Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gun Powder, Trigger Locks, and Justice Stephen Breyer
During the oral arguments for D.C. v. Heller last March, one of the more interesting—and, as it turns out, important—exchanges concerned a comparison between Washington, D.C.'s strict trigger lock provisions and early American laws regulating the storage of gunpowder in cities. In essence, the question was whether or not D.C.'s trigger locks left residents effectively unarmed and thus unable to protect their homes, and were there any historical precedents for this outcome? In his dissent today, Justice Stephen Breyer returned to this comparison, arguing that even if the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense (which he accepts, though he maintains that the amendment does not contain "a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars"):
colonial history itself offers important kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the "right to keep and bear arms," whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.
Thus Breyer accepts the District's position that the handgun ban and accompanying trigger lock provisions do not deprive individuals of the right to self-defense. Moreover, they represent "a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem," that of "high-crime urban areas."
|6.26.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Regs about the storage of powder are substantially different
than regs on a trigger lock. Gunpowder is highly flammable,
obviously. Improper storage could lead to the whole town burning
down, etc... esp. back in 1800.
The odds of a gunpowder stash going off in the era of whale oil and
candles is a lot worse than the odds of a gun spontaneously going
off (zero percent).
|6.26.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Ah, yes, the gunpowder-storage restriction. Clayton Cramer wrote an article (cited, I think, by Scalia in Heller) demonstrating that this was to prevent fires, not to limit gun use.
|6.26.08 @ 12:58PM|#
First a 5-4 decision against Bush on Guantanamo, and now a 5-4 decision affirming the right to keep and bear arms. I'm beginning to hope that this court will make lots of decisions before the next president nominates a new justice, no matter who the next president will be.
Other Matt|6.26.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Clayton Cramer wrote an article (cited, I think, by Scalia
in Heller) demonstrating that this was to prevent fires, not to
limit gun use.
True, Scalia did note it was a fire issue, not a "gun control"
issue.
|6.26.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Moreover, they represent "a permissible legislative response
to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem," that of
"high-crime urban areas."
Breyer's got it backwards. High-crime urban areas are where one
would most need a gun for protection.
Neu Mejican|6.26.08 @ 1:09PM|#
problem," that of "high-crime urban areas."
Clearly the solution is to outlaw high-crime urban areas...
Legislators need to get to work on that.
|6.26.08 @ 1:12PM|#
It's one of the most pathetic dissenting opinions I've ever read. A high school debate team alternate could dismantle it with his index-cards tied behind his back.
|6.26.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Clearly the solution is to outlaw high-crime urban
areas...
Isn't it really a zoning problem? If those areas weren't zoned as
high-crime, then the criminals would just get jobs.
TallDave|6.26.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Yeah, that dissent was awful.
Since people have to think about crimes before they commit them,
obviously the way to stop crime is to make those thoughts illegal.
Hate crime legislation was a good first step, but we have a long
way to go.
Episiarch|6.26.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Considering that most gun control arguments are completely full of holes, why wouldn't the dissent be?
|6.26.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Those laws were probably addressing fire dangers from black
powder (remember they had no electrically powered hoses and air
dropped flame retardants back then).
It would be absurd, on the other hand, for the founders to make a
law allowing citizens to use guns to defend themselves, except
when they are in places where people might attack them the
most.
Russ 2000|6.26.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Apparently Breyer believes that government is the elixir of immortality.
|6.26.08 @ 1:23PM|#
are completely full of holes
Don't think I didn't catch that play on words. Very clever.
Episiarch|6.26.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Don't think I didn't catch that play on words. Very
clever.
I aim to please.
|6.26.08 @ 1:35PM|#
More pathetic dissent, Timothy Noah from
Slate:
My point is that a handgun's convenience when put to good uses
is heavily outweighed by its convenience when put to bad ones. A
handgun can be concealed easily, and it can be tossed down a sewer
drain without attracting much notice. The barrel can be used to
break a snitch's jaw. (There's no such thing as "rifle whipping.")
If it's easier for a woman to handle (I presume that's the meaning
of Scalia's gallant reference to upper-body strength), imagine how
much easier it is for a 4-year-old child. It can be twirled on a
table when you want to play Russian roulette. It can be used to
caress a woman, as various witnesses attested in Phil Spector's
murder trial (which, despite this testimony, ended in a hung jury;
a retrial commences Sept. 29). Because of its light weight, it can
be accessed immediately after your wife tells you she's been
sleeping with your best friend, but well before she heads out the
door with a suitcase. Because of its small size, it can be used to
shoot a cop dead before the chump even realizes you've got it in
your hand.
My point is that a car's convenience when put to good uses is
heavily outweighed by its convenience when put to bad ones. A car
can be driven quietly, and it can be stashed in long-term parking
at the airport without attracting much notice. The fender can be
used to break a snitch's leg. If it's easier for a woman to drive,
imagine how much easier it is for a 4-year-old child. You can do
do-nuts in a parking lot. It can be used to impregnate a woman, as
various witnesses attested during high school. Because of its high
speed, it can be used to run over your wife after she's tells you
she's been sleeping with your best friend, but well before she
makes it over to his apartment. Because of its ubiquity on American
streets, it can be used to run-over a cop before the chump even
realizes you've driven up behind him.
|6.26.08 @ 1:36PM|#
"It's one of the most pathetic dissenting opinions I've ever
read."
Well, I haven't read it but I did see this in the NY Times
article:
"A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority
'would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a
choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to
regulate civilian uses of weapons.'"
So Stevens would have us believe the framers would not
have made this choice? It seems rather obvious that they would have
given that the constitution is filled with restrictions on the
tools elected officials could use to regulate, uh, citizens,
civilian or otherwise.
Mister DNA|6.26.08 @ 1:40PM|#
The ads are rockin' today. I'm getting a "Want to Learn How to
Shoot Like a SWAT Cop or a Navy SEAL?" ad right now.
I can't wait to see the ads when H&R posts the gay
community's reaction to Heller.
robc|6.26.08 @ 1:42PM|#
I dont get a hat tip for calling Breyer out on this in a
previous thread?
Dont the reason guys read the other threads before posting?
SIX, we are now at SIX Heller threads, if I counted correctly.
Loupeznik|6.26.08 @ 1:44PM|#
The enforcement of the Second amendment is not up to the Supreme Court. The preservation of the Second Amendment is up to the people. This means your! The Second Amendment is the Amendment that secures all others.
Episiarch|6.26.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Damn, NutraSweet, how did you read that whole piece without
shooting yourself?
It's amazing how the people who decry "gun-nuts" and
"gun-fetishists" create far more elaborate gun fantasies than any
gun enthusiast.
Guy Montag|6.26.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Isn't it really a zoning problem? If those areas weren't
zoned as high-crime, then the criminals would just get
jobs.
Of course it is, but you just state a problem. The areas need to be
re-zoned as crime free. Kinda like those nuclear free zones from a
few years ago, mostly out west IIRC.
Guy Montag|6.26.08 @ 1:52PM|#
It's amazing how the people who decry "gun-nuts" and
"gun-fetishists" create far more elaborate gun fantasies than any
gun enthusiast.
Idunno 'bout that . . .
|6.26.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Those laws were probably addressing fire dangers from black powder (remember they had no electrically powered hoses and air dropped flame retardants back then).
FWIW, black powder is inherently more dangerous than the smokeless
powders used in modern ammunition for modern guns.
|6.26.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Think Progress comments:
If we wish to maintain the right for all American citizens to
bear arms, we must also insist that that right comes with the
responsibility to bear them responsibly. Somehow, I doubt that this
is what the Supreme Court Justices had in mind in their ruling. No
wonder the hand gun murder rate in our country is so appalling
high.
comes with the responsibility to bear them
responsibly
That is some fancy wordplay there.
It's a hilarious thread, much more hysterical than we usually get.
Imagine a board full of Neils and Edwards.
Time to buy that rocket launcher… I have a reconfirmed
constitutional right to own it.
You have a right to bear arms. The Constitution says nothing
about ammunition. Ban the bullets used in handguns. No more
buwwets.
I'm not nearly as concerned about your right to own a rocket
launcher as I am a billionaire's right to have a missile silo with
a nuclear warhead in his back yard. After all, the second amendment
doesn't spell out any limitations on "arms".
But, I do believe gun owners should be required to take and
pass an I.Q. test. That way we can be ensured that only the
liberals will be armed.
And when it comes to the intruder scenario, how;s your double
barreld shotgun going to stack-up against an M-4 on full auto with
an M-203 40 mm grnade launcher attached, weilded by a fellow 2nd
Amendment fan?
jtuf|6.26.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Colonial America had plenty of laws that were made obsolete by US constitutional ammendments. Just look at how the 13th and 19th ammendments changed local laws.
Steve|6.26.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Thus Breyer accepts the District's position that the handgun
ban and accompanying trigger lock provisions do not deprive
individuals of the right to self-defense. Moreover, they represent
"a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed
life-threatening, problem," that of "high-crime urban
areas."
This is the dumbest thing i've read all day. How does it
not deprive individuals of the right to self-defense?
Because they can still throw a rock at the person/thing that's
attacking them? And a permissible legislative response to a
serious, indeed life-threatening problem? are you kidding me?
It's not the problem thats a problem in this case it's the reponse
thats the problem and we all know the response has been
counter-productive and unconstitutional. It's not his job to decide
if the problem is big enough to ignore the constitution in order to
address whatever contemporary issue is at hand! Is the state's
solution constitutional or not, regardless of the problem it's
meant to address Breyer? Bozo...
|6.26.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Those Think Progress comments would be a lot more reasonable if
the Court had actually endorsed the Insurrectionist reading of the
Second Amendment, but they specifically rejected it:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to
keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the
sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time."
We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military
service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of
the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful
weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be
true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the
18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly
unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount
of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers tanks. But
the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit
between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change
our interpretation of the right.
robc|6.26.08 @ 2:12PM|#
joe,
That whole thing read to me like Scalia weaseling the decsion down
to fit Kennedy.
"Weaseling out of things is what separates us from the animals.
Except the weasel." - Homer J Simpson
|6.26.08 @ 2:13PM|#
The Think Progress thread is not that bad, they have some give
and take at least. It's just that they take a fairly narrow ruling
"you can have a handgun in your house for protection" and make it
out like it's going to usher in the Gunpocalypse.
I agree with the ruling, and like the individual right being
affirmed, but it's not like I'm going to be able to go after work
to buy a phased-plasma pulse rifle in 40-watt range.
Not that much has changed, just a very stupid law that only hurt
law-abiding people has been struck down. That it had to go the
Supreme Court should be an embarrassment to the entire judicial
system.
LarryA|6.26.08 @ 2:13PM|#
(There's no such thing as "rifle whipping.")
Send this guy down to the Fort Benning bayonet range. Show him a
"butt stroke."
It can be twirled on a table when you want to play Russian
roulette.
Obviously Breyer has no idea of the rules of Russian
roulette, which does not involve spinning a pistol on a table,
and can only really be played with a revolver.
Moreover, they represent "a permissible legislative response to
a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem," that of "high-crime
urban areas."
Because making victims more vulnerable is the best way to
discourage criminals from preying on them?
A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the
majority 'would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the
framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected
officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.'
Wow. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was
to "limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to
regulate civilian(s)."
It's amazing how the people who decry "gun-nuts" and
"gun-fetishists" create far more elaborate gun fantasies than any
gun enthusiast.
Idunno 'bout that . . .
There's the recent anti-gun scenario about "If college students
carry they'll get into passionate classroom discussions and shoot
each other." (I seem to remember classrooms where the problem was
staying awake.) Then there's the "If concealed handgun licensees
can carry in national parks they'll be poaching animals." Before
that it was, "If off-duty police can carry it'll cost billions in
liability." And "If airline pilots carry they'll shoot their
passengers." And "With concealed carry fender-benders will turn
into firefights." And "When the assault rifle ban expires bodies
will be stacked like cordwood." And "Unless we ban fifty caliber
rifles they'll shoot down airliners." And the original fantasy, "If
we just pass sensible gun laws the crime rate will go way
down."
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to
keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the
sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time."
We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons
Catch 22 Alert: Full-auto firearms, silencers, and short-barreled
shotguns are "not in common use" because they've been almost
banned. Therefore they may be banned because they're "not in common
use."
Guy Montag|6.26.08 @ 2:17PM|#
The
NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its
suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's
outcome.
If they are successful, this will take away all of the novelty of
shooting trap at that San Francisco Trap range.
Me: "Hey, I just got done shooting a case of 12 GA in San
Fran!"
Someone else: "BFD, anybody can do that now that the NRA got their
stupid laws kicked!"
ahhh my eyes!|6.26.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Please people, if you're going to post long quoted passages, use the "blockquote" tag. A wall of italicized text is painful to read.
