From: cosmicbob	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Can I buy a tank then? Cool! I can drive it to work and all those fuckers on the road will have to get out of my way.

Though I imagine the mileage sucks.

	From: archaica	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I only read the Times article, but it doesn't seem too radical.

	From: baltassoc	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:41 pm (UTC)		(Link)

But perhaps only with single-shot muskets and handguns:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769)...." p. 55.

It's a very weird paragraph for the majority. It seems to be stuck in there (along with the next one) without bothering to consider whether the modern guns at issue are equivalent to those "in common use at the time." Perhaps to the majority it goes without saying that they are. But the distructive force of a semi-automatic handgun to, say, a crowd, is rather different from a flintlock.

	From: texaslawchick	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'm only on page five, but I'm loving the little footnote war he's having with Stephens.

	From: cosmicbob	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

And you would think that they would have been more specific. But there's nothing the SCOTUS seems to like more then being obscure. Maybe they want to make sure they have jobs and if they were too specific then everything would be settled!

	From: texaslawchick	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:59 pm (UTC)		(Link)

It's the first 2nd amendment case in decades.

	From: texaslawchick	Date: June 26th, 2008 03:58 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I dunno, it seems broader than that:

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.

	From: cosmicbob	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

This is far more clear, but still kind of vague.

I note that they use the word "bearable", so I guess that excludes my tank. But I wonder if they would agree that a suitcase nuke is a "bearable" weapon?

Then suppose there is some kind of law saying I can't possess fissionable materials (there probably is). Does that violate the 2nd Amendment? What about a law saying I can't possess gunpowder? Bullets have gunpowder in them, so then I can't possess bullets, hence rendering guns useless. Would such a law violate the 2nd Amendment?

If they don't give enough specifics, than me or anyone else can extrapolate to any ludicrous conclusion we wish to. It would still fall within the opinion of the court.

	From: texaslawchick	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:23 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Have you read the opinion? I'm only at page 18, so I don't know what ultimately it says.

Edited at 2008-06-26 04:24 pm (UTC)

	From: cosmicbob	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Certainly not! I am going by y'all's excerpts! So, when you get to the end, I am counting on your opinion to inform me. Much more so than any ridiculous news site would.

	From: cosmicbob	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:33 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I mean "inform me" as to whether it is good or bad. I can get more or less factual stuff from news sites. But actual opinion, while on them, I don't put much stock in.

	From: datawhorevoyeur	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

Except if we're Scalia, and think original intent is the end all, be all of the Constitution, and we interpret things this way all the time.

*snerk*

	From: texaslawchick	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:48 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah, I wonder how firmly his tounge was in his cheek when his clerk wrote that.

	From: datawhorevoyeur	Date: June 26th, 2008 04:54 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I was thinking more in terms of his head up his ass, but yeah. :-D

	From: jungleeyedgirl	Date: June 26th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)		(Link)

and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

unless you're talking to Congress, which doesn't seem to think privacy in electronic communications exists? *sigh* (I'm very bitter with Congress this week.)

	From: jasheffe	Date: June 26th, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

I'm torn on this. I'm all for the right to bear arms and agree that you should be allowed to keep a weapon in your home and if it's loaded and goes off, we have other laws that govern how that gets handled.

My question is, does this decision open up for felons and such to argue that they have the right to own a gun? Felons gets tripped of certain rights because they are considered privileges. The right to vote is a privilege as is the right to own a gun. However, according to this decision, it's not a privilege, it's a constitutional right of every citizen.

	From: texaslawchick	Date: June 26th, 2008 08:33 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Voting isn't a privilege. It's a right. Rights aren't absolute.

You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. You don't have the right to sacrifice babies in the name of your religion. Rights can be curtailed, though there needs to be a compelling state interest to do so. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who have a propensity to misuse them could be a compelling state interest.

	From: jasheffe	Date: June 26th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'd agree with that.