Reader Poll on Heller:
With Heller just around the corner, but no opinion to read just yet, I figure the only remaining new way to blog on the case is by hosting a reader poll: What do you want the Supreme Court to do in the case?
So, Kazinski, don't be appalled.
What caliber did you use ? HP or FMJ ?
Would .45 ACP ( a timeless round indeed ) still work ?
< 10 hours to go.... here's hoping !
The secondary (some might say primary) decision as to the right of individual gun ownership, will lead to the future forging of the definitions of the limits of the right of individual gun ownership. Future challenges, wrapped around the "miltia" phrase, will determine if individuals should be able to own actual weapons of war, such as M-16's and AK-47's (or simply assault weapons).
It seems to me that citizens can already own actual weapons of war; the only limitation is that they must have been in the country and registered before 1986. Making for a very small pool, and nothing modern in the future.
What I wonder is if the ban on new automatic firearms entering commerce can be struck down. I cannot see the Court objecting to registration and taxation at the $200 rate; but will they be amendable to eliminating the small pool? That would certainly lower prices!
Related question, will they overturn state laws that prohibit Class 3 items? Incorporation, anyone?
Now that would be a victory.
VT style is no doubt too much to ask...
Regards,
Ric
... im so excited i can barely sleep.
The suit doesn't ask them to strike down NFA 1934 or demand that D.C. issue CCWs. I doubt they'll answer questions they haven't been asked in the suit.
Bleah.
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen halonen@csd.uwm.edu
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
The worse case for gun rights advocates would be a middle of the road ruling that nominally upholds the right to keep &bear arms but with many ill-defined qualifications - this would not practically stop almost any the gun control measure but might lull many 2nd Amendments supporters into a false sense of security. Unfortunately I think just such a the middle of the road ruling is what we are most likely to get.
Kevin
You could have provided nuance with just a couple more multiple choices, such as:
"(b) affirm the ban while ordering the immediate confiscation of all firearms in the District via warrantless no-knock searches and seizures"; and
"(d) strike down the ban, ordering the responsible legislators to be placed in stockades for six hours every workday for six weeks, during which time the must recite aloud over and over again the literal text of the Second Amendment."
Put me down for "(d)."
If you think I am being too cynical then I will concede that the law and constitution may play a role in some of the justice's rulings on the issue at hand. And in a subset of those it might even be the US Constitution.
On the contrary, I suggest that part of the purpose of the Amendment was to provide one more of a series of protections to ensure that the people remain in control of the government and not the other way around.
Many of the Founders abhorred the notion of a standing army, due to the frequency with which European powers used their armies to impose tyranny. They believed that an armed and capable populace would provide for the defense of the nation without creating the risk of tyranny.
However, there was often a role for government — notably local government — in "calling out the militia" and organizing the armed populace when defense was needed.
When the supreme court decides it can give, it can also decide to take away.
Even if "well regulated" referred to the modern meaning of regulation, and we were to pretend that the subject of "well regulated" was the right, rather than the militia, this wouldn't authorize gun control; It says well regulated, not abusively regulated...
The Committee of Eleven changed it to read: "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people."
NOTHING you need to do to regulate the militia infringes that right. At best, regulating the militia might be a pretext for infringing it, and a very flimsy pretext at that.
"I leave to the people still the privilege of amending their constitutions, enlarging, if they choose, the liberties of the people, or removing restrictions, as public exigencies may require and the public interest demand." --John Bingham
To which I would add that what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. Slavery was at one time very popular and the black codes and Jim Crow laws were popularly enacted as well.
I'd rather live in a world where angry teenagers could buy selective-fire weapons off the Internet without a background check than live in a world where a 60 year old woman can't buy a .38 for self defense in a high crime neighborhood because a popularly enacted law said that self defense is not a reasonable use of firearms. "Spray and pray" has never been a match for slow, aimed fire anyway.
Through privileges and immunities of United States citizens? Was there ever any court opinion that said privileges and immunities under article four, section two protected citizens from lawful state laws that whoever says violates the restraints placed upon congress under the bill of rights?
And should a city or state’s residents by popular vote be able to pass and enforce laws establishing a government religion and restricting free speech, free press, the right to peacefully assemble, and petitioning the government to the same degree as the D.C. firearms law? How about housing city/state militia personnel in private residences without consent of the owner?
How sweet of you to think of us.