Guy Montag|6.26.08 @ 2:20PM|#
LarryA,
My gun fantasies involve well armed and well oiled hot chicks.
|6.26.08 @ 2:25PM|#
robc,
I don't know about that. Scalia has never been as interested in
following any principles to their logical ends, so much as taking
the Red side in partisan fights; and he's never shown himself to be
terribly comfortable with the prospect of private individuals being
able to resist the authority of the govenrment.
Nigel Watt|6.26.08 @ 2:28PM|#
I don't know about that. Scalia has never been as interested in following any principles to their logical ends, so much as taking the Red side in partisan fights; and he's never shown himself to be terribly comfortable with the prospect of private individuals being able to resist the authority of the govenrment.
Didn't think I'd see myself "this"-ing a joe post today, but
this.
|6.26.08 @ 2:31PM|#
I must say, I love the auto-ad at the top of the page asking if
I want to get as good with my guns as a SWAT cop.
On the whole, I'd like to be quite a bit better, thanks. Although I
doubt if I'll ever be as good as a Navy SEAL.
Episiarch|6.26.08 @ 2:31PM|#
but it's not like I'm going to be able to go after work to
buy a phased-plasma pulse rifle in 40-watt range
Only what you see, pal.
Hey, you can't do that!
|6.26.08 @ 2:35PM|#
If it wasn't for the waiting period, I don't think that robot would have murdered the store owner.
robc|6.26.08 @ 2:35PM|#
joe,
What Nigel said. Fair enough. However, in those cases, I would
expect a separate Thomas opinion. He is willing to take things to
their logical ends. Maybe it was Thomas doing the weaseling to keep
Kennedy happy. The whole thing (lack of scrutiny definition,
refusing to consider incorporation, exactly what limits exist)
seemed to be to declare as narrow as possible while asserting the
individual right.
It will take 20 years to get all this stuff sorted out and by that
time the 2A giving an individual right will be stare decisis.
Paul|6.26.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Considering that most gun control arguments are completely
full of holes, why wouldn't the dissent be?
I have a saying about time-travel movies. Someone in a discussion
once asked in frustration, "Why do time travel movies have so many
holes?" to which I responded "Because if you made a time travel
movie without holes, you wouldn't just have a good movie, you'd
have solved the problem of time travel"
Episiarch|6.26.08 @ 2:40PM|#
If it wasn't for the waiting period, I don't think that
robot would have murdered the store owner.
It's a cyborg, not a robot. Remember, if guns are outlawed, only
cyborg assassins from the future will kill people.
Come with me if you want to live.
Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 2:46PM|#
I must say, I love the auto-ad at the top of the page asking
if I want to get as good with my guns as a SWAT cop. On the whole,
I'd like to be quite a bit better, thanks. Although I doubt if I'll
ever be as good as a Navy SEAL.
LOL, you beat me to it. My reaction to the ad was
"Want to Learn How to Shoot Like a SWAT Cop..."
NO!
...or a Navy SEAL?"
Sure!
tarran|6.26.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Scalia has never been as interested in following any principles to their logical ends, so much as taking the Red side in partisan fights; and he's never shown himself to be terribly comfortable with the prospect of private individuals being able to resist the authority of the govenrment.
Ain't that the truth... Remember when he asked a some lawyer
pleading a case in front of him if that lawyer was willing to
"imprison Jack Bauer"? He acted as if this was a gotcha moment-
that any law or constitutional limitation that the fictional Jack
Bauer feels a need to violate must be inherently wrong-headed. I
sat in open-mouthed awe at the concentrated idiocy that line of
questioning demonstrated.
kinnath|6.26.08 @ 2:47PM|#
My point is that a handgun's convenience when put to good
uses is heavily outweighed by its convenience when put to bad
ones
A perfect synopsis of the authoritarian world view.
Libertarian: Most people are trustworthy most of the time. A system
needs to be put in place to deal with the minority that are
not.
Authoritarian: Few people can be trusted all the time. A system
needs to be put in place to prevent anyone for doing something
potentially bad.
tarran|6.26.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Hey, some SWAT cops are good shots.
Rmember that guy brandishing a gun a few years back as he sat on a
lawn-chair? A SWAT sniper shot the gun out of the man's hand,
intentionally!
The guy sat there looking at his empty hand in shock and then
quietly surrendered. Granted with the decline of SWAT team
standards nation-wide you are far more likely to get someone who
shoots about as well as a cop on the beat (in other words
abysmally). But, there are a few guys out there who are outstanding
shots.
