Latest gun ruling a case of conservative judicial activism
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of ruling that the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms was an individual right rather than a right tied to a “well-regulated militia.” Today, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled 5-4 that state and local governments are as bound by that interpretation as the federal government, a step that greatly restricts their ability to legislate in that arena.
Symbolically, the ruling is a big victory for the gun lobby. But its practical effect is another matter. A decade or two ago, when hot political battles were still being fought over gun control, rulings such as these would have had significant impact. But the truth is that the single-minded passion of gun-rights advocates long routed their opponents in the political arena, making gun-control arguments in the political arena all but moot.
In that sense, the Supreme Court is merely following the election returns, as Mr. Dooley long ago noted.
But it will be interesting to see how the issue plays out. In Heller, the court wrote repeatedly of the constitutional right to self-defense and singled out handguns as “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” Heller also noted that the right to bear arms is NOT “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
In addition, Heller expressly did not apply to “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.”
As Justice Stephen Breyer notes in his dissent, the rulings in Heller and McDonald strip power from state and local governments and place it in the hands not just of the federal government, but of the federal courts. In its centralization of power, its rejection of precedent and and its investment of legislative power in the courts, the court has taken a decidedly activist role.
In fact, Breyer notes, it requires judges, not legislatures, to now address a variety of questions regarding the costs and benefits of various firearms restrictions:
“Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? Semiautomatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time of day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the presence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting patdowns designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban? Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right (to self-defense) interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies?”
“Legislators,” Breyer notes, “are able to ‘amass the stuff of actual experience and cull conclusions from it.’ United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 67 (1965). They are far better suited than judges to uncover facts and to understand their relevance. And legislators, unlike Article III judges, can be held democratically responsible for their empirically based and value-laden conclusions.”
The Supreme Court — the ostensibly conservative, anti-activist, pro-states’ rights Roberts court — has taken those decisions out of the hands of legislatures and city councils and placed them in the hands of its colleagues in the federal judiciary.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
619 comments Add your comment
Matti
June 28th, 2010
3:59 pm
Scout: “When are you women going to step up and shed blood for your country in the same numbers as men? Do you realize how far you have to catch up since 1776?”
Seriously? Do you know the percentage of Colonial women who died during pregnancy/childbirth in 1776? Or how many died in pregnancy and childbirth in the 234 years since? (Nah, why would you care?) Geebuss, you had a serious head injury, didn’t you? WOMEN ARE STILL VILIFIED by many for joining the military! Especially when they combine their duties of defending our freedom and gestating the next generation of American citizens! “Who let THAT skank in?” Cracker, please…..
Scout
June 28th, 2010
4:01 pm
TaxPayer”
“……….. and there was war in heaven.”
Hummmmm ………………..
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
4:02 pm
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
3:58 pm
“Your Confederate forbears would no doubt be delighted that you are carrying on their thinking.”
Just think if they had more manufacturing down south during that time, you would be whistling dixie or be considered an illegal immigrant.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
4:03 pm
Women have a right to bear readily accessible arms too.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
4:03 pm
Yum yum
Sure. But if the point is to have a gun as readily available as a can of gasoline in the event someone breaks in (like in those burglar alarm commercials where they guy breaks through the door and comes charging in) that that rather negates the argument that ‘keep it locked, in a gun safe, ammo somewhere else’ argument, doesn’t it?
popeye
June 28th, 2010
4:04 pm
I don’t know about you Dusty, but I understand dingleberry’s are not pleasant.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
4:04 pm
…war in heaven
Earth to Scout…
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:04 pm
Paul: Just in case you didn’t see A private sector employee’s earlier post.
June 28th, 2010
3:33 pm
Let’s see, TW:
In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries
In 2000, 1,242 children in the United States died from intentional firearm-related injuries. Homicides of children are most often murders of teens by other teens.
In the United States, 1,236 children (0-18) died from drowning in 2000.
In the United States, 1,946 children (0-18) died in fires in 2000
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children. In the United States in 2000, 6,466 children (0-18) were killed in motor vehicle crashes
In 2000, there were 1,580 suffocations,
In 1997, 225 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes. Motor vehicles were involved in more than 200 of these deaths. In 1998, nearly 362,000 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.
In terms of ACCIDENTAL deaths, drownings, fires, automobiles, bicycles, and suffocation rank higher than firearms, which usually comes in at 12 or 13th on most lists. Once you throw in disease, accidental deaths from firearms falls to about the 30th most numerous cause.
Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags? Clearly, no pools, showers, walking and paper would be safer.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
4:06 pm
Dusty
Well, I try!
Yum yum
I’m not much for the ‘kids die from drowning so what’s a few more from guns’ line of justification -
TW
June 28th, 2010
4:06 pm
“Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags? Clearly, no pools, showers, walking and paper would be safer.”
When a child blows their head off at the cost of your insecurity, the gun works as it’s supposed to.
Pools are for swimming, autos for transportation, and bags for storage.
Moron.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
4:07 pm
Just think if they had more manufacturing down south during that time, you would be whistling dixie or be considered an illegal immigrant.
Well, at least we know where your thoughts are.
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
4:07 pm
HillBilly Deluxe,
Keep those guns handy! There are liberals around!! Just kidding!
If everybody handled guns like you, there wouldn’t be anybody fussing over this.
May I ask a favor of you? You listed some music the other day by a master guitar player who performed on his own on a stage. He was so good and the music beautiful. I meant to keep track of that but didn’t. Now I can’t find it. Would you mind repeating that? I don’t even remember his name, just his music.
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
4:08 pm
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:04 pm
After wwII, Stalin killed more than 52 million of his countrymen–including women and children. Is that more that died than your said causes?
How many parents neglect their children who dont die. Does it make it any better.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:09 pm
Is TW short for TWit?
josef nix
June 28th, 2010
4:09 pm
Hillbilly
@ 3:51
I’m with you. Guns were very much a part of my family’s early childhood training, and that training was much of what you are talking about. We saw to it that our kids learned as well. Unmentionable and the boys are hunters.
Joe
June 28th, 2010
4:10 pm
Hootinanny: “Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags?”
If we apply Hootinanny’s logic, murder should be legalized since it leads to fewer deaths (and fewer ACCIDENTAL deaths) than cars and bathtubs.
larry
June 28th, 2010
4:12 pm
All this ruling did was to take the isssue out of the control of local government and place it with the federal government. Yep that evil federal government everybody hates so much.
While this ruling gets rid of the ban, it does not get rid of the regulations.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:12 pm
williebkind writes, “After wwII, Stalin killed more than 52 million of his countrymen–including women and children. Is that more that died than your said causes?”
Not sure what your point is, but isn’t this the perfect argument for an armed citizenry?
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:14 pm
Put the pipe down Joe…
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
4:17 pm
I’m for extreme conservatives having as many loaded guns as they like, preferably with hair triggers for those barrel-cleaning episodes.
josef nix
June 28th, 2010
4:20 pm
Scout…
http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/nancyharts.html
And
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/civilwar/p/loretavelazquez.htm
LJ
June 28th, 2010
4:21 pm
Disgusted, you wrote:Nope. Historical context is everything. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution and its amendments, there were no national armies intended to stand. Militias were the only way states could defend themselves from invaders. It was a militia, not a national army, that fought the British in Massachusetts. The idea of a militia as a defense against a national government was unthinkable. It was only in the 1850s that the South came up with that nonsense. Your Confederate forbears would no doubt be delighted that you are carrying on their thinking.
You have a twisted view of history. Are you aware of the events that took place leading up to and during the Revolution? Let me refresh your spotted memory…
The “Shot hear ’round the world” was fired on Lexington green in 1775. This marked the beginning of armed revolt against the British crown by BRITISH SUBJECTS(note that there was no “America” yet. There was no “American” army or militia- these were British subjects firing on British soldiers).
Are you aware of what the whole PURPOSE was of the British march to Concord(Lexington was on the way there)? It was to SEIZE the arms that the PEOPLE had stockpiled. General Gage feared that an uprising was imminent after numerous “incidents” in Boston and he sent his troops to seize the weapons and powder that was presumed to be stored in Concord. A rough plan was formulated for how to react to a march on Concord after the Boston powder keg had been seized by the military.
The moral of the story is that we PROTESTED when they taxed us without representation. We REBELLED when they came for our guns.
So I ask you now, and be honest, why would the founding fathers have written the 2nd Amendment? It has nothing to do with self defense, policing, sporting, or hunting purposes. It has EVERYTHING to do with enabling the population to rise up if needed.
These men had fought a long war that began with the refusal to allow the military to confiscate private weapons. They knew EXACTLY what they were protecting. Apparently you don’t.
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
4:21 pm
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:12 pm
You dont think that was an oppresive governemnt?
