Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

There's a hell of a lot going on in all three opinions, resulting in an awful lot of stuff to digest. I'll admit that Second Amendment jurisprudence isn't high on my personal radar, so it's not something I have a lot of prior exposure to. This makes the slogging even slower going.My initial impression is that there is strained reasoning on both sides. (I suspect this is caused by Justices on both sides of the issue struggling to reach the conclusions they want. This, I think, is an artifact of a disturbing trend in judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, in focusing more in ideology than judicial temperament and reasoning. [Off topic rant over.])Certainly the depth of historical research demonstrated in all opinions is far beyond my ability, time and inclination to duplicate. As such, I have little to say in that particular area.At this moment, the best I can do is give my seat of the pants analysis of what I might have done with the question myself, had some fool made the mistake of putting me on the Court.I would have been inclined to come to much the same conclusion as Scalia on the question of whether the Second Amendment preserves an individual or collective right, although I find much of his reasoning unpersuasive. It seems like a rather simple question to me: the right that is guaranteed against infringement is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I think Breyer's attempt to avoid what is, to me, the clear meaning of the words "the people," is unpersuasive.However, I do think that there is a great deal to be said for the analysis that Breyer gives for the idea that, even if the right is the people's, there is room for some state regulation. (To be fair, Scalia acknowledges this is as well, but I think he gives short shrift to the D.C. regulation.) I'm not sure I would go as far as to uphold the D.C. regulation, I'd need to give that part of it more consideration. But to me, it's a much closer call that Scalia seems to think that it is.I understand that much of this is rather amorphous, and if I'm so inclined, I may give the matter more attention. But I thought I'd at least get something posted here, in response to the clamor of my adoring fans.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment?

---

What part of it is inconsistent with guaranteeing to "the people" the right to keep and bear arms?

quote:

---

And yours and Scalia's attempt to avoid what is, directly stated, the clear text of the amendment ("militia") is disingenuous.

---

And your attempt to ignore the established meaning of the phrase "the people" by appealing to the preamble of the Amendment in an attempt to graft onto it limiting language that clearly isn't there is, at best, inartful. (Feel free to continue with your snarky language, I've heard worse.) The preamble describes the justification for guaranteeing the right, the rest of it describes to whom the right is guaranteed and describes the substance of the right. There is nothing inconsistent with recognizing the need for a well trained militia at the ready and guaranteeing to that body the general right to keep and bear arms.I'd be happy to debate the fairly simple matter of parsing the language with you if you disagree, but it would be nice if you could do it without name calling.

quote:

---

For the third time: Might there be another part of the Constitution that deals with an individual right to own a gun for something other than the service of the State as part of the militia?

---

Not that I'm aware of, other than the largely ignored and emasculated Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

And if you can provide an instance of me calling you a name, you might have something there.

​

Please respond to what I actually say, not what you wish I would say.

---

I take no offense at anyone disagreeing with me. In this particular instance, I wouldn't even mind if you said my conclusion was illconsidered. I as much as announced the fact that it was at the beginning of my post. But there was nothing insincere, false or hypocritical about what I said.Please don't use big words if you don't know what they mean.As soon as you indicate you're done being snarky, I'll continue this conversation. Until then, this issue's just not important enough to me to put up with it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

But then, as I mention, it's probably tough when there isn't a lot of previous case law [is that the correct term?] to rely on.

---

Yes, case law is the correct term.I have always thought it unusual that there's so little case law on the Second Amendment. IIRC, Breyer mentioned a some decisions from the Courts of Appeals, but even those seemed rather sparse to me.

quote:

---

I still haven't read the decision closely, but my initial impression is that I find Breyer's reasoning more unconvincing that Scalia's.

---

Often, after reading Scalia, I come away with a good first impression that is usually revised down after further consideration. I attribute this to the fact that, IMO, Scalia is an excellent writer. There's no doubt in my mind that the caliber of writing affects one's opinion of the merits of an argument. The main thing that turns me off about his writing is his penchant for sniping at other Justices. There is simply no good reason for doing this, that I can think of.

quote:

---

And considering the problems the justices had with this, I find it highly amusing how people weigh in on this with very emphatic opinions when they don't have any legal training or, and this is the good part, when they haven't even bothered to read the decision to begin with.

---

Well, it's a polarizing issue about which people on both sides have firmly held ideas, often regardless of the legal merits of the matter. This I understand, and, to a degree, I even understand those who criticize of the decision from a policy point of view rather than a legal one. What does bother me is those who criticize the judicial abilities of judges who ignore policy matters when deciding a legal question. That's not to say that there aren't cases that raise policy issues that judges must answer to resolve the case, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

quote:

---

And I remember the first time I read a Supreme Court decision with which I disagreed -- and was amazed at how the Supreme Court (at least at that time) was definitely not just making up law out of thin air.

---

I've read many opinions I disagree with. There are very, very few where I felt there was no legal basis for the decision.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

wow you have me agreeing with subbie on this one.

---

If I have a choice, I'd just as soon not have you as a disciple.Thanks.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Each state is different

---

This is a very significant point. Gun laws vary wildly from state to state, and sometimes from community to community.What's more, I think it's quite likely that this decision will have a rather limited impact. All Justices seemed to agree that, notwithstanding that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, that right does not prevent some level of regulation. The exact parameters of regulation that will be permissible remain to be determined by further court action.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed?

---

I suspect yes, but without weaponry.

quote:

---

Where exactly is the defining line in terms of acceptability with regard to personal weaponry in the US?

---

Remains to be seen.

quote:

---

Does it even exist or is it (at least potentially) a case of anything goes?

---

Well, there are federal laws and regulations that would apply everywhere, which would be the outer limit of what anyone can possess in the U.S. Heller establishes that there is also an inner core of gun ownership rights that no federal, state or local laws or regulations can infringe upon. Beyond those extremes, at least in theory, each state or city is free to do as they see fit.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Why without weaponry?

---

Because I'm fairly certain that ownership of the armaments that a tank would use would be prohibited by federal law.

quote:

---

In specific practical terms what are these limits? I.e what is banned and what is not at the extreme end of the spectrum?

---

Dunno. The answer could probably be found in the U. S. Code, probably in Title 18 Chapter 44.

quote:

---

Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable?

---

I'm quite certain not, but cannot give you support.

quote:

---

If not what is the most detructive weaponry allowed and in what state is this permitted?

---

No idea. To determine this would require a full 50 state survey.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Who decides (or if historical - decided) this code and what or who gives them the authority to do so?

---

Congress.In my humble (and extreme minority) opinion, they don't have authority for most of it. The rest of the country believes they have the authority to do it under the Constitution.

quote:

---

K then as a rough approximation can we take that which is perceieved to be the most "gun friendly" state and see what the most detructive weapon they allow might be? Would this give an indication, if not a definitive answer?

---

Possibly.I presume your next question will be what state is that. I have no idea. I'm not particularly interested in gun law. Maybe you can find some of what you want here. But be warned, there is a lot of demogoguery there, and some would say misinformation, and down right lies.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

There was a good point made though, that since DC is not a State, then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to it. But still, it is the People, the individuals, who have the right to be armed.

---

Actually, this point is in error.There is nothing about the Second Amendment that suggests that it doesn't restrict the ability of the federal government. By its terms, it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that the states shall not infringe the right. It doesn't say that the federal government shall not infringe the right. It says the right shall not be infringed. It is equally as applicable to the federal government as to the state.Were it otherwise, the Heller court could not have decided the case the way it did. Obviously, since the Court concluded that the D.C. regulations at issue violated the Second Amendment, the Court must have concluded that the Second Amendment applied.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat