District of Columbia v. Heller: A Second Amendment Case

[adciv]

First,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Second, I didn't see a way to remove a justice in Article 3.

[adciv]

And it's back to the courts.
Choice quotes

"Under the D.C. [law], a robber has to make an appointment with you so you can get your gun ready for him," Halbrook said in an interview.

In the District's view, Nickles said, the ruling gives people the right to use firearms in self-defense -- but not the right to keep firearms loaded and ready for use in case the need for self-defense arises. As a result, he said, it is reasonable for the city to require that handguns be kept unloaded and disabled when the owner is not under a direct threat.

Nickles also said the Supreme Court decision allows the government to ban firearms that it considers unreasonably dangerous, and the District includes semiautomatic pistols in that category.

[StruckingFuggle]

Nickles also said the Supreme Court decision allows the government to ban firearms that it considers unreasonably dangerous

Well on that part, he's absolutely right, and that's been the case for a long time.

[Martin Blank]

But they voted to flat out defy the Constitution.... That would be an offense worthy of removal...

I'm curious whether you read their dissents at all, or simply decided that they were wrong and left it at that.

In any case, this thread is about the Heller decision and the follow-up cases to it, not whether the justices should be removed.

DC Councilmember Phil Mendelson seems to be leaving the door open a crack to modifying things. If that's the situation, then Heller's move may be capable of moving things in the direction of compliance without going all the way through with the lawsuit.

Personally, I find the possibility of a new law that complies with the decision an intriguing experiment. If DC's crime were cut significantly, for example, it would suggest that, absent other factors, guns can be a deterrent. If the crime rate stays the same, then it suggests that they may not be a deterrent, but they may also not cause an increase. If crime goes up, there may be some things that all sides need to examine.

[collegestudent22]

Fun little fact. If Montana Seceded, they would be the 4th largest Nuclear power in the world.

Only if they succeded in somehow taking over the nuclear missles from the US military..... which is not likely to happen. Even the Confederates couldn't take the military over. (The entire war started at Fort Sumter, where the US military refused to surrender its installation to Confederate troops.)

But they voted to flat out defy the Constitution.... That would be an offense worthy of removal...

I'm curious whether you read their dissents at all, or simply decided that they were wrong and left it at that.

No, I read them. I found it sad that their reasoning caused a full dissent. Ultimately, they were dissenting the Court's decision to strike down the gun ban. Said gun ban goes DIRECTLY against the 2nd Amendment. What I AM saying is that regardless of a difference of opinion on minor issues (such as how far the ability of the government to ban "dangerous" guns goes), the main point of the case was clearly against the 2nd Amendment. So I would expect, AT MOST, a RESPONSIBLE justice to point out his difference of opinion by writing another opinion (there can be more than one supporting opinion), NOT by voting against the removal of the ban.

[StruckingFuggle]

Fun little fact. If Montana Seceded, they would be the 4th largest Nuclear power in the world.

Besides, even if they did, I don't think they'd... nah. I can see them being stupid enough to actually be willing to use them despite probably having most of the world, at least several major nuclear powers and armed powers such as the US and Europe glaring at their little dumbfuck republic.

Heh. WE might not even have to nuke them in retaliation ... "Hey, Iran, North Korea, China, you want to have some fun knocking the United States around with nukes? Here, go ahead and fire at Montana, spare us the our using our missiles."

And if they didn't have the stupid-insane-stones to make use of the nukes, they'd be pretty quickly routed. Economically, if not militarily. As one of the most sparsely populated states in the union, and being MONTANA, what do they have that we would need, and couldn't take from them? What do they need, that we have, and they could take? Seriously, would it hurt anyone except Montana to make them an international trade pariah 'rogue nation'?

It might be a fun little experiment!

And then, if things turned ugly, seriously - it's just Montana. Write out the nukes and you have a curb-stomping-boy (kinda like a whipping boy, except more brutal) for the Coalition to feel all big over beating down after being kinda messed up from Iraq.

The whole thing seems patently absurd, and I'm torn between "I can't believe they're serious" and "... actually, I can see them being dumb enough to actually be serious, but I find it a hard threat to appreciate".

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything that'd make it turn out well for them.


They just seem like a bunch of whining prats throwing a fit in the grocery store checkout aisle.

[adciv]

Personally, I find the possibility of a new law that complies with the decision an intriguing experiment. If DC's crime were cut significantly, for example, it would suggest that, absent other factors, guns can be a deterrent. If the crime rate stays the same, then it suggests that they may not be a deterrent, but they may also not cause an increase. If crime goes up, there may be some things that all sides need to examine.

One addendum I would add to this. Long term and short term trends would need to be examined. What happens in the short term (which is what most people will look at), may or may not be what the long term trend is. However, depending on what happens, people may try to make the decision on the short term without finding out what the long term trend is. And please note, I have not suggested one way or another what the short term may or may not be.

[StruckingFuggle]

You'd also need to study crime trends as a whole, not just the more violent ones, to see if violent criminals redirect their 'energy' to other violence crimes; and the crime rates of other areas to see if they merely travel somewhere else.

[Martin Blank]

End of Montana discussion. It does not belong here.

No, I read them. I found it sad that their reasoning caused a full dissent. Ultimately, they were dissenting the Court's decision to strike down the gun ban.

They came to the conclusion that the right does not apply to non-militia purposes, and that the state has the right to limit gun ownership outside of militia service as it sees fit. You don't think that an opinion that is directly opposite that of the majority deserves a dissent be written?

Said gun ban goes DIRECTLY against the 2nd Amendment.

According to you, and according to the majority, yes. But that was not the conclusion of the dissenting justices.

So I would expect, AT MOST, a RESPONSIBLE justice to point out his difference of opinion by writing another opinion (there can be more than one supporting opinion), NOT by voting against the removal of the ban.

It's quite simple.

DC had a gun ban.

The majority came to the conclusion that the Second Amendment covers an individual right to own firearms and that this right includes the right to use them for non-militia purposes (e.g., self-defense), and so voted to overturn the gun ban on the basis that it was unconstitutional.

The dissent came to the conclusion that even if the Second Amendment covers an individual right, that right is tempered by its use within the framework of a militia organized and disciplined by the state, and that all other firearm uses may be regulated to the degree found appropriate by the state, and so voted against overturning the gun ban, on the basis that the law was constitutional.

And yet you would have us think that the dissent wrote it for the express purpose of being argumentative.

Whatever your inability to see the other side's arguments may be, they do not affect the duty of the justices of the Court to follow their constitutional purpose. The Supreme Court cannot find a law to be constitutional and still overturn it. That's what you're asking the dissenting justices to do: believe the law is constitutional and yet overturn it. It doesn't work that way.

[adciv]

Whatever your inability to see the other side's arguments may be, they do not affect the duty of the justices of the Court to follow their constitutional purpose. The Supreme Court cannot find a law to be constitutional and still overturn it. That's what you're asking the dissenting justices to do: believe the law is constitutional and yet overturn it. It doesn't work that way.

I think this depends on how one views the politics of the supreme court. I believe it is possible, and that it has happened, such that justices have 'invented' interpretations of the constitution to push their political beliefs into the system. i.e. They will interpret the constitution as they see fit, to hell with what it actually says/means/was intended, and write the majority/dissent as appropriate to push their political beliefs. I think this is what CS22 was trying to get across. I know that justices are supposed to interpret the constitution without bias. However, I don't believe that they all do that.

[Aerdan]

To be honest, you can go have a look at the UK and its rise in violent crime [and drop in violent crime using handguns] if you want to see how useful a ban on handguns is in terms of reducing violent crime. In that light, any ban on handguns that affects everyone (aside from law enforcement and the military) is rather misguided and would only serve as a patting-ourselves-on-the-back-for-our-civility law [which in itself is monumentally stupid].

In any case... Crime is going to happen. The choice is to either allow the individual to be able to protect themselves with firearms of their own or to permit criminals--people who have already demonstrated they won't obey the law--to run roughshod over individuals who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves.

(If it isn't already obvious, I support this decision.]