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.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
Now taking a look at what a militia is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Militia
| 1. | a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. |
| 2. | a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. |
| 3. | all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. |
| 4. | a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. |
Now can someone say that means where anyone can get a gun? I can't. Now as I've said I know they will never ban guns here but if you look it up that doesn't mean everyone should have guns.
3 comments:
I disagree with your notion that we know how they will rule. No living Supreme Court justice has issued an opinion on the Second Amendment; in fact, it's about 70 years since the last time the Supremes ruled on the issue, in U.S. v. Miller. One of the things that make this case so interesting to me is that there really is no way to predict how this will come out.
Will the conservative judges take the strict constructionist view of the amendment? If so, they'd have to uphold the ban: as you point out the wording specifies a "militia." That would seem to me to mean that collective ownership can not be prohibited, but that individuals do not receive a right to own guns.
Or, will they take the view that gun ownership is an individual right, and strike down the ban? If the latter, then they'll be doing what they criticized the Warren Court for doing: creating new rights the Framers of the Constitution did not clearly specify.
How the vote breaks down, and who writes the majority and dissenting opinions, could get very interesting.
The court being tilted toward the gun nuts will rule that the ban will be overturned. I promise you that. I hope I'm wrong. I figure Thomas, Alieto (not a typo) Roberts, Scalia and probably Kennedy (I could be wrong on that) will write the majority.
I think you may be wrong on this. Even with reactionary activist justices, it takes a lot to overcome the doctrine of "stare decisis," the legal principal that it requires an exceptional reason to overturn what has already been decided. And what was decided in 1939 in the Miller decision was that gun ownership was a collective right under the Second Amendment, not an individual right.
That 1939 court was MUCH more conservative than this one, by every objective standard. But, the Roberts Court does have some reactionary activists who wouldn't mind rewriting the Constitution, including the Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Roberts may have found three other justices to agree to hear the case (it takes four), but after the arguments, when the discussions and vote come, I don't think he'll have a majority for making gun ownership an individual right; and that if he somehow does, they're not going to entirely throw out the Miller decision.
Another thing to keep in mind is how the decision to take the case was announced. Usually, that happens right after the conference where the Justices vote on which cases they'll hear. This time, though, a week passed between the vote and when the Court announced it was taking the case. This rare, and when it happens is often interpreted as there being some disagreements as to what specific issues in the case they would look at. So I see this as Chief Justice Roberts having support to hear the case, but his coalition is already fraying before the first argument is heard.
I think three outcomes are equally possible:
1) A slight majority (6-3) with the surprising coalition of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, and Ginsburg in that majority, upholds or even strengthens the Miller precedent.
2) A majority of the Court votes to uphold the District of Columbia, but there aren't five signatures on the "majority opinion," and you have a whole lot of opinions that "concur in part and dissent in part." This leaves things in limbo, and the Court looks for another case to clarify the issue.
3) The majority weakens Miller, and strikes down all or part of the DC ban on somewhat narrow grounds, but does not create an individual right of gun ownership.
And as always, if any Justice dies or retires before this is decided, all bets are off.
Of course, we both could be way off on our predictions, and something else entirely could happen. The one consistent thing about every Supreme Court lineup since 1789 is that they are capable of surprising you.
The one thing I AM certain of: no matter which side the Court falls on, there will immediately begin a serious and well-funded effort to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the opinion.
Post a Comment