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
4:17 pm
My sabot rounds would go through the wall and through the neighbors houses striking you possibly–if it went off accidentally I mean.
Phil Dolan
June 28th, 2010
4:24 pm
Secessionist fever is at an all-time high. Gun shops can’t get used guns because folks’r holding on to them expecting some sort of armed conflict to counter what’s comin’. They really believe Obama want’s to foster socialism. Nearly every POTUS utterance has become fightin’ words. If the economy doesn’t rally big and fast……..
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
4:24 pm
Popeye,
I ‘ve encountered blueberries, raspberries, blackberries and Castleberry’s (hash) but have to admit no dingleberries. Perhaps you would like to improve on my dictionary’s explanation of Vaccium erythrocarpus. It is supposed to be Southern grown and edible but I’ve never seen it. Maybe it is under the kudzu.
Maybe you are thinking of a raspberry. Definition: a sound of contempt made by protruding the tongue between the lips and expelling air forcibly to produce a vibration. Yeah, that one!
I love being informational here. Well, somebody’s got to do it! psttttt—->raspberry!!
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
4:24 pm
LJ
June 28th, 2010
4:21 pm
Progressive liberals do not know American history. I mean it has not been taught in schools for decades unless it is about progressive liberals saving the world through unions, providing human rights, and abortions.
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
4:25 pm
Dusty
I think this is what you are referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxzhzRh7hp8
And my Grandpa always kept a shotgun hanging over the front door. It was there if the wrong person came to the door.
I’m for extreme conservatives having as many loaded guns as they like, preferably with hair triggers for those barrel-cleaning episodes.
No gun owner I know would clean a loaded gun. That’d be down right uneducated.
JEM
June 28th, 2010
4:25 pm
I am not a conservative, but your crazy if you think hand guns will ever be outlawed. And I for one hope they never will be. It didn’t work on drugs, it will not work on guns.
Mid-South Philosopher
June 28th, 2010
4:25 pm
My, oh my, Jay,
I sure wish you had shown up for class on that day in 8th grade when they taught about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. You might have learned that at the time said “amendment” was drafted virtually “all” male citizens were subject to being called up for service in the “militia”, if needed. Since they didn’t have “National Guard Armories” in those days, guess where they kept their weapons and munitions? That’s right… in their homes.
Now, I realize that liberals don’t like the “right to bear arms”, and I, by the ETERNAL, am all in favor of liberals, progressives, and some conservatives NOT bearing arms, but at least get the facts correct!
Of course, your column wasn’t about the “right to bear arms”, which is constitutional, but, rather, about “judicial activism.” Anyone with an above the sixth grade education knows that when one side wins before the Supreme Court, it is a “correct interpretation” of the Constitution to the winning side. While it is “judicial activism” to the other side and vice versa. “Judicial activism” is in the eye of the beholder….duh!
joan
June 28th, 2010
4:26 pm
Paul, I don’t have grandkids, but I know how to shoot. I won’t shoot unless I see who I am shooting at.
JEM
June 28th, 2010
4:26 pm
Wow. You people need to get a life.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
June 28th, 2010
4:26 pm
Yes. Why are we even having this discussion? Have you not read any of my posts?
JEM
June 28th, 2010
4:26 pm
ALL of you. Get a freakin’ girlfriend/boyfriend.
Alvin Greene for Senate in SC
June 28th, 2010
4:27 pm
Enter your comments here
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
4:28 pm
“Judicial activism” is in the eye of the beholder….duh!”
That would be progressive liberals. Everyone else can read the constitution.
joan
June 28th, 2010
4:28 pm
By the way, don’t any of you ever remember the Manson murders, the Speck killings of 11 nurses, one after the other, the bloody slaughter of the Clutter family in a Kansas farm? Slaughters like that happen to people who either don’t have guns or aren’t willing to use them when people break into their homes. My bet is that anyone who breaks in my home is there to do me bodily harm. If they aren’t, well then oops my mistake, but too bad for them.
williebkind
June 28th, 2010
4:29 pm
JEM
June 28th, 2010
4:26 pm
Are you promoting sex?
DublDawg
June 28th, 2010
4:30 pm
So, Bookman, the position of the amendment as second means nothing, does it? And there should be no uniformity of rights as there is with the First and Third, and others incorporated (all but the Seventh)?
I’d be you’d approve a reading that left the First Amendment non-uniform in its application and allow the state legislatures and local governments to pass laws to regulate exercise of the right of speech, wouldn’t you?
