This could get entertaining. Think of the toys folks could put together in a workshop.
::chortles:: Imagine having one of these NRA bozos having to give up his SKS for a Brown Bess. Comedy ensues.
Waiting to see if this nullifies the Sullivan Act of 1911 which banned handguns in NYC. I would suppose it does. Of course, almost a hundred years after it was enacted, the law still didn't stop all the criminals in NYC from having handguns, now did it.
Now THIS is what hope looks like. Fascists pigs lost today. The people shall be armed.
Wicked Jesse! I enjoyed the good new-bad news. :o)
Four years ago, canvassing door to door, I encountered a few one-issue voters whose issue was the second amendment. They were motivated to vote Republican because they believed Kerry wanted to send his minions to confiscate their guns.
Those people won't be so motivated this year.
Figures that JW would prefer that a judicial decision nullify the constitutional right to bear arms.
I'm sure that eves dropping by law enforcement can be unfettered on anything not in place in 1776 according to JW's mode of thinking.
Some tiny part of me is happy that I theoretically probably CAN get a piece without a huge hassle in NYC soon.
Then there's the HUGE part of me that is worried that my crazy, argumentative neighbors, the Greek mob, the bikers and bookies at the corner bar near me, and the junkies that pee in my vestibule may all get guns soon. Then again, most of them probably already have em. I AM worried about the next door neighbors--I share a thin passthrough wall with them (metal over what was a door) and they are PARANOID and NUTS.
Damn.
I want a cannon.
That's one of the great things about the Intertubes: it gives trolls yet another venue to demonstrate their comical inability to put words together into something that at least passes for a coherent sentence.
Back OT: Jesse, you forgot to mention that the firearm would also have to be a match lock, wheel lock, snaphance, or flintlock -- no nice, convenient percussion caps available in the late 18th Century.
Come to think of it, I've heard tell that da Vinci feller had some right clever designs for shootin' irons ...
*sigh* I am going to be one of the few who support this, I can tell.
This is the problem when a country is as big and diverse as ours is. In NYC it may be that it seems like only the criminals have guns, and that law-abiding citizens don't need them. I don't know, I've never been to New York.
I live out in Oregon, where thanks to the funneling of funding for the war, a number of counties now no longer have law enforcement at all. The ones that do have been cut so much that it's not unusual to find the police an hour's drive away at 2am. Even our sheriffs are suggesting people arm themselves to defend their homes.
It's still the wild west out here in many ways, and the Constitution covers us too.
Annie C, you have nothing to apologize for, sigh, or worry about. Just enjoy you're constitional right to defend yourself. CHEERS!
All this decision says is that no govt entity can deny a citizen the Constitutional right to own a handgun based solely on their geographical location. Felons still can't have guns. Certified mental cases still can't have guns. I think almost everywhere has a cooling-off period between purchase and pick-up. You still need a permit to carry concealed.
The SCOTUS decision changed nothing except making denial of the right to have a handgun, based solely on zipcode, illegal.
Y'know, Gilly did a piece on this once. Basically, I can totally see everyone having a gun out in the sticks where there IS no law enforcement or they are so far away that you'll be dead by the time they get there.
OTOH in NYC you get assholes (most of whom are not qualified for legal firearms anyway) shooting through/at things/people all the time.
Me, I'd just like to eventually get my paperwork together for the shortest shotgun legally allowable. No handgun that can shoot through walls; just something that will stop the assholes who pee in my vestibule if they ever try to get in on my fire escape.
jen, in the urban environment, it is reasonable, and rational to restrict all manner of firearms. hell, dodge city, abeline, tucson, tombstone, and a host of "wild west" towns had ordinances against the open carrying of firearms within city limits. in many ways these town laws were exactly like the d.c. statutes. upon entering the town, you took off your guns and gave them to the local law enforcement who would return them to you when you left. it worked well and reduced the shootings over trivialities like the guy in the next room snoring (john wesley hardin), too many aces in the deck (doc holliday), deputies being shot by mistake (hickock), while not restricting anybody's god given right to dry gulch some bastard outside of town limits.
as far as your own home defense. do what makes you feel safe within the law, but there is a whole, big, huge, monsterous, difference between owning and using a gun. statisticly, even if you're very familiar with guns and their using, you're far more likely to hurt yourself or somebody you don't want to hurt than you are to successfully defend yourself or your property. it takes a whole different nerve set to actually shoot another human being. that's why military training is so long and involved. it takes a lot of time and practice, and all of that is no garauntee of performance when the chips are down and the autonomic nervous system is in full rage.
black powder, muzzle loaders, flintlock, but long barrel with a 7.2 twist. i can hit stuff at 300 yards consistently with that.
