A professor on 2A

[SamIAm]

5 of 9 Sup. Ct. Judges

Bzzzzt. Nope.

9 for 9

Read the first couple paragraphs of each dissent.

[SamIAm]

Re-litigating Heller

Why are you guys trying to relitigate Heller? It was a decisive win.

It was a decisive win. The problem is that if Obama is re-elected, and any of the five justices who ruled in favor of Heller retires or dies, and if a similar case makes its way up to the Supremes, we could find ourselves with a 5-4 decision going the other way.

By way of example only. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided in 1986. The Supremes ruled that states could regulate same sex sexual activity in the privacy of one's own home. Pretty much the same set of facts came up in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. The Supremes then ruled that states could not regulate same sex sexual activity in the privacy of one's own home.

I don't mention these two cases for any reason than to give an example of how the Supremes could easily decide the issue the other way, if given the opportunity and a change in the balance of justices.

Complacency is bad.

[Dingotech]

The way that I read it, the Second Amendment isn't at all about militias. Sure, militia is mentioned because it's role in overthrowing a tyrannical government is paramount. But it is about the unrestricted right of citizens to own and (legally) bear arms.

The Constitution is littered with similar provisions that give a single example of our a particular piece of legislation might be practiced, when, in fact, there may be numerous examples of how that law may affect our rights.

[jdberger]

Sorry. I should have been more specific.

Dissent ( Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.) [Note that's all 4 dissenting justices]

PP1

Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Dissent (Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.)

Section II (not PP2 as I originally said - I was confused)

See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

All four dissenting Justices say TWICE that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right.

Opinions are linked for your review.

[jdberger]

It was a decisive win. The problem is that if Obama is re-elected, and any of the five justices who ruled in favor of Heller retires or dies, and if a similar case makes its way up to the Supremes, we could find ourselves with a 5-4 decision going the other way.

By way of example only. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided in 1986. The Supremes ruled that states could regulate same sex sexual activity in the privacy of one's own home. Pretty much the same set of facts came up in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. The Supremes then ruled that states could not regulate same sex sexual activity in the privacy of one's own home.

I don't mention these two cases for any reason than to give an example of how the Supremes could easily decide the issue the other way, if given the opportunity and a change in the balance of justices.

Complacency is bad.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be complacent. Only that they should ridicule opposing opinions into darkness. I'm sure that there are folks who think that the Copernican solar system is some sort of vast plot to enslave us all. But you really don't hear from those people because enough people have been exposed to "Copernican truth" to make any conflicting position seem ludicrous on its face.

Really. Think about it. How do YOU know the Earth revolves about the sun? Have you seen it? Have you seen Mars do the same? Mercury? You believe so because you've been told it's true and the naysayers have been drummed out of the school faculty.

But if Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking got up in front of the world with the top guys at NASA, etc. and said, "Ya know, folks. Copernicus got it wrong." You'd rethink it.

The key is to keep the anti-gun Sagans and Hawkings out of the equation. And again, one of the most effective ways is ridicule. How many kids are going to be encouraged by their parents to follow their lifelong ambition to debunk Nicolaus Copernicus?

Kill the seed and you'll never have to fight the weed.

[SamIAm]

Supremes

All four dissenting Justices say TWICE that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right.

The four dissenting justices' opinion is a bait and switch. Read it carefully.

All four dissenting justices say that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to SERVE in a STATE militia. They conclude that the Second Amendment does NOT protect an individual right to own and use firearms for PRIVATE purposes.

Most gun owners regard the Second Amendment right as both an INDIVIDUAL and a PRIVATE right. In other words, you don't have to join a STATE militia to own a firearm. That's the argument the antis have been making and continue to make.

In fact, the first thread makes reference to the fact that the professor was interpreting the Second Amendment as a PUBLIC right only: "the first part of the 2nd amendment refers to the militia thus, only the military should have guns and those citizens with guns should be in Afghanistan if they want to use guns." In other words, you have no PRIVATE right to own a firearm.

4 out of the 9 justices agree with this professor. Your initial post makes it sound as if all 9 justices would have ruled in our favor. They did NOT do so. 4 of the 9 justices would have found it constitutional to outlaw all handgun ownership except for people in a state militia and only if the state determined that such ownership would have served the purposes of the militia.

The fact that the justices recognize the existence of an INDIVIDUAL right means nothing if that right is so narrowly interpreted that the only way you can exercise that INDIVIDUAL right is by joining the state national guard.

Your first quote makes this clear when the four justices opine that "But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

Well, gee, they giveth ("It's an individual right") and then they taketh away ("But only if you're serving in a STATE militia.")

[negolien]

To say I cannot own a firearm in my own home as a legal law abiding citizen of this country is a mockery of our constituiton and the state militia is what the National guard? Really like some of us at our age with no skills or college can get in there.... Straight Communist liberal BS...

As a side not not National Guard it's CSMR. We'll see if it's possible for a normal lemming to get in.

http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/Pages/default.aspx

[jdberger]

The four dissenting justices' opinion is a bait and switch. Read it carefully.

Kinda

All four dissenting justices say that the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to SERVE in a STATE militia. They conclude that the Second Amendment does NOT protect an individual right to own and use firearms for PRIVATE purposes.

Stevens says that. Breyer waffles.

Most gun owners regard the Second Amendment right as both an INDIVIDUAL and a PRIVATE right. In other words, you don't have to join a STATE militia to own a firearm. That's the argument the antis have been making and continue to make.

Agreed.

In fact, the first thread makes reference to the fact that the professor was interpreting the Second Amendment as a PUBLIC right only: "the first part of the 2nd amendment refers to the militia thus, only the military should have guns and those citizens with guns should be in Afghanistan if they want to use guns." In other words, you have no PRIVATE right to own a firearm.

and he's wrong - because even if (as Justice Stevens opines) the PRIVATE right is connected with militia service it's still a PRIVATE right - not a communal one.

4 out of the 9 justices agree with this professor.

They don't. See above.

Your initial post makes it sound as if all 9 justices would have ruled in our favor.

Either I wasn't clear or you misread it. I meant no such thing.

They did NOT do so. 4 of the 9 justices would have found it constitutional to outlaw all handgun ownership except for people in a state militia and only if the state determined that such ownership would have served the purposes of the militia.

Agreed.

The fact that the justices recognize the existence of an INDIVIDUAL right means nothing if that right is so narrowly interpreted that the only way you can exercise that INDIVIDUAL right is by joining the state national guard.

Also agreed.

However, the OP's potential disagreement with the Prof isn't a Lincoln/Douglass debate. It's quick one liners and talking points. And the best talking point is, "ALL 9 Justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right. Look it up."

This isn't LAW anymore. LAW is over. It's settled.

Now it's time for POLITICS.

And politics says you make your point quickly. Arguments that need a bunch of backstory and explanation usually fail.

We, as gunnies, have become so used to having to defend our Individual Rights Theory for so long, we easily slip back into it when even slightly challenged. We must escape that. We must move on. We cannot let the other side continue to re-litigate Heller.