None can hold a candle to Chuck Norris of course.
Paul|6.26.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Joe, I disagree. Scalia will follow things to their logical ands
and take the Red side at the same time.
When he has a weak case, he takes the Red side. When he's got a
strong case, he can deliver a blisteringly frank opinion which is
very logically sound. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him a better
jurist.
Other Matt|6.26.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Obviously Breyer has no idea of the rules of Russian
roulette, which does not involve spinning a pistol on a table, and
can only really be played with a revolver.
You can play it with a semi. One bullet in the mag, mag in the
well, cycle the slide, and let joe go first.
It's actually far more entertaining that way.
TallDave|6.26.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Remember, if guns are outlawed, only cyborg assassins from
the future will kill people.
That's ridiculous. Obviously, we would just pass laws outlawing
cyborg assassins from the future.
|6.26.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Although frequently referred to onscreen as a cyborg, The Terminator might be more properly an android. While it has skin and blood (cellular organic systems), these serve mainly as a disguise and are not symbiotic with the machine components, a trait of true cyborgs. The endoskeletons beneath are fully functional robots and have been seen operating independently, especially during the future segments of the Terminator movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg
In your face, Space Coyote!
Guy Montag|6.26.08 @ 3:12PM|#
That's ridiculous. Obviously, we would just pass laws
outlawing cyborg assassins from the future.
Zoning, man, zoning! Use cyborg free zones and make sure you cover
the time travel loophole.
Proper city planning can solve anything, even Global Warming in
Madison, WI.
|6.26.08 @ 3:14PM|#
That does it, Other Matt. That's the final straw. I've had
it.
When I pimp out my 99 Civic, I'm totally not going to let you
cruise for honeys with me.
You'll be all like, "Oh, joe, your 99 Civic is so fly! It's even
lower than a regular 99 Civic, and you can hardly see where it got
keyed!"
And I'll be like, "Aw, yeeah."
And then you'll be all: "Oh, joe, please let me cruise for honeys
with you in your 99 Civic! They could sit in the back, if they're
short."
And I'll be all, "Naw."
Then I'll be cruising through Lowell, bass pumped way up on They
Might Be Giants, hollerin' at the honeys, by myself.
Then who'll be laughing, funnyman? Huh? Huh?
Mike M.|6.26.08 @ 3:18PM|#
and by that time the 2A giving an individual right will be
stare decisis.
Yeah, right. Tell me some more funny stories.
|6.26.08 @ 3:21PM|#
joe quoted this before, but it's worth repeating:
But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
This is some messed up logic. So Scalia's argument is that the
"militia" portion is just a "prefatory clause". I agree with that.
But it's a prefatory clause which makes clear one concrete reason
to keep and bear arms. What Scalia is saying that this concrete
reason no longer has any meaning because the arms required to give
it meaning are too big to be possessed by individuals. I don't
follow how the creation of advanced arms implies that the right to
form effective militias gets tossed.
Fluffy|6.26.08 @ 3:26PM|#
"A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the
majority 'would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the
framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected
officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of
weapons.'"
Yeah, I noticed that at nytimes.com too. And my first thought was,
"But that's very, very easy to believe, Justice Stevens."
We're talking about a document written by people who had just won
an insurrection against a government.
We're also [in many cases] talking about men who were slaveholders.
Slaveholding societies tend to endorse the private holding of arms
by free men. And quite vigorously so. The South wasn't the
Domination of the Draka or anything, but there certainly was a
tradition of private weapons-holding there.
Fluffy|6.26.08 @ 3:27PM|#
What Scalia is saying that this concrete reason no longer
has any meaning because the arms required to give it meaning are
too big to be possessed by individuals. I don't follow how the
creation of advanced arms implies that the right to form effective
militias gets tossed.
It translates as "a literal reading would force me to conclude that
people can own bazookas, and I don't want to conclude that, so I'm
going to make some shit up."
|6.26.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I've always had a bit of a liking for Scalia (for one thing when you take law courses Scalia tends to have more plainly written and entertaining decisions than the other justices). But I really have more and more trouble buying that he is not just a Team Red hack. I mean, one way to look at the decision today is that it is the PERFECT decision that could be reached not by a conservative but by someone who is a Republican. It gives the overarching individual right but then somehow explicitly upholds "mainstream" gun laws and punts the crucial question of what level of scrutiny to apply to gun laws. That seems to me to be a nutty way to decide this case IF you were just doing judicial work with no eye on politics...
|6.26.08 @ 3:29PM|#
"It translates as "a literal reading would force me to conclude
that people can own bazookas, and I don't want to conclude that, so
I'm going to make some shit up."