Jesse what the hell are you even trying to say here? If you really think the SC meant black powder weapons from 1776 were okay, you hit your head too hard before blogging today.
Anonymous --
We like people to pick a name and keep it please. That way we know who is who and can establish a dialog.
If you read what I said, I said, "I need to read further."
I've been pretty busy today and haven't read the whole decision yet. Some of what I've read -- for example, that this only applies so far in DC -- I haven't posted on.
When I'm done and have time, I will. I have a number of posts backed up. Other stuff takes priority.
Pick a name please and use it.
I think the SCotUS is right on the Constitution here. The assertion that the 2nd Amendment specified a collective rather than individual right has always struck me as utterly specious, because it would make the 2nd Amendment philosophically alien from the rest of the Bill of Rights. The rest of the Bill of Rights specify either individual rights or, in the case of the 10th Amendment, rights that are both individual and collective.
On a textual level, the leading clause (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,) is quite clearly dependent, i.e. it can be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence. It's function is to provide a justification for the rest of the sentence, not to modify its essential meaning.
Uh, Minstrel me lad, you're referring to the Kellerman Study, the one that tried to show statistically what you said about more likely to hurt yourself and so on. It was shown to be fatally flawed almost as soon as it was published. Just google the phrase and check out the first few articles to pop up.
yeh, "shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me...i don't really give a shit about firearms, but, disgust at Scalia & everything he does aside, this ruling seems fine, & Constitution-affirming...
it takes a whole different nerve set to actually shoot another human being. that's why military training is so long and involved. it takes a lot of time and practice, and all of that is no garauntee of performance when the chips are down and the autonomic nervous system is in full rage.
Steve T. --
When Minstrel Boy says the above, I'm pretty damn certain he is referring not to a study -- or at least, not only to a study -- but to actual experience training FNGs in combat.
*smiles sweetly*
I don't mean to be a pedant, (actually I do) but rifles were more common as hunting weapons than military weapons in 1983.
The Minnie ball had not yet been invented, so the slow rate of fire of rifles meant that they had limited utility on the battlefield.
Minstrel,
I'm sure you're right, and I'm sure I'd be scared shitless if I ever had to fire the thing. If I ever did get me a shortie I'd make sure I learned how to use it properly.
What really has me spooked is the number of probable ILLEGAL handguns on my block. Crooked cop/biker/bookie bar on my corner? Check. Greek Mafia gambling den next door (yes, confirmed) full of old guys who can't probably shoot straight? Check. Nice but very old, crippled, and jumpy ex-construction business guy in my building? Check. I'm scared shitless that I'll surprise him or spook him by mistake coming home one night and he'll cap me in the hallway.
At least my Landlord doesn't pack; he's stupid and irate enough where he would have plugged someone a long time ago if he did have a gun.
Le sigh.
Anabasis; kin I have a flamethrower?
:o)
Those things are death on the Whitetail deer down here in Cackalack, and if you don't hold the trigger down too long, you kin save the trouble of cookin' 'em up. :o)
That's a good point about the Sullivan, Ensley.
Will NYC's finest be pleased about the prospect of more OK Corral action?
Because, as Jen points out, that is certainly going to be one of the results of this.
tanbark,
the same statements were made when Virginia went to open carry.
Other than the goofball at VT, heard anything of note?
So much for wild west shoot-em-ups in the common wealth.
gator-devils-advocate- saying
I live in Japan where the citizens do not have a right to own or purchase guns. and it is MUCH safer here. I live in a city 2x or more the size of NYC and almost no one gets shot ever. seriously.
so how is more and more guns a good thing. Why do my fellow Americans feel the need to be all geared up. Maybe I am missing something.
jen, if the idea of having an accessible shortie (and that is really the best choice you could make) will help you to feel safer, by all means, get it, take some fairly easy training. to handle somebody nosing around the fire escape, it would be damned near a perfect choice. often the mere sound of the slide pumping the round into place is all an intruder needs to start wanting to explore less dangerous locations.
remember this phrase:
if you run now, i won't chase you.
it comes in handy. it also comes in handy to have a 911 call open when you're in the position of having to defend yourself.
Ha! Now I can follow through on that black market deal for the Barrett's .50 cal "special" my buddy in Afghani..-uhh , in overthereworld -has been holding for me. Grab up some of that Dragon Skin piercing ammo and lay waste to all those that challenge my right to do whatever the fuck I want to do!
I can't get too PO'ed about the Supreme Court's decision on this one.
