Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Maryland Law School Dean Stepping Down | Main | D.C. vs. Heller »

June 26, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e200e55372a5418833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court: Scalia and Stevens Duke It Out:

» SCOTUS Rules on Second Amendment Issue from Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog
In D.C. v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion today interpreting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to disallow a law in the District of Columbia that prohibited the purchase and possession of handguns. Read... [Read More]

» Did Justice Ginsburg Repeatedly Fall Asleep During Yesterday’s Session of the Supreme Court?-- from The Volokh Conspiracy
Here is part of Tony Mauro’s account of yesterday’s session of the US Supreme Court: When Scalia was reading his own opinion St... [Read More]

Comments

Robert Mack

Yes I think a case can be made that the founders were citing the citizen farmers and the right of those citizen farmers to quarter and draw those weapons when called.
However, if they thought this to be an exclusive granting to the state they would have stated the reverse, or who is not allowed to quarter arms, but they did not. They were aware of the necessity of the people to hold and bear arms for hunting and self protection. Furthemore no reasonable person could ever argue that they envisioned a 'sunshine provision' whereas the right of all people to bear arms would cease in 2008 due to a modern government statute.

Unfortunately this area was not written as clear and precise as the rest of the Constitution However in many writings of that era a comma inserted assumed the place of the word "and" thus in this case granting the peoples right to bear arms absent of govenment. Additionally, I think it highly unlikely that the founders would have wanted the government to exclusively stake hold those weapons for several reasons: First of all the framers were almost entirely united in not trusting the government....any government. Time and time they mentioned or wrote of govermental distrust and negating govenment power wherein allowing the govenment to have the implied and expressed power which came with the exclusive use of these weapons stands in direct contrast to most of their recorded views and thoughts.

Andrew

It just seems to me that more left-leaning people (Justice Stevens paramount among them) accuse conservatives of doing exactly what THEY THEMSELVES do. Stevens has inserted politics(e.g. abortion rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution) into his decisions for 40+ years now. They simply do not like it when they are on the losing end of a decision like this.

jim

Another reminder -- it is the Court that is in charge, not legislatures. Both "liberal" and "conservative" judges agree on that. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Michel Labelle

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (No. 07–290) – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.DICK ANTHONY HELLER [June 26,
2008]

The nine judges missed the point!

The Second Amendment is = 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.

The Second Amendment is NOT = The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, right off the bat, 5 judges (the majority) are wrong : Arms are restricted to people which are part of Militia ONLY.

Now, what is Militia?
1-part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
2-a body of citizens organized for military service
3-the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

This is where the problems kick in.
To make a long story short (there is a 157 pages judment by the Supreme Court), Militia in 1783 meant a kind of army which was NOT permanent. Militia had to be on call all the time. The Framers were afraid of the tyranny of a permanent army and were making sure that no law makers whatsoever will disarm the Militia for the sake of becoming a dictator. Now, it is tricky. How could you make sure of a free Militia without allowing its members to be free of any boss? So, the price to pay to have a free armed Militia is to let any citizens (men between 18 end 45 years old and not disable)to be armed, even there is no organized Militia at that time.They had to be ready all the time. They called them the Minutemen. Furthermore, it was a duty for those men to carry a gun, otherwise they have to pay someone else to do it.

So, unfortunately, the Framers have made their choice.In fact, they did'nt have any choice.They had to preserve freedom and there was nothing else to do.

The Supreme Court was right, but for the wrong reasons.

James

The Communist Have Lost!!!
You Can Leave Now!!!

Without the 2nd Amendment We Would not Have The 1st Amendment.

Thank You God & The Supreme Court

Kevin Gay

Let's not forget "shall not be infringed"
–verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements