What you think of the Supreme Court's decision this week on the Second Amendment largely depends on where you live.
In D.C., or Chicago - both of which have draconian gun-ownership laws - the opinion penned by Justice Antonin Scalia will seem to some like an assault on local rule, not to mention the grammar of the Constitution.
Here in Virginia, the decision seems to jibe neatly with local values, as when Scalia clarifies the Second Amendment this way: "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In other words, according to the court's conservative majority, the right to small arms belongs to individuals, not to organizations or militias. Rewriting the Constitution to buttress an opinion is an interesting legal exercise for a constitutional purist like Scalia, but the conclusion he reaches is in the mainstream of American attitudes about the right to self-protection in the home.
It goes at least moderately astray in its disrespect for local rule, and it is here where the issue of gun ownership will be fought for decades to come. The court concluded that D.C.'s law - which essentially banned the private ownership of handguns - was too strict.
The D.C. law failed what will soon become a test for reasonableness, a standard that will invite lawsuits across the country, as state and local statutes come under fire from gun-rights activists.
Which brings us back to geography. If the decision is within the bounds of conventional thought, it is perhaps too timid to comport with popular opinion in places where guns are embedded in the culture.
Scalia's decision, quite explicitly, warns gun activists that the Wild West hasn't been reopened. The Second Amendment, he wrote, "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," a position sure to frustrate some activist groups.
He leaves open the door to limits on concealed weapons and the right of felons and the mentally ill to own guns. He says that guns may be banned from "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and allows for "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Can Virginia Tech ban guns on campus? Can Norfolk keep guns from City Hall, or from Harborfest? Can Richmond finally close the loophole that allows people at gun shows to buy weapons without the restrictions they'd face at a shop?
The answer to at least some of these questions, in light of Scalia's opinion, appears to be yes, or at least maybe, so long as such restrictions meet a standard for reasonableness, and don't interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their home.
If Scalia, in his most important opinion, has limited the ability of gun-averse communities to trim Second Amendment freedoms, his decision also provides a Constitutional avenue for new restrictions in places like Virginia, which in recent years has been too permissive in allowing guns in certain public settings.
That ambivalence, in the end, makes Scalia's opinion one that will likely please no one, a fact that argues both for its acumen and wisdom.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
the opposite
The opposite of gun contol is not gun-hater.
Further gun restrictions? Take a deep breath and calm down.
The recent Supreme Court ruling affirming that gun ownership is an individual Right will further restrict access to guns just as much as Roe v Wade restricted access to abortions. Ain't gonna happen. Wishful thinking on the part of the losing gun-haters.
I may be thanking Scalia
"Scalia's decision, quite explicitly, warns gun activists that the Wild West hasn't been reopened. The Second Amendment, he wrote, "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," a position sure to frustrate some activist groups. He leaves open the door to limits on concealed weapons and the right of felons and the mentally ill to own guns. He says that guns may be banned from "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and allows for "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Before it's over I may very well be thanking Scalia. I see changes coming about for greater restriction on gun ownership. All of this has made the gun advicates very nervious about how the future laws will govern the right to own a gun to protect their home. You can read the fear in their comments.
MTMSR
I second that one! If the pizza joint worker was not an armed citizen the detectives would probably be investigating his death rather than the criminal's death.
Good guys - 1
Bad guys - 0
I doubt they (the criminals) read these posts but if they do maybe they will learn a lesson. If you need money, get a job.
Robber shot and killed
Posted here on Pilot Online at 10:47 p.m.: "A man trying to rob a pizza shop was shot and killed Saturday night, possibly by a restaurant employee, Virginia Beach police said.
The shooting happened about 10:08 p.m. at a restaurant in the 4200 block of Holland Road.
Detectives are investigating. Further information was not immediately available."
Hmmm...I wonder if the recent ruling concerning the 2nd Amendment had gone the other way if the robber would have been the one shooting unarmed innocents just trying to make a living.....score one for the good guys!
Thousands of unarmed victims wish they were armed each year
Being prepared is the right idea. As the English poet Francis Quarles wrote: "Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger." There are pusillanimous people out there who seethe at the prospect that ordinary people have the right to protect themselves. I'm sure the police always will be there promptly to help them should they ever need it.
be prepared
Georges, do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Wear a seat belt? Wear a helmet when you ride a bike? If you do any of the above do you live in fear or just believe it prudent to be prepared?
George, it you who are living in fear
I do carry my handgun going to the grocery store, and pretty much everyplace else I go. I do it for the same reason I carry a fire extinguisher in my boat, it is a reasonable precaution against a very unlikely event which would have grave consequences were I not prepared. I am no more afraid of being attacked at the grocery store than I am of my boat catching fire, but I am prepared for both. It is the responsible thing to do.
You read the decision, not just editorials about it. The burden is now on those who wish to restrict exercising our right to bear arms to prove they have good cause, it is not on people like me who wish to peacefully exercise our rights to prove we can do so without risk. Your being uncomfortable with me being armed is not going to be sufficient reason for a ban any longer. Neither will VA Tech's ivory tower notions be cause to disarm students and faculty unless they can show that there are
Therein lies the problem
"Can Virginia Tech ban guns on campus? Can Norfolk keep guns from City Hall, or from Harborfest? Can Richmond finally close the loophole that allows people at gun shows to buy weapons without the restrictions they'd face at a shop? The answer to at least some of these questions, in light of Scalia's opinion, appears to be yes, or at least maybe, so long as such restrictions meet a standard for reasonableness, and don't interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their home."
