Effective Firearms Regulation Is Constitutional.
'THE sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court brought renewed attention to one of his more heralded and criticized decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court, by a 5-4 vote, held that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The principal objection to tough gun laws is that they violate the Second Amendment. Opponents of gun control cite the 2008 Heller decision as proof that the Supreme Court agrees.
There is reason to doubt the soundness of that opinion. But even if the decision is not reversed, we believe it poses no obstacle for much stronger gun laws. . .
The Second Amendment is the only provision in the Bill of Rights with a preamble, which announces its purpose: 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 Heller decision, in turn, described the militia not as a formal military organization, but as everyone qualified to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment therefore means that all who exercise firearms rights should be well regulated. History confirms this: Comprehensive registration laws would not have alarmed those who wrote the Second Amendment. In the early republic, gun owners were frequently required to register their weapons with local authorities. A well regulated militia, of course, is subject to rules that ensure firearms are used safely and appropriately.
The Heller decision stressed that the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The court described lawful self-defense as the central component of the right itself. . .
We doubt that there is any coherent defense for our current Swiss-cheese system of firearms regulation. But if opponents of gun control want to make serious arguments for maintaining the status quo, they should make them without hiding behind the Constitution.'
Abner J. Mikva was a member of Congress, federal judge and counsel to President Bill Clinton. Lawrence Rosenthal is a professor of law at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/effective-firearms-regulation-is-constitutional.html?
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)It must be overturned, along with the other Scalia abominations on the books.
Thanks for the post, elleng.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)prose by the great 'originalist interpreter' Antonin Scalia (may he not rest in peace). His decision spends pages upon pages attempting to convince others that the Founding Fathers really didn't mean what they so clearly spelled out. Hopefully Heller, along with Citizens United will be the first two decisions which get reversed by a more balanced court.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Igel
(35,317 posts)"Since it's important to make sure firearms are subject to rules making sure they're used safely, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Cart, horse, reversed.
"While not infringing on the right of the people to bear arms, it's important to make sure there are regulations" is how this is being interpreted. But the focus is all wrong. That makes for poor cohesion and borderline incoherence.
("Cohesion" and "incoherence" are defined here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28linguistics%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesion_%28linguistics%29
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It is a non sequitur among other things, and generally I never get past that.
I read it as something like: since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the defense of "a free state", citizens will be allowed to own weapons, the two words "free state" there are not accidental, the implication is no standing army, no police state, and free citzens defending themselves sovereign on their own land, etc. etc. This stuff still resonates in certain parts of the US electorate.
But I think that is what they meant back then, against the natives and the Europeans.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)or government land must be overturned since they do not hold to the letter of the first amendment since it only prohibits the government from establishing a religion.