SCOTUS, McDonald v. Chicago, arguments start today

[dumpydooby]

For the last century and some change (since 1873), the rights outlined in the Bill Of Rights have been incorporated via the Due Process clause. The unique quality about this case is that it is asking the court to overturn the Slaughter-House decision. This case could very well wind up affecting a much broader spectrum of constitutional law by initiating a revival of the Privileges or Immunities clause, which would in turn render Selective Incorporation (the formal name given to our current process of incorporating rights via the Due Process clause) trumped. This affects you because it can set into a motion an onslaught of new cases for the court, in which the court will have to reevaluate various judiciary doctrines that have been established for the last century.


Now, in terms of the Second Amendment, this case is a follow-up case to the Heller one from last year (or '08?). D.C. v Heller was a landmark case in that for the first time in our history the court basically said that there are no ifs ands or buts about it, the ownership of a weapon is an individual right, not just something reserved for militias. The reason the follow-up is necessary, however, is because the Heller case only applied at to the federal government, e.g., D.C. The court is expected to rule similarly to how they did in the Heller case; that is, they are expected to rule that outright banning a firearm is unconstitutional. But more importantly, as noted above, they are being asked to overturn the Slaughter-House decision as well.



So pay attention to this one folks.

[crashfly]

Owning a gun *is* a right. The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly protects the right of all individuals to bear arms. Government regulation of guns is a violation of that Second Amendment. Having the right to self-defense is meaningless without also having the means to defend yourself. An armed society is a peaceful society, that is the best defense against criminals, and serves as a deterrent against government tyranny.

[RogueSpear]

Owning a gun *is* a right. The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly protects the right of all individuals to bear arms. Government regulation of guns is a violation of that Second Amendment. Having the right to self-defense is meaningless without also having the means to defend yourself. An armed society is a peaceful society, that is the best defense against criminals, and serves as a deterrent against government tyranny.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with some of your statements. The constitution offers no such protection to all individuals. We don't allow convicted felons to vote or hold any sort of license, including a marriage license or a license to sell real estate. I hardly think they should be afforded the right possess anything more lethal than a butter knife. It also does not specify what sort of arms you have the right to possess. BB gun? Semi-auto handgun? Shotgun? Full auto H&K G36? M1A1 battle tank? It's not so cut and dry.

An armed society is a peaceful society? Please. I suggest you conduct even a token amount of research. Don't get me wrong here. I own guns and I'm glad that I'm allowed to. And I mean that beyond the fact that as a police officer I carry one every day - every cop retires someday. But while I fully support rational gun ownership laws, I'm also not going to fool myself into thinking that somehow it makes our country better somehow. No other modern and industrialized nation has anywhere near the rate of violent crime we have in general and nowhere near the amount of violent crime involving firearms specifically. No other has the amount of accidental deaths or suicides (though these I often rationalize as natural selection). Just in my little podunk town I live in, and with only four years of service on the road, I witnessed the aftermath of suicides and murder/suicides that likely would not have happened without an easily accessible firearm. In some cases they were better off and took action into their own hands because our health care system doesn't allow for people making rational choices. But in other cases it was a complete waste and a total shame. Like I said, this is just one tiny little town and I'm only one guy. Extrapolate that across 300 million people.

If we're going to make any attempt at guessing what original intent was, my guess is that the second amendment was intended to create a massive amount of people willing to mow down the first red coat that landed on our shores - not to let people go play Dirty Harry.

The interesting thing about this case is the common ground among the NRA and pro-choice crowds. Those on the left are hoping, mistakenly in my opinion, that a victory for the second amendment here will somehow equal a victory for a woman's right to reproductive health care and choice.

[mr_smartepants]

The U.S. govt was built on checks & balances. The 2nd amendment is just another check/balance. Giving its citizens the right to bear arms makes sure that the govt is ultimately responsible TO its citizens as well as FOR its citizens while allowing its citizens to govern themselves (state/local govts). Having an armed populace means we can rise up and defend our own freedom from all enemies, both foreign AND domestic (which includes a tyrannical govt).
Being a retired member of our armed forces (defender of the constitution and our way of life) means that I did not blindly perform those duties. I've read the constitution. And while the language was written for a different time, the intent never changes. It's written several times where a citizens rights can not be taken away without due process (of law).
Our govt is made up of us! If you don't like what your congressperson (senator/representative) is doing on your behalf, then vote them out!

[crashfly]

An armed society is a peaceful society? Please. I suggest you conduct even a token amount of research. Don't get me wrong here. I own guns and I'm glad that I'm allowed to. And I mean that beyond the fact that as a police officer I carry one every day - every cop retires someday. But while I fully support rational gun ownership laws, I'm also not going to fool myself into thinking that somehow it makes our country better somehow. No other modern and industrialized nation has anywhere near the rate of violent crime we have in general and nowhere near the amount of violent crime involving firearms specifically. No other has the amount of accidental deaths or suicides (though these I often rationalize as natural selection). Just in my little podunk town I live in, and with only four years of service on the road, I witnessed the aftermath of suicides and murder/suicides that likely would not have happened without an easily accessible firearm.

Can you provide your own research? The reason we have so many problems today is that there are *already* gun limiting laws on the books. Every state has a different law. Less violence occurred when everyone was known to have a gun. With the already existing "so called" laws of today, it is a mixed bag of trouble.

With the freedom our county gives us, what can be done in our country increases. Do not compare us to any other "modern and industrialized" country, as we were the first that has ever had the freedoms we do today. No other country even comes close. Yet we have these freedoms because partially because we have the right to bear arms. We can resist the government if they push to far.

I am willing to use my gun to protect my family, myself and my property. If I have a gun and my neighbor does not (*and* the robber knows this), who is that robber more likely to rob? That robber is less likely to come into my house and rob me because I am willing to use that gun for protection.

[RogueSpear]

I'm not going to go digging around for numbers. You believe me or not, or go find the numbers on your own. For purely domestic numbers, just head over to the FBI's website. But for studies that attempt to estimate the number of firearms per capita and the relationship of that to local laws, income levels, etc.. you'll probably need some Google Fu to find the endless studies done at Universities (the John Jay studies in particular).

I can compare us to whatever country I damn well please by the way. I've about had it with people saying we're "number 1". We're number 1 in practically every negative ranking you can think of among modern nations - including violent crime and the percentage of our population that we incarcerate. And if you like to judge people by the friends they keep, take a look at all the nations that have capital punishment. See who we share that club with.

Anyway, I guess we'll just sort of be at a stalemate here. At my age I give up on debates rather quick. If someone doesn't agree with my point of view, so be it. I'm not trying to sound arrogant or anti-social (though many would argue I am both), but I just have too many other things to do and have too many other things that give me heartburn.