What it seems to do is strike down the confiscatory gun laws now extant in DC. It might do the same to the Sullivan Law in NYC.
What it does not and cannot, do, is erase the collateral damage that open carry will exert upon the person carrying.
Let me put it to you this way. Laws aside, would you prefer to openly carry a handgun? I think not.
The excerpt I read here also carefully avoids overturning prohibition on the basis of felony record and mental illness. It does not touch current prohibitions against carry in "sensitive locations".
Breathe, people.
The earth is not going to stop turning on it's axis because of this. More directly relevant to the issue under dicussion, the part of meatspace you occupy is not at all likely to be turned into a shooting gallery by this.
and jesse, you're absolutely right, i was thinking more from experience, but also, more personal. i had lots of cherries freeze, had to send a couple of them to the rear because they simply, even after extensive training, couldn't perform. but, i was also thinking about the many times where i choked, fumbled, and otherwise fucked up. adreniline is some weird ass shit. i was a big fan of multiple weapons because i managed to foul up just about every reloading system i handled, more than once. it was quicker, easier and safer to simply grab something else.
littlest gator, i can't speak for some nut that wants a heavy machine-gun to hunt deer, but to me, it's in the Bill of Rights, which give America meaning...being an American means you have the freedom to own a gun, just like it's supposed to mean you have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom from unlawful searches, etc...if i'm going to stick up for any of these rights & freedoms (& they all need it badly these days), i've got to stick up for all of them then, even if guns aren't really my thing...
"..often the mere sound of the slide pumping the round into place is all an intruder needs to start wanting to explore less dangerous locations."
Yes.
When this happened to me, I never said a word. I let the slide of the weapon, chambering a fresh round, speak on my behalf.
It was very eloquent, and nothing more had to be said.
"When this happened to me, I never said a word. I let the slide of the weapon, chambering a fresh round, speak on my behalf."
In fact, just yell "I have an uzi"....that works also!
(Of course I was just wishing I actually had one 
I think the SCotUS is right on the Constitution here. The assertion that the 2nd Amendment specified a collective rather than individual right has always struck me as utterly specious, because it would make the 2nd Amendment philosophically alien from the rest of the Bill of Rights. The rest of the Bill of Rights specify either individual rights or, in the case of the 10th Amendment, rights that are both individual and collective.
Then why did the Framers choose the phrase "the people" as opposed to "persons"?
On a textual level, the leading clause (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,) is quite clearly dependent, i.e. it can be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence. It's function is to provide a justification for the rest of the sentence, not to modify its essential meaning.
I disagree.
Garry Wills had an interesting, and I would maintain, persuasive essay on the issue, that appeared in the New York Review of Books. Read it, and you'll see what an intellectually dishonest cretin Scalia is:
http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html
Well! All I can say is, thank goodness for tyrannical activist judges in black robes.
"In fact, just yell 'I have an uzi'....that works also!"
Let loose with a manic cackle, then rev up a chainsaw from inside your bedroom. Who's gonna mess with that? No one, that's who.
So now it's legal for everyone in DC to own a gun. Escept for felons. And insane people.
My question is, who's left?
JW: Minstrel Boy has clarified, and I bow to his greater experience, his story being very interesting as well. He did use the word "statistically," however, which all too often has been used to invoke the bogus figures of that study, whether or not Minstrel Boy meant to.
I agree absolutely that statistical data is a valid basis for public policy, but it has to be honest and valid data. The Kellerman Study is neither. Yet sloppy news media love to quote its quip about a gun in the home being "43 times more likely" to kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder. Note: "Acquaintance" includes everyone you've ever met, including the rival drug dealer who's trying to kill you, his competition. Common sense does not put such a person in the same category as your grandmother, though that study does.
I generally agree with the Court's decision, including with the fact that gun ownership by specified persons (felons, insane) and in specified places and situations (schools, bars, political rallies) certainly CAN be regulated. Let's just use the BEST data available when setting the policies.
*smiles even more sweetly*
We're entitled to have guns.
Period.
The criminals are the cops problem, unless they come at me in my house. Or if I'm carrying permit concealed, and the criminals come at me.
Poor criminals.
Don't blame right to own for criminal misdeeds.
Not having weapons is becoming glaringly clear as being a losing survival technique.
People kill people, still. This shit should be a non-issue, other than I'm sure the govt. is afraid of an armed citizenry . . . and I'm not even an isolationist mountaineer who thinks taxes are illegal!!
Owning firearms, constitution.
Simple. Don't fuck it up.
kinda OT: I don't know why, but somehow it feels like old times on this thread.
thank you Jesse & all...
It's a hard form of population control.
DJ:
Then why did the Framers choose the phrase "the people" as opposed to "persons"?
The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution use 'the people' to mean all individuals subject to the laws of the US as individuals. It uses 'persons' to define a particular subset of individuals. For instance, the 4th Amendment provides examples of both usages:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
yeah, there's a mean sort of justice coming down lately.
i wasn't referring to kellerman at all, but rather the DOJ National Crime Victimization Studies. (1993).
Also, DJ, Willis' argument is 100% about the intent of specific selected framers. It's the same sort of cherry-picking of evidence that he vehemently accuses his opponents of. Also, since a collective right to bear arms was a nullity even then, it begs the question of why the Senate kept it in the final document.
I question why they chose right now to decide this case...
or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
or say.... federal property that Congress has authority over as Article One says:
Congress has the exclusive right to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" for the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.
In my state you can't carry in a bar, though they did try to change that in recent years. When I go to my doctor's office or to one off-campus bookstore, there's a sign saying no firearms allowed inside. DC is federal property, not a state. And if you choose to live there, you don't lose your right, you just have to keep and bare it elsewhere. What's the problem? Its federal property under the authority of Congress..... and scotus is overstepping it's juristiction here. Which may be what their point really is. Will Congress assert its exclusive authority? "I double dog dare ya" is what scotus is saying to Congress?
I don't like the energy of guns.... there's something deadly and cold about holding one. I don't care for it.
It's hard for me to believe that no one here has pointed out that this is bad law. The Supreme Court has basically said you have a Constitutional right to some "arms" but not others and that there is a bright shining line between them.
I am for semi-automatic arms to be legal all across the land, but do I believe that the Second Amendment spells that out? It doesn't. Not at all. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The government has obviously taken upon itself to rescind my right to carry around an Uzi. But it says I can keep and bear a glock? And there is a constitutional principle separating the two? I'm sorry but this is a legislative decision and restrictions have been around since the founding of the Republic. Next we will see how this court can find that the "bear" part of the second amendment means you can only do it when the government tell you to. Think that the conservative court will let everyone carry around guns? I don't think so. The goal is to let your people have guns and your opposition to have none.
From a political perspective this hurts the Republicans though, and hurts the NRA as a lobbying organization even more. They just lost by winning. They can bring forward more cases of rescinding local ordinances, but as an organization they just lost an issue that they used to get votes from people that wouldn't ordinarily vote for Republicans.
The NRA is a Republican organization. If they weren't they would've been out there campaigning for Howard Dean in 2004 with his A+ rating. In fact the state with the loosest gun laws in the country still is Vermont. They actually believe in both keeping and bearing arms there without a permit. But I digress.
See ya NRA. Middle class and poor one issue gun owners have another reason not to vote for Republicans now.
Minstrel,
Thanks, yeah, I already CAN get one in NY actually; just may have to travel to find it. And yes I sure as shit would get some training. All I need is something to stop someone in ONE SHOT if they are getting too damn close to me in my own apartment. As mentioned, this is a real posibillity.
And I LOVE the "if you run now, I won't chase you" line. 
"I don't like the energy of guns.... there's something deadly and cold about holding one."
[rolls eyes]
Nobody's asking you to.
But I'm not going to agree to live with your phobia.
I have enough to worry about commuting to work every day. Where my chances of getting painfully and messily killed are several times greater than the odds I'll die by gunshot. Even a self-administered one, which is how most firearm fatalities happen in the United States.
wengler: having now read the decision, I agree that it's a sodden mess. They got the the individual right part correct, and then tacked on a constitutional lawyers' full employment act.
persoanly I a ma big fan of black powder, have a few currently in storage (don't liek haveing any guns around with young kids..) use to go hunting with them(a lot more sport...you get one shot, you better eb damm good).
my guess, starign down the barrles of a .557 blackpowder 4 barrel pistol will stop most home invasions.
Maybe I've missed it. I am curious to hear what Obama has to say about the ruling since he is a constitutional lawyer.
Do the residents of DC (specifically) have a right to arm themselves under the 2nd Amendment? And if they don't have the same 2nd Amendment Consitutional rights as the rest of us, then what Constitutional rights do they have at all based on the same argument? That sounds as bad as Gitmo. You either have all the same rights as other Americans, or you have none.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems if the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover them because of DC's special status, then none of the other amendments or articles of the Constitution would cover them either.
I have to admit I'm kind of amused by some elements of the decision - especially Scalia's seemingly unconcernedness that this will very likely lead to more of the "deaths of Americans" that his undies were all bunched over in Boumedienne.