The dissenting opinions make no sense and hold no water upon closer scrutiny.
Bookman, you are a typically, know nothing liberal that knows absolutely nothing and therefore stand on the sidelines all of your life.
Alvin Greene for Senate in SC
June 28th, 2010
4:30 pm
Jay doesn’t like guns, wants higher taxes, isn’t interested in securing our borders and wants you readers to go back to sleep.
The MSM editors will decide what is best for you.
Stop thinking America! You are too dangerous.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
4:30 pm
Dusty 4:24
You don’t want to go there. Trust me. My education came from one unfortunate decision to watch and episode of The Man Show.
Hello joan
As you likely surmised from the other posts, people read a lot into a post. I said nothing about guns’ legality, whether or not people are responsible (except in answer to a post), whether it’s effective or not. I merely noted if I had a gun so accessible that I could take out a guy busting into the house that I’d want to think about the accessibility issue if little kids were visiting.
It’s not about you hitting what you aim at. It’s about kids hitting whatever the gun’s pointing at.
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
4:31 pm
How did Stalin and the Revolutionaries sneak in here? Where’s my AK47? It is getting stuffy in here. ( I think the humidity is about 90% in these parts today..for real!!)
DublDawg
June 28th, 2010
4:36 pm
LJ;
This is an erroneous statement:
So I ask you now, and be honest, why would the founding fathers have written the 2nd Amendment? It has nothing to do with self defense, policing, sporting, or hunting purposes. It has EVERYTHING to do with enabling the population to rise up if needed.
I’d agree that maintaining the balance of power in favor of the people was the overarching purpose of the Second. However, to say that is has nothing to do with self defense, hunting, etc. is erroneous, and I’d suggest further reading. Jefferson was the primary proponent of the Bill Of Right, and coincidentally, the Second. He and George Mason wrote on the issue of possessing guns and having the right to hunt. Their legislative endeavors in VA were a thumb to the nose in response to English law that had for centuries proclaimed wild game as property of the crown and forbid commoners from hunting stag, roebucks, etc.
Pogo
June 28th, 2010
4:36 pm
Will the liberals, in their un-ending search for a human utopia, ever learn that government and the courts cannot legislate or litigate morality and self-accountability ? Probably not. And make no mistake, that is what we are talking about here. If it wasn’t guns it would be baseball bats, knives, poisons, explosives or some other means by which the more unsavory elements of our society would find to kill each other. Guns just seem to be the more political ” flavor of the day” and are and have been a rallying cry for the left. People who are irresponsible and that want to do harm to their fellow human beings, for whatever cause, will always find a way to do so and they WILL find a weapon to do it with. All it takes is a lot of free time and a depraved personality and bingo, you have carnage! The big difference is whether their victims have the means to fight back. That is the difference we are talking about here. America has gone way too far down the firearms road now to deprive its decent citizens of a means to protect themselves from the element which would harm them. If the country had been built upon a society with no guns from the start, things may be different but the reality is that guns are here, they are going to stay and we can’t just have the police (who cannot be at all places at all times) and the bad guys carrying them. The bad guys are becoming more numerous and infinitely more disconnected from the value of human life.
Disgusted
June 28th, 2010
4:36 pm
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of “well regulated” and “security of a free State” don’t you understand, LJ? The “well regulated” phrase specifically rules out a Wild West type of insurrection–any weapons bearers are to be under the regulation of a state. And most militias did not have storage locations for their weapons. Militia members took their weapons home with them after undertaking periodic drills–thus, it was essential for the weapons to be in their possession. And “security of a free State” has nothing to do with defending yourself in your home. Rather, it specifically addresses the need for a state to defend itself against aggressors–and the forefathers never considered a federal government as a potential aggressor or else the states would never have ratified the Constitution.
There were state and county militias in the South (and a lot of northern states) right up to the outbreak of the Civil War. Five of them were in my home county, and all were called up to serve in the newly formed Confederate army. My great, great grandfathers and my great, great uncles were members of those militias. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.
popeye
June 28th, 2010
4:37 pm
Dusty….Please follow paul’s advise.
In conclusion if you don’t know what you are referring to, or speaking of it’s best to remain silent.
Trust me!
Rick
June 28th, 2010
4:44 pm
Paul:
No, the National Guard is not equivalent (nor a morphed version) of the Militia. Do some research. But at a very basic understanding, ask yourself how our Federal government could call them to active Federal service and send them to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Korea in the 50’s or Europe in the 40’s). They are inherently linked to the Federal government by the legislation which created them.
