Now that the Second Amendment...

[beevul]

Now that the Second Amendment has been conclusively ruled on, and found to be a civil right, will the "guns" forum be moved/and/or renamed, or will there be a "Second Amendment" subforum in the "civil liberties" forum?

Perhaps second amendment discussion directed to the "civil liberties" forum?

"Guns" seems a bit inadequate and "one size fits all" at this point.

[sharesunited]

1. That would only serve to dignify guns and Scalia. Both are a menace.

[bossy22]

2. no

it would serve to actually put gun rights in their proper place- with other civil rights

it is now a fact of law- the 2nd amendment is a civil right afforded to all law abiding citizens and should be treated with the same respect all the other amendments get...to do anything less invites others to do the same to other amendments

[stahbrett]

3. Well said! (nt)

[sharesunited]

5. All Heller does is invite the Court to revisit.

Manufacture, import, sell, give away?

Shoot? (Noisy)

What degree of kill power?

Ammo?

So the gun worshippers have been thrown a bone.

Let the practical implementation show that it was only a Pyrrhic victory.

[bossy22]

8. beware

trying to marginalize the decision now that it has been deemed an individual right is extremely dangerous. Whats preventing another Bush type administration from using that same tactic on the 1st? If you want to keep constitutional integrity you must support a strong second amendment with reasonable restrictions just like any other amendment. saying that an amendment provides an individual right but then saying you dont want to enforce it sets the precedent that all of the bill of rights are not binding- instead they are more like suggestions which you can choose to abide by them or not

you can hate guns and still support a strong second amendment for the sake of constitutional integrity. If there is anything that has come out of this administration it is the clear example of what happens when constitutional integrity has been chipped away

[slackmaster]

9. Time will tell - I think there will be several unreasonable laws struck down

Starting with the draconian handgun ban in the city of Chicago; San Francisco's illegal (under state law) requirement that guns in the home be kept locked up, and its inherently discriminatory prohibition against people in public housing having firearms.

So the gun worshippers have been thrown a bone.

I doubt that I will ever see an authoritarian who is capable of carrying on a civil conversation.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. You sound a little bit like

A republican attacking abortion rights.

[sharesunited]

13. Yes! They are mirror images of each other. I think you have me pegged.

[bossy22]

15. in the eyes of the law

they are

[sharesunited]

17. So Roe is not under threat from Scalia and Thomas?

Heller is under threat from me.

[beevul]

18. What are you going to do about it?

"Heller is under threat from me."

What are you going to do about it? It is SETTLED law.

[sharesunited]

20. What does a Republican do to combat Roe?

Praise Scalia and Thomas and advocate that more like them be placed on the Court.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Things like

Requiring parental notification OR CONSENT
Requiring notification of the father in the newspaper
Adding a 5 day waiting period before the abortion..
Requiring a guilt-tripping video of late term babies doing late-term baby things.

Lots of stuff.

[sharesunited]

24. Great points. Lots of things can be done to eviscerate the 2A.

Whittle it down to a historical footnote.

[bossy22]

25. YAY

then we can do that to the other amendments

...or are you still pushing the pick and choose theory on constitutional protections?

[sharesunited]

29. For the same reason child porn is not protected by the First Amendment.

[bossy22]

31. that doesnt mean

the 1st amendment isnt strong

all you gave me an example was an extreme of free speech

with the 2a that would be comparing it to trying to legalize rocket launchers

the second amendment was determined to protect firearms in common use by the public- those are semi-autos, bolt actions, pistols

[sharesunited]

32. Why doesn't it mean flintlocks like the framers of the 2A used?

More judicial work to do on whittling down this right.

[bossy22]

33. If it meant only flintlocks

than the 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and spoken word

the 4th amendment doesnt apply to wire taps, your car, your computer...only things that were around in the 18th century

"More judicial work to do on whittling down this right."
i see you havent read the decision because if you did you would realize that this decision was so narrow. the only thing broad was that they decided the 2A was an individual ...everything else only applied to DC

why dont you read the decision before you comment on it...and i mean the whole decision, not what CNN or Fox News says

these words of wisdom by Alan Dershowitz fit well with you
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

and this is from a guy who is not a fan of gun ownership at all

[gorfle]

45. The Heller decision addresses this already

Why doesn't it mean flintlocks like the framers of the 2A used?

Note the Heller decision already addresses this question:

"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."

[tburnsten]

51. more like trying

to compare it to shooting people without cause, because that is how you are expressing yourself. Molesting children is not expression, it is a crime as it should be (not a heavily enough punished one IMHO). Having firearms for recreational shooting, competition shooting, protection from people like Leo Hyleton and Daniel LaFortune, and in the absolute worst of cases, protection from government attempts to remove our ability to remove them from power if they don't feel like giving it up.