Gun advocates don't want a gun just to protect their home, they want to take them to the grocery store with them.
Living in fear must be a horrible thing!
Owning and driving a vehicle are NOT a Right
It's not legitimate to equate a Right in the Bill of Rights to driving a motor vehicle. You don't have a Right to drive. That is a hugely important legal distiction that gun-haters routinely use to try to further restrict the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's always couched in terms of safety--as if somehow requiring a license to drive will keep people from getting in a car and killing somebody while driving drunk or fleeing the police, or licensing cars and drivers will somehow keep cars from being stolen or misused. The notion that such restrictions are "reasonable" is like saying poll taxes and literacy tests imposed by States were reasonable when applied to the people's right to vote. There's nothing reasonable about denying people the Right to protect themselves and their families by imposing onerous licensing, registration and similar restrictions. It's been shown time and again (the UK and Australia are two recent examples) that licensing and registration of guns and gun owners leads to one thing and one thing only: the Government confiscates the guns of all the law-abiding citizens. That won't happen in America.
Gun Laws
OMG!!! Law abiding citizens can own a gun. Wow! What next Law abiding citizens being able to speak freely?
I just don't understand how Americans can have such Socialistic thoughts, like I need the Government to think for me and I don't want to do any thing and someone else should work and I will sit at home and watch tv. I don't care, just don't care, I realy don't care.
How can any body think like that? i did not join the military to fight for this way of life. i don't want to think this how america is becoming but looking at the news and reading this paper that is all i see and i feel my efforts are all for not!!!!!!!
freedom freedom freedom freedom not let the government think for me so i can be a sheepoeple!!!!!
A Reasonable Decision
The court's decision allows state and local governments to adopt appropriate law and regulation governing the possession and use of firearms. We have law and regulation governing the ownership and use of motor vehicles. I believe the state should adopt law and regulation in a similar fashion to address the ownership and use of firearms. Such would not infringe upon one's right to bear arms. It would assure that those of us who wish to exersize that right are qualified to do so in a safe and lawful manner.
Gun-haters and crime-loving liberals despise this decision
Some most upset by the confirmation that the Second Amendment is an individual Right are those who have enjoyed watching "average" people be repressed by and become victims of crime. People like Mayor Daley in Chicago, who's been protected by a cadre of armed body guards since he was a twinkle in his father's eye, cruelly still doesn't want the poor, helpless people in his city to be able to exercise their G*d-given right to defend themselves if attacked. Wealthy people and those protected by privilege long have been able to afford to live in safer neighborhoods, hire armed body guards (like the avowed gun-hater Rosie O'Donnell, for example) and secure gun-carry permits in New York City and Chicago where the typical store owner or citizen is out of luck because they're not "important" enough. This ruling will open up gun access in many areas and over time it will REDUCE crime. That will force the people who've never met a criminal they didn't like to do what the majority of America has wanted for a long time: prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law and give them the maximum sentences possible. This decision wasn't a rewrite of the Bill of Rights, it was confirmat
Court Affirms What We Already Knew
For those who view the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment as being misguided, there remains but one remedy: a constitutional amendment that repeals the Second Amendment. The recent Court ruling was based on very thorough and detailed study of the history behind the Second Amendment, to include research on the usage of the English language as was prevalent during the late 1700's in America. The Supreme Court has merely affirmed what many informed citizens have known for over 200 years - that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Don't like it? Too bad. Your recourse is to change the Constitution. Good luck with that... it didn't work so well with Prohibition, either.
Yes, of course, the Constitution!
As someone has already said on this website this week (about free speech and profanity), the Constitution was never meant to be convenient, neat, tidy, or to only address the easy cases.
It really is all about the Constitution. I haven't already read the opinion in its entirety, but I am told it is good reading, so I will do it, as should we all. I know the Supremes bent over backwards to try to capture the framers' original intent in its original context, as there was such a split as to whether this was an individual right or a corporate right to bear arms.
A friend of ours in N. Virginia who has spent many years in government service of many types writes a daily column (www.vicsocotra.com) and featured this yesterday. His ideas seemed pretty good (and he linked into the text of the opinion). Cheers, MGM
Reasonable?
In “Gun rule invites ‘reasonable’ debate,” 6/28/08, the Pilot drips with enthusiasm for restricting now-well-established, individual, Second Amendment rights. The editors should remember that standards for restricting one right can be used to restrict other rights such as those found in the First Amendment. What is found to be reasonable for one will be reasonable for another. All that Heller found is that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right established before enactment of the Bill of Rights and that the DC gun law is unconstitutional. The editors should be asking themselves about what “reasonable” restrictions they are willing to accept for “freedom of the press” before campaigning for “reasonable” restrictions on firearms ownership and carry.
What part of "Right" is unclear?
Perhaps the most important reminder in Scalia's opinion was "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
Our Constitution sets limits on what GOVERNMENT may and may not do. Scalia correctly holds the right to self defense predates the Constitution, our founding document does not create the right, it forbids government from denying it.
He should have stopped there, but it is likely that it was necessary to fudge the meaning of "shall not be infringed" to woo the ever fickle Kennedy into joining with the individual right interpretation.
But form this point, the starting position is that citizens who are not criminals or insane have the right to bear arms except in certain sensitive places, and the burden will be on those who wish to limit the right to prove need.