SCOTUS strikes down gun ban in Chicago

[OlJarhead]

In it's 2nd 5-4 decision in favor of the 2nd Amendment the SCOTUS rules in favor of your right to keep and bear arms.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/28/supreme-court-overturns-chicag

[texasgun]

All politicans should take note the 2nd amendment is an indvidual right guaranteed by the constitution and intended for the protection of individuals like me and you end of story. How many times does it have to be reafirmed? If our goverment or people past, present, or future dont like this than there are other countries they can move to and become subjects instead of citizens. God bless our country where we are really free citizens.

[peternap]

It filled in some of the holes Heller left open but still didn't define how far "Reasonable Restrictions" can go.

Even so, it's a BIG win.
I think this will kill the one gun a month limitation in Va and it may well get rid of the need for a Concealed Handgun Permit.

[Phssthpok]

I'm just hoping it opens up all those states that don't recognize other's CHL/CHP/LTCF/Whatever so I can travel open carry.

[peternap]

I'm just hoping it opens up all those states that don't recognize other's CHL/CHP/LTCF/Whatever so I can travel open carry.

I don't think McDonald will without additional litigation. Remember that Heller has another suit concerning Restrictions, that's on appeal now. That might clear up some muddy water.

Do you have a Utah Permit? That gets a lot of states for you.

The reason it may get rid of Va's permit system is that in Va, if you can own a gun legally, you can get a shall issue permit. There are a few exceptions like Misdemeanors within the last 3 years and Drinking convictions....but it;s hard to not get a permit.

I'm certain one gun a month is going bye bye,

[ScottA]

It's a tiny dent in a huge mountain of gun laws. I doubt it will have much real impact. I also expect for many localities to force people to sue them to get their suposed rights honored.

Think about what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

Next think about what the word "arms" means.

Now read the second amendment again.

By my reading it says I can own a tank, a rocket launcher  and cruise missles if I so choose. All of which are considered to be "arms".

Good luck with that.

[OlJarhead]

It's a tiny dent in a huge mountain of gun laws. I doubt it will have much real impact. I also expect for many localities to force people to sue them to get their suposed rights honored.

Think about what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

Next think about what the word "arms" means.

Now read the second amendment again.

By my reading it says I can own a tank, a rocket launcher  and cruise missles if I so choose. All of which are considered to be "arms".

Good luck with that.

We agree -- and yes I've thought that for a long time....

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we
shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to
disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the
soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the
sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but,
where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
(Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

One thing to consider though is that the State felt it should provide the tanks, cruise missiles etc (Cannon and Rockets in 1792) but one was not forbidden to buy them if one had the money....honestly, how many would buy an M1Abrahms if they had the money?  *snicker*

[cmsilvay]

Chicago is going to make a ton of money with over priced permits they will not approve but will have to to be paid for in advance.
This is just window dressing If SCOTUS wanted to due something with teeth they would clearly define the meaning of the 2nd so any idoit politician could understand it in a brief.

[Pox Eclipse]

Think about what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

Next think about what the word "arms" means.

Now read the second amendment again.

Reading... reading... reading...

"Well regulated???""  What the heck could that mean?

[OlJarhead]

Think about what the words "shall not be infringed" mean.

Next think about what the word "arms" means.

Now read the second amendment again.

Reading... reading... reading...

"Well regulated???""  What the heck could that mean?

I suggest reading the Militia Act of 1792.  Regulated was used in the way we would use 'make regular' today and thus they specifically called out certain calibers and arms that civilians were to buy before reporting for duty.

The Supreme Court has re-affirmed that the 'A well regulated militia' clause is preceding the actual right and intended to help define it but is not the main clause.  Now, since every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45 (sometimes 16 or 17) was a member of the militia and expected to be able to obtain arms within 6 months of being called to service.  Yes that's right, obtain arms yourself.

In no way, reading the founders own writings, was it ever intended to suggest that you could not own military grade 'arms' -- read Tench Coxe again please. 

[Pox Eclipse]

I suggest reading the Militia Act of 1792.  Regulated was used in the way we would use 'make regular' today and thus they specifically called out certain calibers and arms that civilians were to buy before reporting for duty.