[appal_jack]

48. yes shares, just like the 2nd Amendment comes with restrictions...

I take a pretty broad view of what is protected by the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to argue in favor of child porn. One can be an ardent free-speecher, and still accept that 'restriction' of the right.

Are you implying that the right to keep and bear arms is no longer restricted, post-Heller? After all, one still needs a tax stamp and an extensive investigation by Agent Mike and all his buddies to possess automatic firearms, etc. One cannot anonymously or casually own explosives, artillery, nukes (to borrow the favorite example of the gun-grabbers), etc. And you know what? That's OK by me.

I'm happily part of the pro-2nd Amendment / 'Let's take all the rights of the Constitution crowd very seriously' crew here at DU. But I'm also willing to accept that this right has been construed to cover the type of arms that can be reasonably thought to target one entity at a time (e.g. - a semi-automatic .308 caliber rifle would target one deer per shot, while a rocket-propelled-grenade might kill a small herd at once). Do you see anyone here at DU arguing that rpg's should become exempt from serious regulations and extensive state controls? I didn't think so.

So please stop comparing any rifles or handguns owned and used as legal tools by DU members, other Democrats, and any other law-abiding US citizens who choose to own guns, to child porn. The comparison is ludicrous and should be offensive to all sentient readers of this thread.

-app

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Wait, doesn't that seem like a terrible idea to you?

This kind of behavior is something I don't expect to see from Liberals. I fight that kind of incremental 'skirting around the rules' crap on a daily basis, from wheedling religion into schools, to restricting reproductive freedom...

For lack of a better word, I would call this kind of thing pure evil. This is what people who are wrong, and know they are wrong, and don't care behave. This is the worst side of republicans. Why isn't this offensive to you?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. For the purposes of implementing the law

They are functionally identical decisions. Actually, the Heller vs. DC case is stronger, because actual ownership of firearms was specifically protected as an individual right. Abortion was not specifically identified as an individual right (though it should be), but it was ruled a matter of privacy, which is an individual right.

No attachment of emotional argument to the issue will change that. Republicans would love nothing more than to circumvent MANY Supreme Court Decisions. This is not a can of worms you want to open.

[sharesunited]

21. Wow, deja vu in reverse. I'm in the "don't rock the boat" impeachment camp.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I'm up in the air on that one.

I think a hell of a lot better case can be made on a lot more things than they were with Clinton... But uh.. Idunno. I could see them being jackasses and trying to impeach Obama every time he sneezes or something.

I want to say do the right thing, impeach.. Idunno. Hopefully I come to a decision and support one side or the other before November I guess.

[SteveM]

41. Would you have preferred they do it all at once?

Gun-controllers should be thankful the Court is as conservative as it is. The Court must to comport with its ideology and make very limited rulings. Had this been "liberal" court and made such a ruling, they would have told D.C. in some detail where to file its gun-control law. As it was, D.C. didn't even face the 14th Amendment. Don't you think it's ironic that the 14th Amendment, that storied and powerful tool of liberal civil rights expansion over the last 50 years, will now be brought to bear on future cases? You shouldn't. The 14th was enacted to prevent Jim Crow laws from repressing newly-freed slaves, and the centerpiece was to protect blacks by guaranteeing their right to arms in the face of STATE-SPONSORED MILITIA. That the Amendment wasn't used until the 1950s is a travesty, but now it IS used.

[tburnsten]

50. What the hell is "kill power" and how would it be used

to attempt to restrict guns? would it be based on the "kill power" of the caliber itself? in which case, would it have a table so that different loads and barrel lengths would move the "kill power" rating of the caliber up and down? For instance, a Winchester WHite box 115 grain 9mm at 1150 feet per second plus or minus 20-50 FPS out of a 3" ultra-compact pistol is not equal to a Winchester Ranger-T Series 127 grain +P+ out of a 5.3" competition model Glock. So the "kill power" would move up and down dramatically depending on the caliber, load, and platform, meaning that to try and split hairs on "kill power" acceptability would be idiotic at best. And that isn't even beginning to talk about rifle and shotgun "kill powers", to say they dwarf handgun and pistol caliber carbine "kill power" would be an incredible understatement.

[SlipperySlope]

4. Maybe we could make a "speech" forum and a "religion" forum and so on.

Let every topic of civil rights become a forum onto itself?

The serious answer is no. While the Democratic party contains a very strongly pro-gun faction, guns are not politically correct to the power that be or to the progressive agenda. Open discussion of the second amendment outside of this board would be seen as disruptive.

I think this has been discussed at length elsewhere. There is nothing inherently progressive about banning guns, and it is schizophrenic for the party to support other rights but oppose this one. Nonetheless, those are the political realities of the situation.