But not to worry, your error is a very common misunderstanding.
Gay Blade 5 : Why should anyone be allowed to have a gun?
So the poor guy who is accosted by a pick-up of gay-bashers has the only equilizer capable of defending his right to self-defense.
On machineguns and the 2nd: Again, do some research. They are “illegal” due to Interstate Commerce and taxed for revenue. Some states are actively pursuing (Montana and others) that a machinegun built and used within their state is not restricted by the Federal legislation. Court cases are progressing.
Other thoughts:
A person can only lose a right upon conviction of a crime if a person had the right before conviction. Hence, if an individual can lose his right “to bear arms,” he must possess such a right. (Spencer v. Kemna )
Should you chose to not exercise your right to self defense (to keep and bear arms), then that is your choice. You have an inalienable right (whether you consider it God-given, or just written into our animal DNA), it is your right and not our Government’s to “give” you. In our mechanical age, firearms have largely rendered irrelevant male-female (gay-bashers/gay, criminal/law-abider, felon-victim) differences in strength.
Lastly, from a partisan perspective. If your party or political ideology has you discard your firearms or forbid them from your fellow citizens, then your future is indeed bleak. All that will remain is an armed government and those you have made criminals (who will not give up their guns). Your liberal agenda will become irrelevant. Liz Michael is much more eloquent in her open letter to Liberals (www.lizmichael.com/openlett.htm).
And don’t forget to watch the documentary “No Guns for Negroes” at http://www.jpfo.org. It is free for download and distribution by the fine race (Jews) who were disarmed by the their government. Nothing bad happened from that; right?
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
4:44 pm
The Georgia Militia wasn’t officially disorganized until 1951.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
4:45 pm
Well, the right to bear arms is rather moot without the right to bear drones, etc. I mean, it’s like bringing a slingshot to a goliath match but with goliath wearing protective armor. Flintlock versus tank just won’t cut it here in the pampered state of america. It’s not like we can live off the land, in the caves. We’re not taliban. We’re civilized. We’d have to find us some hessians.
AmVet
June 28th, 2010
4:50 pm
Flabby Republican men in muscle shirts should voluntarily cede their right to bare arms…
josef nix
June 28th, 2010
4:51 pm
Rick
“… race (Jews) who were disarmed by the their government. Nothing bad happened from that; right?”
I wasn’t going to bring it up, but this is the best case for a well-armed citizenry I can think of. Once they got a few arms in Warsaw, things didn’t proceed quite so smoothly for the authorities…
Paul
June 28th, 2010
4:52 pm
Rick
“No, the National Guard is not equivalent (nor a morphed version) of the Militia. Do some research”
Ummm,. did you read the article at the link written by the National Guard about the history of the Guard and Congressional involvement in changing the Revolutionary War militias into the Guard?
"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010
June 28th, 2010
4:52 pm
“Today, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled 5-4 that state and local governments are as bound by that interpretation as the federal government, a step that greatly restricts their ability to legislate in that arena.” — Bookman.
This means states can’t choose what parts of the Constitution they want to enforce or ignore.
Duh…. The states can make their own laws as long as they do not interfere with personals liberties granted in the Constitution and subsequent amendments.
This is a no brainer….
Gun ownership is a settled matter of law.
Off Topic:
Bill Clinton said, “The Navy go should deep and and blow up the well. No nukes, but it can be done.”
Scout
June 28th, 2010
4:55 pm
josef:
Oh, yes. You and I know there has always been the exception.
TaxPayer:
“sonar to bridge, sonar to bridge” “God to TaxPayer”
Got to run ……….. back this evening !
Paul
June 28th, 2010
4:55 pm
Rick
Or stands for decibels’ earlier post about how the majority opinion had to make the point that the well regulated militia phrase had to be construed as a subservient clause to make the gun rights ownership work. Which means the militia is not all people. Subservient to – a subset – militia was comprised of commoners, but not all commoners with a gun constitute a militia. Especially today.
LJ
June 28th, 2010
4:56 pm
Disgusted, “Regulated” had a very different meaning than you have ascribed to it in modern vocabulary. Viewing other official documents from the era you will see “regulate(d)” used as a way of describing how effective or efficient something is
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html
The “Well Regulated Militia” may be read as “An “effective” militia”.
