DC v. Heller Decision

[1776 Rebel]

Maybe I am just naive. But I would have expected the big three weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News) to have either run a cover story or some such large article on the Heller decision for Monday's edition. Nope. Not a one. If you look on their websites you will see mediocre summaries of the Supreme court activity for the last week or so but nothing substantial on Heller. I will wait until next week but I don't have my hopes up. The MSM just wants to bury this is my guess. The sooner it goes down the memory hole the better.

[tombogan03884]

Maybe I am just naive. But I would have expected the big three weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News) to have either run a cover story or some such large article on the Heller decision for Monday's edition. Nope. Not a one. If you look on their websites you will see mediocre summaries of the Supreme court activity for the last week or so but nothing substantial on Heller. I will wait until next week but I don't have my hopes up. The MSM just wants to bury this is my guess. The sooner it goes down the memory hole the better.

Maybe for them, but WE will remember and as Moa said, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." If you look through history, EVERY major coup, revolution or "regime change" has been decided by guns, even so called "peacefull " revolutions are decided by the Gonernment Forces decision to fire on their countrymen or not. That being said, with the support of SCOTUS WE are the ones with the guns, WE THE PEOPLE, and niether we nor the socialists are likely to forget that.

[DDMac]

Saw this yesterday:
ATF Acting Director ATF Michael J. Sullivan released the following statement on the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller:

ATF is pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The court's ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment, and is consistent with the bureau's understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.

The Bureau also is pleased that the court appropriately made clear that nothing in [the] ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws. END END.

Does anyone agree with Sullivan's statement that machineguns (I also assume all NFA) are NOT protected by the 2ND ? Can't locate where that position is "recognized" in the ruling. Does our military wield dangerous and unusual weapons?
Mac.

[Ocin]

Does our military wield dangerous and unusual weapons?
Mac.

I would say from a perspective of self defense yes. I don't know how it is in the USA but here in Holland all military weaponry is covered by a special section of the gun laws. I think the problem starts there where weapons which are appropriate for self defense are judged by the effect they have, for example hollow point bullets : "they make such terrible wounds" or "this type of weapon is often used in a mass shooting" or "this is so easily concealable"

[tombogan03884]

Saw this yesterday:
ATF Acting Director ATF Michael J. Sullivan released the following statement on the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller:

ATF is pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The court's ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment, and is consistent with the bureau's understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.

The Bureau also is pleased that the court appropriately made clear that nothing in [the] ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws. END END.

Does anyone agree with Sullivan's statement that machineguns (I also assume all NFA) are NOT protected by the 2ND ? Can't locate where that position is "recognized" in the ruling. Does our military wield dangerous and unusual weapons?
Mac.

Mac, the statement about machine guns seems to ignore the Miller decision.
Does our military use "dangerous and unusual weapons" ? Well, would an anti tank missile fit that description ?

[Sponsor]

[DDMac]

Ocin, here is the context I find conflicting. In the US, if there was a call up to form a militia, let's say to supplement the regular military forces (Army, Navy, Air Force..) during war or attack on our soil, the Court in the Heller decision indicated that the potential members of that militia need be pre-equipped in similar fashion as are the regulars they would support. The ability of this country to field a viable fighting force is clearly set forth in the first words of the Second Amendment. Machineguns have been a military staple for 100 years. How then can such firearms not be covered under the protections of the 2nd Amendment? They are already the most heavily regulated forms of weaponry in civilian hands under the National Firearms Act of 1933 (or 1932).

Since 1933 and again during the 1968 amnesty, hundreds of thousands of people have paid the US Government to register and possess machineguns and similar weapons of war and defense. VERY few problems have occurred with those heavily regulated weapons, other than stolen ones (which triggers ATF investigations).

That is my basis for questioning Director Sullivan's position statement that machineguns are not protected under the 2ND Amendment.

Here, military weapons, owned by and under the control of the government, are exempt from civilian gun laws.
Mac.

[Ocin]

Ocin, here is the context I find conflicting. In the US, if there was a call up to form a militia, let's say to supplement the regular military forces (Army, Navy, Air Force..) during war or attack on our soil, the Court in the Heller decision indicated that the potential members of that militia need be pre-equipped in similar fashion as are the regulars they would support. The ability of this country to field a viable fighting force is clearly set forth in the first words of the Second Amendment. Machineguns have been a military staple for 100 years. How then can such firearms not be covered under the protections of the 2nd Amendment? They are already the most heavily regulated forms of weaponry in civilian hands under the National Firearms Act of 1933 (or 1932).

Since 1933 and again during the 1968 amnesty, hundreds of thousands of people have paid the US Government to register and possess machineguns and similar weapons of war and defense. VERY few problems have occurred with those heavily regulated weapons, other than stolen ones (which triggers ATF investigations).

That is my basis for questioning Director Sullivan's position statement that machineguns are not protected under the 2ND Amendment.

Here, military weapons, owned by and under the control of the government, are exempt from civilian gun laws.
Mac.

Well DDMack, this is what I think as a non US citizen:

One could read your 2nd amendment in 2 ways, once as if the (well regulated) militia are authorised to bear arms and second that the people can form a (well regulated) militia and have the right to keep and bear arms, and then not just for self defense but also for fun, antagonising others, showing off or what other good, bad or no reason at all. The only real way to clarify this is actually asking those who drafted this amendment. Problem: they are long dead, so that is not going to work.

As for the equipment required for these militia: if they should be effective, then yes, they should be equipped similarly like or at least complementary to the standing armed forces, which would include a variety in weapons which would be unsuited for self defense.

As for the RKBA for self defense, which, IMHO is at the heart of the controversy, one would first have to establish whether individual civilians have a right to RKBA or not. It may have been in earlier times that this right was well established, but leave it to lawyers and politicians to cloud these issues in such a way that no one really knows what any law, constitution or amendment says.

I think that the best way out of this stalemate would be to rewrite that 2nd amendment in such a way that it would be clear as to how it is meant. I think that the best way for that would be to draft up 2 amendments, one stating that the people have a right for a well regulated and fully armed militia, and another stating that the people have a right for a well regulated and fully armed militia AND the right to keep and bear arms for this and that purposes. Subsequently these two drafts would then have to be put up for popular vote. This would not only deal with the constitutional question as to whether you have a right to own and carry a gun for self protection, but also put an end to the ever lasting debate as to what the American people really want: to own and carry guns or get rid of them.

I realise that this would not stop all discussions and controversy. You would still have to clarify and define what suitable weapons for self defense are, whether they include weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, or short barreled rifles or shotguns or not. It would however put an end to the debate about what the amendments say, and that would be a huge step forward.

As I said, this is my opinion, as a non US citizen. Feel free to disagree.

Ocin

[Ron J]

Ocin,

Being a product of the California educational system, I am barely literate much less any sort of US Constitution scholar so hopefully if I butcher this someone can chime in. 

On the surface, rewriting the Constitution to have “definitive” language makes some sense.  However, when one drills down into all that was written they find that there already is definitive language as to the intent the founding fathers had.  What we find is that people (anti-gun) will tend to want to twist the original meaning to fit their agendas.   This is where the US Supreme Court came in with the Heller decision … which should have been rendered back in 1939 in US vs. Miller. 

To this, at this point in time we have the right to keep and bear arms.   No local government can usurp the US Constitution and legislate that right away.  You are right when you say that there will be some argument as to what the capacity of a weapon should be or possibly what caliber should be allowed.  As well, there will be some future legislature that will attempt to ban or tax the living snot out of ammunition.  Much more to the RKBA battle ahead. 

The debate of the American people to own guns or get rid of them may go on forever.  Like abortion, it’s a very emotional issue.   What a lot of people around the world seem to forget is that our culture here in America is a gun culture.  Our foundation was established with the musket ball and with the blood of patriots.  Taking guns away from responsible gun owners is not going to solve any of society’s problems.  In fact, it has been repeatedly proven that such action will only complicate and accelerate such societal ills.   

Besides, the world is a much better if not more polite place with armed Americans. 

[DDMac]

Good job, Ron.

Ocin, the Founding Fathers did not necessarily trust the future evolution of American government to not fall back into an old form of monarchy. That's where we came from, and it was at least a known entity that could theoretically be well run.

As a final measure of insurance that their valiant efforts to win freedom and establish a new concept in government would not be brought to ruin by an emerging tyrant, they gave their descendants the ability, like a perpetuity, to throw off any government that usurps the freedoms and liberties they acknowledged and enumerated. They gave us the legal right to be prepared to successfully rebel against the government. No ruler, no Committee, no political party can stray far from the principles of the US Constitution without the consent of the governed, without expectation of terrible consequences. The Second Amendment is the final check and balance in American government. With that purpose in mind, what restrictions would the signers of the Constitution have recommended? Probably none, beyond common reason..

Self defense is a by-product.

That's my take on it anyway.
Mac.

[tombogan03884]

 I agree with Mac. With out the 2nd Amendment the rest of the constitution is just paper. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting deer or target shooting, it's about hunting and shooting politicians who would deprive us of our rights.