Chicagoist: Supreme Court to Hear Key Gun Case Today

Scooter Libbby

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:45:50 -0600

One of the most interesting & least publicized points of this case is that it was brought by a group of DC residents with the help of a LIBERAL legal aid group so that they, the DC residents, could defend themselves in a city with a totally incompetent police force. Washington has at least a dozen different federal police agencies in addition to the incompetent DC Metro Police.

SRFeldman79

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:26:55 -0600

Spav1, you should read Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar. I don't agree with him but he has some interesting interpretations (originalist) of the Bill of Rights and would definitely disagree with your comment about the WHOLE POINT of the Bill of Rights. Interesting book to see into how originalists, real ones, think about the BoR.

Spav1

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:13:44 -0600

Oral arguments are over and it looks like Kennedy will be voting with the conservatives to strike the ban.

plumbum82

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:04:34 -0600

I like to keep a vial of weaponized anthrax on me at all times... for duck huntin'

Spav1

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:29:41 -0600

The whole POINT of the Bill of Rights was to make sure that the STATE couldn't infringe on the right of the newly minted "American People". To write into the Constitution that the "State" is free to keep and bear arms is retarded and you are missing the point. The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves collectively, against all enemies, including the State if they so choose. Additionally, I think Miller did address the individual/collective business stating, and individual right to a gun has "no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Therefore, collective, yes. Individual? NO. Sidenote, I think the D.C. gun ban will be overturned, but I think the court will use the 9th and 14th amendments to do so. Generally, courts look to community standards and generally like to let citizens do as they please in their own homes, which this law is restricting. And yeah, it is an interesting point, if the 2nd amendments preserves the right to form a milita, why are military weapons being banned?

mepps

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:05:52 -0600

Spav- If it is intended to not let the government interfere in creating a militia, how is certain selective government's ban on guns not interfering upon that? Another intresting note on this- one of the issues at play is the very punctuation of the amendment- It's archaic. With the commas in the places they are, it is possible to read the amendment several very different ways, depending on the emphasis. I think D.C.'s ban will be overturned. Chicago's ban not so much with it, but Chicago will be next in line. All of this will only solidify individual rights, thankfully.

SAMiller

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:48:10 -0600

None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are collective. The idea of collective rights did not even exist at the time the Bill of Rights was being wrote. If it was clearly referring to a militia it would have been written: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (You are also incorrect, United States v. Miller did not resolve this issue at all. The court took no position on collective/individual right.) The Court is going to knockdown D.C. tyrannical ban, and Chicago's with it.

Spav1

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:24:11 -0600

"the people" I believe, referenced throughout the Bill of Rights, is referring to a collective, so therefore it can inferred that the rights bestowed on "the people" is meant to be a collective term. "and the right of the people...shall not be infringed" Explain how that to you reads "individual"? And the text of the 2nd Amendment is clearly referring to a militia; also taking the context of when it was written into account, I think the framer's intent was obviously to make sure that the government couldn't intervene in the forming of an army etc...

SAMiller

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:10:30 -0600

Say Spav1, which other rights in the Bill of Rights are "collective" ? The supposed "collective right" is a fiction created by the 20th-Century Gun Prohibition movement.

Spav1

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:55:54 -0600

I could've said something about the real issue here being right to privacy, but I didn't want to throw too much at her.

plumbum82

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:37 -0600

Matilda writing in to disagree with Spav simply for the reason of disagreeing with Spav in 3... 2...

Spav1

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:35:16 -0600

Kevin, actually, it has been long RESOLVED due to the 1939 gun case and the Supreme Courts light hand with this issue ever since. Since federal and appellate courts have mostly stayed within the boundaries of Miller, the "individual" right to bear arms is basically a myth created by the gun lobby. Since The Court normally defers to itself and is loathe to overturn past decisions (stare decisis)I will be very very suprised if the decision arising from Heller radically changes gun law; especially considering the majority of the public favoring tougher legislation on gun control.