it has become a code for “decision I disagree with”. Sometimes we need judicial activism. We need judges to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. That’s what the court is for.
Sometimes we need judicial activism. We need judges to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. That’s what the court is for.
Um… if it’s a decision as to whether something is constitutional or not, then it’s not actually judicial activism. It’s only judicial activism when it’s not unconstitutional, but precedent forming. Trust me - I know, I’m a liberal.
The right decision was made...Curious to see what the gun violence statistics out of DC look like 5 years from now.
It’s only judicial activism when it’s not unconstitutional, but precedent forming. Trust me - I know, I’m a liberal.
Ha!! thats funny because its true.
What was so unbelievably sad to me is that the Bush administration wanted an attenuated ruling in this direction.
I loathe Bush. He is everything the libs said was bad about him, except the parts where I want them to be right about him.
Oh well, what a great ruling. I think I’ll got to the gun range today to celebrate.
I think KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA (PDF file) from earlier this week counts as both judicial activism and a really bad ruling (Thrill and I may actually agree on this for once).
Yeah Kennedy v. Louisiana was horrible. Aggravated rape of a child with special circumstances should be punishable by the death penalty. In the majority opinion, using the fact that other states dont agree as a part of the reasoning is just horrible. Other states opinions are irrelevant. Thats why we have ...states. 50 variations on a constitutional theme. Thats akinf to saying because they dont allow gambling in 40+ states, we shouldnt be allowed to have it here in Vegas.
How crazy have thing gotten? Even Obama is praising Heller.
What should be troubling to everyone here and dwex touched on it briefly was the closeness of the ruling. Time and time again monumental decisions that test the very foundations of our civil liberties are coming down to the caprious whims of one justice who has proven his lack of judical wisdom (Kelo)more than once. It appears that like with the regularity of a pendulum, he will swing one way on one decision, and then just to prove his independence and fairness, will swing the other way on the next. This would be fine with we could plan the court to hear only the most important cases when its “our turn” but this is not practical and it reveals the tenous nature of justice and its pursuit with the present court in place.
I think KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA (PDF file) from earlier this week counts as both judicial activism and a really bad ruling
We should of had a seperate post for that one.
richtaylor...that’s why it’s so important for McCain and NOT Obama to win. We need to appoint more justices like Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. If Obama wins, we get more Breyers and Ginsbergs.
We should of had a seperate post for that one.
Agreed. I threw it in here because there wasn’t one, and someone brought up judicial activism.
I’m happy and all, but what’s fascinating here is that 4 highly-educated Supreme Court Justices somehow still don’t seem to understand the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment and still somehow saw a sweeping government restriction of it to somehow be Constitutional.
This should have been a 9-0 decision.
the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment
TBH, the “well regulated militia” text makes it less than plain w.r.t. individual rights, especially when compared to the wording of other amendments. Should be pretty clear why there’s been a lot of debate on this.
Still the right decision, and I still wish it were unanimous.
What should be troubling to everyone here and dwex touched on it briefly was the closeness of the ruling.
I think this is a watershed. Even the libs are acknowledging the reality of the second amendment. Stevens minority opinion disputes this but I think his view will fade quickly.
As for the importance of McCain/Obama in re judges. The most likely justices to be replaced in the next four years are Stevens and Ginsberg, both of whom are liberal. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia re not going anywhere soon.
According to what I’m reading (I’m working, so no time to read the opinions myself), Breyer’s dissent acknowledges that the 2nd amendment protects and individual right.
This is one of the most important decisions in supreme court history, possibly the most important since Griswold vs. Connecticut. No court in America can deny the 2nd Amendment anymore.
Bask in it my friends. We won huge today.
Bask in it my friends. We won huge today.
Thats exactly my feelings on it today...The good guys won one.
interestingly, Obama opposes the Louisiana ruling as well.
As for the importance of McCain/Obama in re judges. The most likely justices to be replaced in the next four years are Stevens and Ginsberg, both of whom are liberal. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia re not going anywhere soon.
Stevens and Ginsberg’s replacements will at best (McCain) be Kennedy clones, or at worst (Obama)be two more out of the exact same far left persuasion, but much younger, thats the reality we finds ourselves in.
This is one of the most important decisions in supreme court history, possibly the most important since Griswold vs. Connecticut. No court in America can deny the 2nd Amendment anymore.
And yet it all came down to that great “split the baby” pacifier who had to decide who’s turn it was this time, pretty scary if you ask me.
And yet it all came down to that great “split the baby” pacifier who had to decide who’s turn it was this time, pretty scary if you ask me.
Why can’t you just be happy that an unconstituional law is now dead? “But it wasn’t unanimous” is just lame. They never are. It seems like you think it’s OK to stack the court, as long as it’s stacked your way.
Why can’t you just be happy that an unconstituional law is now dead?
It does not bother you that something so fundemental, so ingrained in out society and so cherished a right was saved in such a caprious manner?
“But it wasn’t unanimous” is just lame.
Where did I say it should of been unanimous?
It seems like you think it’s OK to stack the court,
And where did you possibly read me advocating stacking the court?
Celebrate this “victory” all you want (I am glad of the outcome as well) but do not dismiss the tenous nature in which it was achieved.
Dwex brought up the KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA decision and I brought up KELO (two instances where Justice Kennedy thought it was the left’s turn that time) and see what these have wrought. Our fundimental freedoms should not hang in the balance by so tenous a string, if this does not worry you, it should.
But “it wasn’t unanimous” is just lame. They never are.
Go read up on Brown v. Board of Education. Whether you agree with the decision or not, one of the reasons it has been as powerful as it has been was that the Chief Justice worked his ass off to get a unanimous decision.
Fundamental, monumental decisions should not be rendered 5v4. It leaves too much ambiguity.
This case is certainly of that caliber, if not above it. No idea what happened in the deliberations, but I actually see it as a bit of a failure for Roberts to have this come out 5v4, given the example of Earl Warren.
OK, dwex, but 5-4 decisions are very common. That’s all I was getting at. Obviously “they never are” is meant loosely. Are you serious - Roberts should have browbeat the others?
rich, you are too funny. A lot of things regarding freedoms worry me these days. I have stated them on many recent threads. The DC handgun ban was unconstitutional and it has been overturned. You and I obviously don’t see the same things as problems.
Yes, you suggested that McCain should win so that he would replace the liberal judges that are coming up for retirement.
Are you serious - Roberts should have browbeat the others?
Completely. Go study up on Brown vs. Board of Education. Warren was quite clear on why he felt a unanimous decision was needed. There was a very good made-for-tv movie with Sidney Poitier as Thurgood Marshall made a number of years back that’s worth a watch: Separate But Equal
Again, my point is not about the Brown v. Board of Education decision itself, but the process that led to the unanimous decision. When the SCOTUS is making profound rulings, they should not be by a 1-vote majority.
I just finished reading through the dissent. Having read it, I agree with Rich even more. This came down 5-4 on exactly the individual-right vs. “it’s talking about militias”. IMHO, them not ruling at all would have been preferable to such an ambiguity on such a fundamental issue.
I also think the “activist judges” comment was apt, having read the dissent. It reads exactly like Scalia’s dissent on the GTMO Habeas ruling a couple weeks ago (minus the starting tirade).
IMHO, them not ruling at all would have been preferable to such an ambiguity on such a fundamental issue.
Ambiguity or not, in lower courts, this is settled law now.
Ambiguity or not, in lower courts, this is settled law now.
For now. Rich’s point is well held, though. Since it was 5-4, after the next change in the court, this could get appealed again, trying to get the opposite decision. This is going to lead to hesitation to move quickly on changes of law, and lots of noise from activists on both sides. A unanimous or near-unanimous ruling would lead to more decisive action, and less swirl.
WOOT at lest a few judges can understand explain to our generation what the 2nd actually means.
every other right in the bill of rights is a guarantee to the individual of their rights and limits of federal government power. why would he 2nd not be a individual right is beyond me.
Now i want to see action to kill NFA 34, and NFA 86.... then THIS sweet heart is MINE
HK UMP 45 ACP
Posted by Hal_10000 on 06/26/08 at 10:28 AM from United States
How crazy have thing gotten? Even Obama is praising Heller.
then hes lying his ass off, his track record is VERY anti-gn voting for and voicing his opinion for far more state and federal restrictions.
When the SCOTUS is making profound rulings, they should not be by a 1-vote majority.
Sorry, but there is more than one for a reason. I want them to vote their interpretation. Pro-choicers have been dealing with the shit for a long time ...
Next entry: Heller Quote Of the Day
Previous entry: On Treaties
Here’s a link to the decision: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER (160 page PDF file).
I’m looking forward to reviewing this, including the dissent. This sounds at first glance like a good ruling; I wish it had been unanimous or at least closer thereto.