Shit, fluffy pretty much summed up my feelings about Scalia's
opinion in one sentence while I was typing my rambling post. Damn
you fluffy! Damn you!!!
Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 3:31PM|#
It translates as "a literal reading would force me to
conclude that people can own bazookas, and I don't want to conclude
that, so I'm going to make some shit up."
A truly excellent summary.
Bobby|6.26.08 @ 3:36PM|#
The 2nd guarentees that we the people have the means to revolt and overthrow our government. The ability to shoot burglars is a modest side benefit.
robc|6.26.08 @ 3:40PM|#
a literal reading would force me to conclude that people can
own bazookas, and I don't want to conclude that, so I'm going to
make some shit up.
Or, as I already said, a decision that Kennedy can support.
Paul|6.26.08 @ 3:46PM|#
It translates as "a literal reading would force me to
conclude that people can own bazookas, and I don't want to conclude
that, so I'm going to make some shit up."
Historically, though, this leaves me wondering? What were the laws
and regulations limiting private ownership of 12lb cannon and the
requisite powder and shot to fire it?
|6.26.08 @ 4:00PM|#
the 2A giving an individual right will be stare
decisis.
They may let that stand as a purely technical matter, but if they
go with the weakest level of scrutiny, they will never overturn a
gun control law.
Oh, nice, pithy summary, fluff.
What Scalia is saying that this concrete reason no longer has
any meaning because the arms required to give it meaning are too
big to be possessed by individuals.
So, my neighborhood association pools it pennies and buys a few
anti-tank missiles and Stingers. What's so hard about that?
|6.26.08 @ 4:08PM|#
What were the laws and regulations limiting private
ownership of 12lb cannon and the requisite powder and shot to fire
it?
I don't think there were any. Hell, there were privately-owned
warships back in the day.
Paul|6.26.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I don't think there were any. Hell, there were
privately-owned warships back in the day.
Hmmm, I want my goddamned bazooka then.
Guy Montag|6.26.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I don't think there were any. Hell, there were
privately-owned warships back in the day.
The first German submarine sunk off the coast of the USA in the
WWII era was with home made torpedos, dropped from a private plane,
in the service of the Civil Air Patrol.
Dave B.|6.26.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Rmember that guy brandishing a gun a few years back as he sat on a lawn-chair? A SWAT sniper shot the gun out of the man's hand, intentionally!
The guy sat there looking at his empty hand in shock and then quietly surrendered.
I did a quick google search about that and found
this video. They shot the gun out of his hand, but he didn't
quietly surrender. They tackled him.
|6.26.08 @ 5:02PM|#
A SWAT sniper shot the gun out of the man's hand,
intentionally!
Well, sure, after the shot, everyone always says "That's
what I was aiming at!"
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|6.26.08 @ 7:04PM|#
The 2nd guarentees that we the people have the means to
revolt and overthrow our government. The ability to shoot burglars
is a modest side benefit.
I really think the way to view the 2nd is not as strictly "a means
to revolt and overthrow the government" nor as just a defense of
our rights to shoot burglars. The 2nd is the way in which the right
to self-defense in general is enshrined.
Both the ability of the citizenry to revolt against the government
and the ability to defend one's home are merely side-benefits of
the more general right.
On another note, these last two rulings (Boumediene v. Bush and
D.C. v. Heller) have made me appreciate Kennedy more. However, when
I look bad on some of his past fuck-ups (Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo
v. New London) I really wish that he'd retired instead of O'Connor.
She showed at least that she could come down on the right side of
an issue even if it was an eventual loser.
Gonzales v. Raich, by the way, was the one that made me write off
Scalia entirely. His concurrence seemed to be evidence of what
everyone's been saying all day about his opinions: "I like Team
Red, I'll vote with them and make up excuses later..."
Other Matt|6.27.08 @ 5:07AM|#
A SWAT sniper shot the gun out of the man's hand,
intentionally!
Well, sure, after the shot, everyone always says "That's what I was
aiming at!"
The interesting part about seeing a ref to this is that while I was
in tactical instructor training this particular incident was used
as an example of a misuse of a sniper.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245