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers #29:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

In that context, "regulated" meant under the control of government, so it is disingenous to claim that there was an unambiguous definition of the word "regulated" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

[ScottA]

I do belive that "well regulated" refers to state control however this does not eliminate the second part which is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. These are two seperate statements. I constantly hear this argument that well regulated means to control what kind of arms etc. It doesn't, it means they keep records of available arms and manpower and to maintain some level of training and organization.

Once again for the beginers. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with defence of the nation from all enemies both foriegn and domestic. The reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms and not the state is a check against a possible rouge government. The state would have a hard time ordering the people to attack themselves. Luckily for tyrants everwhere this little law got read in such a way as to conceal it's intended purpose.

[Phssthpok]

I suggest reading the Militia Act of 1792.  Regulated was used in the way we would use 'make regular' today and thus they specifically called out certain calibers and arms that civilians were to buy before reporting for duty.

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers #29:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

In that context, "regulated" meant under the control of government, so it is disingenous to claim that there was an unambiguous definition of the word "regulated" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

Check your premise.

It's obvious that in your mind "that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security" means the government. You state as much in your own words.

To me, and everyone else who understands the real purpose of 2A, it means that "the people" (the Militia) referred to in the Second Amendment to the CONSTITUTION are "that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security".

[Woodsrule]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Thomas Jefferson
Good enough for Jefferson, good enough for me. 

[Bob S.]

I agree  with Woodsrule. The one and only reson this country has lasted over 200 years is that we have the right to bear arms.
This limits what the government can get by with in a big way!!

[OlJarhead]

I suggest reading the Militia Act of 1792.  Regulated was used in the way we would use 'make regular' today and thus they specifically called out certain calibers and arms that civilians were to buy before reporting for duty.

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers #29:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

In that context, "regulated" meant under the control of government, so it is disingenous to claim that there was an unambiguous definition of the word "regulated" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

This is a common tactic because it ignores the end result and the writer.  In the Federalist (I just got in from a long trip so won't look it up now) it is also made clear that you cannot have a professional militia trained by the State etc etc and that the whole concept of a well trained militia is one which cannot be.  Read further and you will discover that your post is only the early part of a discussion which ends which something to the effect of:  so we won't be doing that (in a nutshell).

But also consider that Hamilton wrote much of the Federalist papers and later went on to pretty much state that you were too stupid to vote or govern yourself and shouldn't be part of that at all.  He was in favor of a new King not a republic for the most part.

Jefferson opposed Hamilton and the age old battle began -- Hamilton the Federalist/Democrat and Jefferson the Libertarian/Republican -- more or less.

Read and you will succeed.

Anyway, I posted Tenche Coxe's quote intentionally   Read it again and then learn the history of that amendment because it was no coincidence that I posted THAT quote folks.

The 2nd Amendment was intended specifically to prevent THE GOVERNMENT that was forming IN THIS COUNTRY from ever oppressing the people.  By ensuring the people were ALWAYS armed the founders ensured that no one ever, in the seat of power could oppress the American people.

[peternap]

I agree  with Woodsrule. The one and only reson this country has lasted over 200 years is that we have the right to bear arms.
This limits what the government can get by with in a big way!!

Only if you're willing to use the,!

[Virginia Gent]

I think the problem people have is how to properly interpret the Constitution. According to James Madison in a letter to Henry Lee, the Constitution should only be interpreted, "In the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that not be the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable exercise of its powers"

The most common dictionary of the day when the Constitution was ratified was one by Samuel Johnson, his name was thrown around then, like Webster is today. According to Johnson's Dictionary:
Regulate: To adjust by rule, to direct
So at it's core, Regulate means to make Regular. What does Regular mean though:
Regular: Orderly, agreeable to rule

So OLJarHead had it right in his first post further up towards the top. Besides all of this, look at the 2nd Amendment ... it is the Militia that is to be Well-Regulated, so even if it did mean regulate as we think of it, it only applies to the Militia. The plain-text reading of the Constitution as the words were used at the time of ratification allows for a clear interpretation and its meaning.