And the founding fathers ABSOLUTELY considered the Federal Government to be a real danger to the freedom of the people in the future. I urge to you read papers written by Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others. You clearly have no idea what their political philosophy was.
As Jefferson said:
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
4:56 pm
A little history on the Georgia Militia. Your polling precinct may well be the remnant of an old Militia District. Mine is.
http://sos.georgia.gov/archives/what_do_we_have/GeorgiaMilitiaDistricts.htm
"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010
June 28th, 2010
4:59 pm
Under the same ruling The Feds can shut down all medical pot in the USA.
This decision will also apply in the border states. The AZ case is completely different but “sanctuary” cities are next.
When Uncle Sam decides to push back he will have precedent on his team.
Rick
June 28th, 2010
5:01 pm
Paul:
One article does not make the truth. That should be very evident by reading the article at the beginning of this thread.
They may have a common genesis (although that is debatable). But the point of my comment was not their origin, but: The National Guard is part of the Federal Government. It was created by Federal Legislation and can be called up by the Executive.
It is not equivalent to a cilvilian militia, which was to protect us from the government.
JohnnyReb
June 28th, 2010
5:02 pm
Let’s settle this and move on to something more interesting like Barry’s cap & tax redistribution of wealth proposal, or the Dems big grab for more power through the financial reform bill. How about all the people who think guns should be outlawed have a marking, let’s see, maybe a yellow circle, on their car and the left sleeve of all their garments. It would be clear sign to the whole world they are against guns and don’t have one.
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
5:02 pm
I believe that the Founding Fathers would have found the thought of a home without a firearm, especially on the frontier, as unthinkable. A gun-free society wouldn’t have occurred to them. It would be as alien to them as a home without electricity would be to the vast majority of us.
Peter
June 28th, 2010
5:03 pm
Is it legal to strap a gun on and wear it around like in the old west ?
Paul
June 28th, 2010
5:03 pm
Rick
So…. are you saying we have a civilian militia today, as we did in the 1700s? And that it is not the Guard?
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
5:04 pm
“God to TaxPayer”
I’ll bet you think that you maintain a direct line of communication, Scout.
Pogo
June 28th, 2010
5:05 pm
Flabby liberal men in nighties should cede their right to continuously blow hot air.
Fletch
June 28th, 2010
5:05 pm
I’m from Chicago – the city most impacted by this ruling. Being from there, we always found it ironic that the law disarmed law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals alone armed to the teeth.
Even if you are not a fan of guns, why would you want to give up any right for any reason?
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
5:06 pm
“I believe that the Founding Fathers would have found the thought of a home without a firearm, especially on the frontier, as unthinkable”
That might be truer than you think. People of the “class” that a lot of the founding Fathers came from might agree with you, but the majority of average citizens didn’t even own a gun…most particularly, those in the cities. Gun ownership in those days was not as widespread as most would like to think.
Jose
June 28th, 2010
5:07 pm
The big government libs must be livid.
The best part about the decision is that it used the incident where guns were denied to former slaves after the American Civil War and the Second Amendment was used then to reaffirm the individual rights.
Now if anyone tries to reverse this new ruling, they will be labeled a racist. In fact the four dissenting judges should be labeled racists.
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
5:08 pm
Paul,
Well, I never heard of The Man Show and Miss Manners has never mentioned the aforemention subject. But I will be more knowledgable and only say …psssttt—>raspberry!! … while I sniff delicately into my hankie!!
HillBilly,
Thanks but that is not the music I had in mind. The one I liked sat on a lighted stage by himself without distinctly western shirt but casual coat. Don’t remember seeing any of the audience. His music sounded almost classical. Hope you can find him.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
5:08 pm
My biggest issue is providing enough airstrips to handle all the personal drones. I mean, a man, every man, and woman, should have the right to bear drones and that takes a lot of space for takeoffs and landings. And the extra burden on the air traffic controllers… I shudder at the thought. The tax increase needed to pay all those extra union employees would be unbearable.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
5:10 pm
Dusty
I tried to warn you….
TaxPayer
Some of those drones fit in backpacks and can land on a suburban lawn. Only trouble is, they have an awful lot of trouble getting off the ground when the militia guys try to attach a Hellfire to them -
An Inconvenient Constitution
June 28th, 2010
5:10 pm
The SCOTUS has ruled that personal gun ownership is protected.
It’s been a done deal since:
“June 26, 2008
In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways.” — NPR
AGAIN FOR THE SLOW PEOPLE….
It’s law y’all.
The states cannot infringe on your personal liberty to own a firearm.
The SCOTUS has also held that handgun bans are unconstitutional.
lovelyliz
June 28th, 2010
5:10 pm
The right to bear arms but doesn’t SPECIFICALLY mention bullets.
Rick
June 28th, 2010
5:10 pm
That clause has been subserivant for many, many years. It only became right-restricitve when it was used in Miller in 1939 to “show” a certain firearm was not protected because it was of a type “the militia” did not have in use. It has been “used” in error ever since. The DOJ did a wonderfully researched paper on this some years back. The authors were AG Bradbury, AG Nielson, and G Marhall.
JohnnyReb
June 28th, 2010
5:16 pm
So, none of the progressives here like my idea of identifying themselves as against guns by marking themselves and their property?
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
5:18 pm
Popeye & Paul
I”ll stand by my dictionary any time! It lists quite innocently what you decry. If somebody wants to mess with the language, it’s not my mudcakes. Both of you need a mental mouthwashing for knowing bad connotations to good words. psssttttt—->another raspberry!!!
By the way, where is Bosch? Did he commit harikari after the USA soccer loss? Poor baby. He’s probably heartbroken.
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
5:19 pm
Dusty
Help me out a little. Do you remember when I posted it? The ol’ brain ain’t what it used to be.
Doggone @ 5:06
I wouldn’t disagree with you about gun ownership in cities of the time but on the frontier it was a necessity. You had no one but yourself to depend on for defense but much more importantly, it was essential in feeding yourself and family.
I can remember my Grandpa talking about being about 6 years old (1890’s), and his mother, who was all of about 22 or 23, telling him to take his little brother and go kill some squirrels for supper.
BADA BING
June 28th, 2010
5:19 pm
Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than all the guns that I own.
Paul
June 28th, 2010
5:19 pm
Inconvenient
I believe the Court said their ruling was restricted to handguns in the home. Period.
Didn’t mention shotguns. Or rifles.
“Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home. “
Lee
June 28th, 2010
5:19 pm
I miss Charlie Reese. Ah, there was a real columnist. Bookboy would do well to read a few of his columns.
Charlie’s take on the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese463.html
An Inconvenient Constitution
June 28th, 2010
5:21 pm
Ah yes…. Nancy Pelosi’s bullet restriction methodology.
Micro serial numbers and limits on types and quantities that can be purchased……
Thank you lovelyliz. However you’ll be thrilled to know that this has also been decided by the courts….. Except for the “micro serial numbers” issue.
I don’t have an issue with serial numbers.
Ammunition limits are ludicrous because anybody can make their own.
Besides… Most people who shoot a lot “reload” their casings or sell their brass for scrap because it’s a fraction of the price of new stuff.
AmVet
June 28th, 2010
5:22 pm
Pogo, Pogo, Pogo.
QUIT trying to be funny. Or even clever. It just ain’t your thing.
Speaking of which, whatever happened to integrity and honesty in reporting? I read where someone referred to Dennis Miller as a comedian.
An outrage I tell ya…
Paul
June 28th, 2010
5:22 pm
Dusty
Come, come now…. you’re not saying you’ve never, ever in you life had something go into your brain you wished hadn’t gone? Never heard a new, rude word? Never heard a new takeover of a previously-thought nice word?
I was wonderin’ about Bosch myself. Hopefully he’s just drowning his sorrows.
josef nix
June 28th, 2010
5:22 pm
Dusty–
Yeah, where is Bosch?
D*ck Cheney…D*ck Cheney…
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
5:22 pm
“I wouldn’t disagree with you about gun ownership in cities of the time but on the frontier it was a necessity”
Certainly…but the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution weren’t written by backwoodsmen. They were written by highly educated men, of a generally wealthier class. Gun ownership, to them, was not a matter of life or death, but WAS a matter of national security.
Rick
June 28th, 2010
5:22 pm
Have to sign off. It’s been fun.
No, I do not belong to an organized, well-regulated Militia (just getting that out of the way).
But in answer to your last question. Yes, there are many Militias in the US today (use your favorite search engine). Are they well-regulated? Some are, some aren’t.
Have you forgotten the Michigan Militia so quickly? And yes, our government does not approve of them. It usually plants FBI into their membership as it did the Klan and Socialists (and Mosques today).
This is the point of “partisan” paragraph. Give up your guns if you want. The liberal agenda will be irrelevant: no guns = no power. Read Ms Michaels open letter. It is a fun read.