We are welcome to be liberals, but we aren't welcome to be gun-toting liberals, and we will not be tolerated if we try to become outspoken gun-toting liberals. Just shut up and vote with the rest of the party, ok?

[Adsos Letter]

6. "gun-toting liberals" forum?

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

7. We have several religion forums

as well as a women's forum, choice forum, various minority forums, etc. And I don't really give a crap what right wing wacko justices had to say on the topic either. Any Democrat who gives credence to their opinion ought to have their head examined.

[slackmaster]

10. You really should read the ruling before passing judgement on it

It is a ruling, not just an opinion. Tossing it aside because you don't like the people who wrote it isn't something an open-minded person does.

[bossy22]

12. fine

but what they had to say actually matters- what they say is the law now. Its here to stay and you can whine and scream about it all you want.

Since a sizable amount of dems disagree with you i guess they must have mental issues. the majority of this country thinks it was a good decision and the beautiful thing about this country is that you are entitled to your oppinion also.

In reality you should give a crap about the ruling- the 2a is now a recognized civil right and you should support it- even if you do not like guns. Not supporting it turns the constitution from a strict ruling guideline to a list of suggestions- non binding- violate at will suggestions. IT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO SET THAT PRECEDENT. you cant marginalize the 2nd amendment and vigorously protect the 4th and expect that someone can't marginalize the 4th and vigorously protect the 2nd

either you protect all of the bill of rights, or you protect none- picking and choosing the ones you want to protect allows other to do just the same

[Joe Holmes]

16. Thats right!

+1!!!

[Tejas]

52. Yep, sure

is but I have no clue why gungrabbers can't wrap their heads around the concept of simple logic.


welcome to the Gungeon!

[jody]

14. Obviously you oppose our form of government . Would you advocate abolishing our form of government

if the Heller decision had gone the other way?

Article III says:

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[sandnsea]

27. Where did I oppose our form of government?

Where did I suggest we abolish our government? When you pretend people said things they didn't say - you don't look clever or witty. If the decision had gone the other way - YOU would be calling the justices idiots. Difference is, I'm calling known right wing partisans idiots, they've been idiots on most every decision they've ever made.

[jody]

28. Your rant about the Heller decision which was proper under our Constitution implies you don't like

the judicial process created by our Constitution.

You said "And I don't really give a crap what right wing wacko justices had to say on the topic either. Any Democrat who gives credence to their opinion ought to have their head examined."

Since the judicial branch is created by Article III of our Constitution as part of our government, it seems to follow that you don't like our government.

On the other hand you could just accept Heller as the law of the land.

[Adsos Letter]

30. He did raise a valid point, though...

"Since the judicial branch is created by Article III of our Constitution as part of our government, it seems to follow that you don't like our government.

On the other hand you could just accept Heller as the law of the land."

If this ruling had gone the other way would you still ascribe to the attitude you suggest in your quote above?

FWIW, I have owned guns since I was 12 years old: took the NRA safety courses, hunted for years, and still keep 2 rifles and a pistol at home (one rifle is black powder, but I think that still counts).

[sandnsea]

34. rotflmao

And if they overturn Roe or the Lawrence decision, then I'm just supposed to accept that and say nothing too? What about Plessy and Dred Scott? Your argument is ridiculous.

[SlipperySlope]

35. Overturning Roe?

Overturning Roe would be as bad as overturning Heller.

What Roe v Wade was for the right to choose, DC v Heller is for the right to bear arms.

You remind me of those right after the Roe ruling who wanted to put the cat back in the bag.

You should be rejoicing that a fundamental right has been recognized, not sympathizing with those who would deny us our rights.

[sandnsea]

36. I don't care about the personal right to bear arms

The problem is the denial of the right to regulate in the same way local standards can regulate abortion, pornography, speech, assembly, etc. It's assinine to say you can regulate the kind of bullet to shoot a deer, but not the kind of bullet to shoot a police officer or a simple trigger lock. It was a lousy decision based completely on politics. There's nothing democratic about it.

[Adsos Letter]

37. Sorry sandnsea...

I referred to you as "he" in post #30... :blush:

[SlipperySlope]

38. There has been no denial of a right to regulate.

The ruling states repeatedly that regulation will be permitted and that no right is absolute.

The problem with DC laws is they weren't mere regulation, they were an outright ban.

We will indeed see different locales have different gun laws. It is clear, however, that outright bans will not stand constitutional muster.

[sandnsea]

39. Yes there has been

They have decided the requirement to dismantle a rifle or put trigger locks on was tantamount to being denied the right to "bear arms". In addition, we regulate speech and assembly, we outright ban certain types of speech in certain locations. There's no reason we can't use the same local standards criteria in regards to guns. This was a lousy decision.

[bossy22]

40. you need to read the decision

it only applied to D.C. Statute. The D.C. trigger lock law was struck down because it was broad, vague, and did not have a self-defense exception- a law that said "you must lock up your gun when you are not home" would most definatly pass the constitutional muster- but D.C.'s law was basically "you can never have a loaded firearm in the home".

"we outright ban certain types of speech in certain locations"
and the decision said that prohibitions and regulations on the carrying of arms outside the home could be considered constitutional

all the decision really said is you have a right to a working handgun IN YOUR HOME.

it was a good decision, it was narrow, and i think it took the middle ground

you should read it

[sandnsea]

46. Okay, that is better

In a sense, the DC law could leave a person unable to take the trigger lock off if they were being attacked or knew there was a threat, a woman with a stalker for instance. If that's the limit to what it allowed, then I suppose it might not be all that bad. I just know the attitude about guns and "self defense" is what leads to so many murders in this country.

[bossy22]

47. correct

i believe a law that stated you must secure your firearms when you (or another authorized user) are not home would be found constitutional under this ruling since it does not infringe on your right to self defense.

I read the NYT today and it is obvious most of the op-ed authors did read the oppinion. IT was truly a good oppinion- it wasnt radical- it didnt say everyone is entitled to any weapon they choose- in fact scalia stated that the amendment does not give every person the right to possess any weapon for any purpose in any manner in any place.

[beevul]

43. Functional.

A trigger locked or dis-assembled firearm, is not a FUNCTIONAL firearm. No ifs ands or buts about it.

The "right to keep and bear arms" may as well not be a right at all, if it is allowed to be limited to keeping/bearing NON-FUNCTIONAL firearms only. limiting it in such a way completely and utterly guts the right, and the exercise of it.

The decision also stated that not allowing firearms in certain places, was not unreasonable. Did you read the decision?

The decision was spot on.

[Callisto32]

44. Right

"..but not the kind of bullet to shoot a police officer.." Because this is how the great majority of firearms are used in the US every day.:eyes: As for those trigger locks that you advocate. They are just as easy to defeat by a person familiar with guns as an integral manual safety on the weapon itself. As a matter of fact, there are lots of integral safeties that are more difficult or bothersome to manipulate than a trigger lock. Such as those on air rifles (still weapons, they can outclass some firearm rounds) that engage with each round. As for the shooting of police, that is already illegal. It is called attempted or just plain murder. If you are willing to do that, I'd venture a guess that you are also willing to violate the firearms laws. You know, how all those people shooting at cops already are?

[appal_jack]

49. Fine, I hope this forum becomes as free & open as the religion fora.

OK sandnsea, I think you are on-point when you note that the 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms is similar and importance and scope to the right to worship (or not) as one so chooses. Given this, I hope that the rules and restrictions within the Guns forum here at DU mirror the rules about discussions of religion at other DU fora. Threads discussing types of firearms here in Guns should no longer be cause for locking. Members who discuss the exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights should be no more targets for hostility or ridicule than members who respectfully profess their beliefs about religion.

For us to get to that equivalence in the discussion of these rights, a lot will have to change here at DU, both in the formal rules, and also in the tolerated behavior of some DU members. During my time here at DU, while there have been some hostile threads regarding the respect that religious beliefs deserve (or don't deserve...), it pales in comparison to the volume of poo that gets slung during too many gun discussions.

I guarantee you that if I started a thread about a type of firearm that I am considering purchasing, within a few responses, I would be accused of having small genitalia and wanting to compensate via gun-barrels, then be accused of trollery and closeted right-wing tendencies, then (if I posted it here in GUNS) my thread would be locked or deleted. Is that how you want civil liberties of any sort to be treated here at DU?

The question posed by beevul in the OP is a valid one.

-app

EDIT for clarity, and to say K&R. Anyone else up for recommending this discussion of civil liberties toward the greatest page?

[tburnsten]

53. I really like this post

Great comments, it does seem like there are some very hostile people on here, who come strictly to accuse people who enjoy gunning in all flavors of being mentally unstable or murderers in training or cowards. I feel that people ddragging our productive discussions down that ugly road should be banned and their posts deleted, instead of encouraging them to carry on with their barely concealed slander.

[appal_jack]

54. cheers, bro

Here's hoping that numerous pro-Bill of Rights posts make for a more congenial climate here at DU.

:hi:

-app

[SteveM]

42. Somebody get out the "Who owns a gun" survey...

I think you mis-read DU. A more standard liberal group -- MoveOn, HuffPo, even Kos -- may have a tilt toward gun-control, but DU is IMO a more populist/leftist outfit. I have found that when you go across the spectrum of the left, and get past the "standard" liberal of the day and approach populism, you find greater support of 2A.

It's time the discussion of guns be a part of civil liberties/civil rights. No more back of the bus.