SCOTUS: 2nd Amendment and what the majority said.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by AtlasShrieked, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    here we go...
    Text

    The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  2. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    no dissenting opinions online yet?

    I have two: Stevens and Breyer.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    This is the entire decision if you don't have it already

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    I know Scalia said the above, but he also said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,513
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,922
    The decision is a good one. It establishes that the 2nd is an Individual right while also establishing it has limits.
     
  5. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    I will have to agree, tentatively to reading and trying to absorb the whole document and it's meaning.
     
  6. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    thanks. I was looking for a PDF file of the decision to read at my leisure. I have it.

    I have a feeling this decision will not look so good after reading it all. I can see holes wide enough to drive a semi through already...maybe it gets tied up later.

    I'll have to then see what Stevens and Breyer had to say.
     
  7. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    uh oh!

    Houston, we have a problem...

    wow, there's more and who has the better argument---the majority or the minority?
     
  8. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    yep. may be trouble down the road.

    the devil is in the details

    :clap2:
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
  9. AtlasShrieked
    Offline

    AtlasShrieked Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    444
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)

    STEVENS, J., dissenting

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    No. 07–290

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.DICK ANTHONY HELLER

    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

    [June 26, 2008]


    JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
    GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.


    The question presented by this case is not whether the
    Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
    “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
    enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
    anything about the scope of that right.

    Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit
    crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military
    duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect
    the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that
    it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain
    military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to
    possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunt*
    ing and personal self-defense is the question presented by
    this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our
    decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939),
    provide a clear answer to that question.

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the
    right of the people of each of the several States to main*
    tain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to con*
    cerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution
    that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias
    and create a national standing army posed an intolerable
    threat to the sovereignty of the several States.

    Neither
    the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced
    by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limit*
    ing any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian
    uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that
    the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the
    common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

    In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act,
    the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a convic*
    tion under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence
    of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
    ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
    length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to
    the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,
    we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the
    right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

    Miller, 307
    U. S., at 178.

    The view of the Amendment we took in
    Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms
    for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail
    the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use
    and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural
    reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation
    most faithful to the history of its adoption.

    Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have
    relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;
    we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United
    States, 445 U. S. 55, 65–66, n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence
    has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the
    Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress
    to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a
    review of the drafting history of the Amendment demon*
    strates that its Framers rejected proposals that would
    have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

    The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify
    any new evidence supporting the view that the Amend*
    ment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regu*
    late civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such
    evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and
    unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; signifi*
    cantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of
    Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions;
    postenactment commentary that was available to the
    Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble
    attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis
    on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in
    the opinion itself.
     
  10. BrianH
    Offline

    BrianH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,520
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +238
    All their doing IMO is making sure that the gun owning crazies that are out their (AKA Dale Gribble) don't start toting a gun around without the proper licensing. The SC is upholding to right to own guns while insisting that citizens still follow the current gun-laws in place. (I.E. Concealed Carry License, etc...) They're basically saying that it is unconstitutional to band people from owning guns like the D.C. ban suggests. It is unconstitutional to inact gun laws that prohibit people from owning a certain type of gun, much less direct people what they may or may not do in their own home. Basically, the SC doesn't want people to start wearing guns on their hips like the Old West just because the SC said it was ok to own guns...
     

Share This Page