I'm not sure yet how this will impact the laws in MA, but I suspect it will make it somewhat easier to qualify for a handgun license - we'll see.
But I'm not going to agree to live with your phobia.
Stormcrow - Honestly. Leap much? Phobia? 
My thought is hardly as you characterize it. Because I say what is right FOR ME just does not translate into even asking anyone else to "agree" with it let alone saying people shouldn't have guns if they choose to.
I've had guns. I've shot guns. I've sat in the most protected area of my home, the kitchen floor, with a 357Magnum at the ready to shoot whoever decided to come through my front door while automatic weapons fire was taking place outside in some drug deal conflict. I've had a gun pointed in my face. I made the concious decision that having a gun in my home just isn't worth the energy it brings with it. My house, my life, my choice. And I can choose differently any time I want to. This is a statement, not a judgement of anyone elses' choices. Get over yourself.
Going back the the last lines of the original post...
This is from page 11 of the decision:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Later,
Cicero --
That's why I put up a GLOCK in the photo. My throwaway lines were a joke.
OBVIOUSLY the Second Amendment -- like all constitutional rights -- applies to the world as it is found NOW.
This is clear from how the Court has ruled on email (Reno v. ACLU) -- which the Court mentions in its majority. This is only the more recent of many such extensions. Bush v. Gore extended the Fourteen Amendment (yes, in a very fucked up way) to modern electronic voting sytems and said, "NO. These are inadequate and produce an equal protection violation. THUS we order the State of Florida to stop counting the votes [while our Dude, George W. is still ahead by 527 ballots. The King is dead. Long live the King.])
I've been following Heller (this case) since it went to the D.C. Circuit. I knew Heller was a D.C. special policeman and he was asking about his personal weapon, a handgun. They didn't have handguns at the time of the ratification of the Second. Therefore, if Heller won, obviously what was being approved was weapons as they are today.
One of you mostly got it fairly early yesterday, but it took about 27 hours for someone to get the actual language of the decision up. *laughs*
Well done.
all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
And to add to what Cicero said, the First Amendment, which covers freedom of the 'press,' has been automatically extended to include radio, TV and the Internet, all of which weren't in existence in the 18th century either.
No handguns? What would you consider a flintlock pistol if other than a handgun?
Sure, okay.
You're right. They had single-shot flint lock pistols back then. No prob.
"The good news is, weapons for everyone.
Bad news is, black powder single shot smooth bore."
And 20 to 30 second reload times.
Also, DJ, Willis'(sic) argument is 100% about the intent of specific selected framers. It's the same sort of cherry-picking of evidence that he vehemently accuses his opponents of.
1) Point out the cherry-picking, if you would.
2) Selected framers such as Madison. You know, the guy who wrote the amendment in the first place.
Also, since a collective right to bear arms was a nullity even then, it begs the question of why the Senate kept it in the final document.
To quote Wills:
"Why, then, did Madison propose the Second Amendment? For the same reason that he proposed the Third, against quartering troops on the civilian population. That was a remnant of old royal attempts to create a standing army by requisition of civilian facilities. It had no real meaning in a government that is authorized to build barracks, forts, and camps. But it was part of the anti-royal rhetoric of freedom that had shown up, like the militia language, in state requests for amendments to the Constitution.
Madison knew that the best way to win acceptance of the new government was to accommodate its critics on the matter of a bill of rights. He had opposed that during the ratification debates, recognizing that people like Robert Whitehill and Patrick Henry were using the demand to kill the document, not to improve it. His assessment was confirmed when Antifederalists like Henry and Whitehill changed their stance and opposed the amendments when Madison offered them. Henry thought that the amendments would "tend to injure rather than serve the cause of liberty" by lulling the suspicions of those who had demanded amendments in the first place. . . The Antifederalist strategy, it seems, was to reject the most popular of the amendments, thus making it necessary for Congress to take up the whole matter again.
Henry feared that Madison was doing in the Antifederalists with sweet talk, and he was right. Madison confided to a friend: "It will kill the opposition everywhere." Sweet-talking the militia was a small price to pay for such a coup— and it had as much impact on real life as the anti-quartering provisions that arose from the same motive. Thus he crafted an amendment that did not prevent the standing army (and was not meant to) but drew on popular terms that were used for that purpose in the past. His sentence structure set as totally military a context for this amendment as for the Third. Every term in the Second Amendment, taken singly, has as its first and most obvious meaning a military meaning. Taken together, each strengthens the significance of all the others as part of a military rhetoric."
But will the Party of the NRA allow Republican't National Convention delegates to pack heat on the floor of the convention hall? I bet not.
Commenting by HaloScan