Spoiler: She is recommending that her Liberal friends do not give up their guns, so their views will always be heard.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
5:25 pm
Paul,
I just don’t know if there would be much market, outside the CIA, etc., for drones that cannot rain down some Hellfire.
An Inconvenient Constitution
June 28th, 2010
5:27 pm
Paul -
Are you suggesting the SCOTUS has a grey area regarding shotguns and rifles? Really?
Uhhhh… Is hunting allowed in all 50 states?
Can I still legally hunt in California?
ANSWER: Yes
http://www.hunter-ed.com/ca/index.htm?gclid=CKvPobvcw6ICFQPJsgodyG4t6A
Crickets go chirp, chirp…..
Brett
June 28th, 2010
5:29 pm
I carry a gun. Because I need to carry a gun. That need does not apply to 80% of the drooling goons of the NRA and other assorted uneducated weak thugs who call themselves “patriots” and “Murcuhns.”
A pathetic lot to be sure.
Hillbilly Deluxe
June 28th, 2010
5:29 pm
Doggone @ 5:22
I better understand your point now. I’d pretty much agree with it.
That brings up the topic of most of the Founding Fathers being basically upper class Englishmen who were PO’d about having to pay more taxes and not having a say in it but that’s another story for another day.
casual observer
June 28th, 2010
5:30 pm
I need the government to tell me how to act. Ineed the government to dictate all aspects of my life. They are doing such a good job in all area’s. Myself and all of the rest of the sheep…..I mean people of the dependant class are so gratefull.
Dusty
June 28th, 2010
5:30 pm
Well, I was going to say,would someone please strap a personal drone on TAXPAYER? And set it off..
But I won’t. No use to waste a perfectly good drone on a teapot tempester…. ..
.
Matt
June 28th, 2010
5:34 pm
Although ruling that the 2nd amendment is an individual right does restrict state and local governments that in of itself doesn’t seem to be ‘judicial activism’. Governments can still restrict aspects of gun ownership but that can no longer just pass blanket bans on handguns.
I don’t see the 2nd amendment as a collective right, are any other of the original 10 besides the 10th amendment considered collective? Reading the other 8, they all seem to deal with ‘people’, ‘persons’ and ‘accused’.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
5:35 pm
Dusty,
Such violence from someone that claims to be a lady. Of the evening, perhaps.
T-Town
June 28th, 2010
5:36 pm
What amazes me is that a document written over 200 years ago, by a number of men who thought they were providing a guidance for future generations to remain completely independent/free, could cause such chaos. They probably didn’t see the waves of attorneys coming to make our lives much easier.
SugarHillDawg
June 28th, 2010
5:36 pm
No, Comerad Bookman,it was a victory for the American people!It’s a shame that 4 justices voted against the constitution.
An Inconvenient Constitution
June 28th, 2010
5:38 pm
Matt —
The Hell with the “collective”.
Marxism is evil.
In the USA, we believe in, and will never surrender our Liberty to the Collective.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
5:38 pm
“That brings up the topic of most of the Founding Fathers being basically upper class Englishmen who were PO’d about having to pay more taxes and not having a say in it but that’s another story for another day”
Not much left to say actually! But here’s a tidbit for you: one of the “thorns” in the colonies sides was a British law that prohibited the colonists from using metal shovels. They were restricted, by law, to using only clumsy, crude, heavy wooden shovels. One of the first “native” industries to spring up after the War of Independence was the manufacturing of metal shovels and other farming tools.
Can’t remember where I learned that…probably the History Channel or something.
The real, bottom-line issue was that the colonists considered themselves English, but the English government considered them to be something in the nature of “employees” – existing to enrich England, not themselves.
TaxPayer
June 28th, 2010
5:40 pm
Well, the Ten Commandments included coverage regarding one’s right to use arms. Bear them if you will. Seems like such a waste though unless one intends to ignore the prime directives via mis-interpretation of the New Testament.
Doggone/GA
June 28th, 2010
5:41 pm
“who thought they were providing a guidance for future generations to remain completely independent/free”
They never thought that they, or future generations, would EVER be COMPLETELY “FREE” – they knew better than that. That’s why they set up a government of LAWS.
An Inconvenient Constitution
June 28th, 2010
5:41 pm
typed too fast cuz Matt the Marxist is poisonous.
My Liberty trumps your collective good.
Marxism is evil, corrupt and on display in Toronto at the G20.
ULTIMATE FAIL !!!