Confusing gun control decision

"So why am I confused? Or is it Scalia who is confused?"

The confusion is over. That's what the decision is about. If you're still confused you don't understand what the SCOTUS does.

Although, I'll bet you're not confused about the decision to allow terrorists into the US court system.

not back away. It's been that way before and we lived and grew as a Nation. Gun control seems to have the aura about it on both sides that it has been around forever. It has not. Machineguns are legal, though strictly regulated and heavily taxed, for private ownership. That went into effect in either 1934 or 1935, I'm unclear on that, since I've seen both quoted in different sources. We never restricted other arms at all until the Gun Control Act of 1968, in a Federal sense. Until then, other than a hodge podge of state, county and local laws, you could even be a convicted, violent felon who had served time and if you had no court injunction, buy as many firearms as you liked. And yet, while it wasn't paradise, it certainly wasn't as violent as since the government has declared war on drugs, violent crime, gun crime and many other such campaigns. Perhaps there was some wisdom that even felons didn't stop being human when convicted after time served and that the government didn't declare war on all it's citizens gone astray. I'd take that, though. As long as a right is a right with no unfair administration to it, let us all have as many rights as we can.

Mr Spicer needs to read up on his history. Read some of the Federalist papers. Find out how the weaponry of the militia compared to the weaponry of the army of the world superpower of the period. Then learn who owned the weaponry of the militia. THEN revisit your proposed law.

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California? Emotion in Reading: The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's restate the 2nd in another context: A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate. There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

I will gladly take the murder rate of the "Wild West" over today's rate. The 1900 US murder rate was 1.2 per 100,000. 2004 had 5.9, with a high of 10.5 in 1991. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm NYC's 2006 rate is 7.3 per 100,000. Why do you anti-gun libtards continually try to compare the exercise of Second Amendment rights to Hollywood's created "Wild West"? A bit of research online easily debunks your silly arguments.

By what the 2A says we are suppose to have the same SMALL ARMS as a regular grunt, that means whatever you can carry, take out the Constitution and read it and you will see. As for me I live in VA right outside of DC and we don't have the crime that they have because we protect our homes, family and friends if need be. If you don't want a gun fine ... but don't bother about mine. I have never shot anyone but have pulled it and stopped a crime before without having to use it, that's how it usually happens in 90% of the cases (FBI STATS not mine). OH and by the way we are going to work on getting those other laws changed too, you are right this fight has just begun. Duane Owen certified Firearms Instructor Safety, Home, and Personal Protection

Like many other "strong gun control advocates" Mr. Spicer would appear to be in a state of denial. The court did not rule in their favor so they've closed their eyes, stuck fingers in their ears, and are chanting "make it go away." Sorry, but Scalia wrote a well researched decision based in part on the original writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights and in part on modern statistical research that demonstrates people are safer when they have reasonable access to defensive firearms. As for the machine gun issue, so what. Automatic weapons are expensive, hard to use, and on an individual basis less deadly than a shotgun or deer rifle. And there has never been a federal prohibition on their ownership, merely a rather extreme licensing process. Make them easier to own would not seriously effect our safety. Keep in mind that the court decision did nothing to limit the punishment for criminal misuse of firearms. Rather than an ineffectual and ultimately doomed effort to "make all those bad guns go away," why not focus on putting all those bad criminals away. A gun in the hands of an honest responsible citizen poses no threat to anyone.

You are right Myles, The Bill of Rights indeed does say, that the peoples' pre existing right to own state of the art military weapons shall not be infringed. Because in 1776, a bunch of farmers reached up over the mantle piece and took down their state of the art assault weapons (equvialent to the m 16 today) and defeated the world's greatest military power. Therefore, any weapons which could normally be transported by militia members to the muster point are protected.

There is nothing confusing about the recent SCOTUS decision on the the Second Amendment. Originalists have a huge body of contemporary writings to depend upon when interpreting the founding documents, among them the Federalist Papers, letters, news accounts and speeches. These sources uniformly reveal that the right to keep and bear arms was originally meant to apply to individuals. Further, it was a natural right, one that pre-existed the Bill of Rights. The amendment limits the scope of government action rather than granting any individual right. The militia clause is a prefatory statement, a common rhetorical practice at the time. "We the People. . ." is the beginning of the prefatory statement to the U.S. Constitution. The militia was the body of all free men. Today it includes women, since women now vote. Well regulated meant well equipped, in other words, well armed. I live in a state where concealed weapons are carried by many people, myself included, routinely. We have far less public violence than in Washington D.C. or Chicago or Detroit. Calm down. The nation will not collapse. You are not obliged to arm yourself, you merely lack the ability to disarm me. And that was always the case in reality anyway.

Myles Spicer's suggestion for federal legislation designed to insure that Americans have the right to own, “any kind of weapon a person desires to own in accordance with the right conveyed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States” is one of the more silly responses I've seen to the Heller decision, but I guess, if you're stubborn and don't have a factual or legal basis for your position, such nonsense is about all that's available. Myles Spicer may not like the Heller decision, but he should now recognize that it is now the law of the land. If Spicer doesn't like the Second Amendment, he can try to amend it, but good luck since even the Democrats now recognize that their love affair with gun control probably cost them the last presidential election and, accordingly, don't want to touch it - As one who has watched Hillary Clinton continuously support every piece of gun control legislation she could, I found it incredibly funny to watch her, in the waning moments of her failed campaign, attempt gain the support of America's gun owners. Some people will try anything, and I guess Mr. Spicer is one of them.

You know...it's amazing to read this type of dribble, but not unexpected...but here's one that takes the cake...just go to the ACLU website and read their blog...they still refuse to even acknowledge this SCOTUS ruling. The ACLU, the bastion of Constitutional reasoning, still believes is a collective right, even though the Supreme Court says otherwise I agree with numerous statements that they have put their fingers in their ears and are just hoping this is a bad nightmare. We have them on the defense...for once...keep up the great responses and comments.

Let's see if we can help you with your confusion. The amendment does not in any way refer to "the right to keep Arms as an adjunct to being necessary to a “well regulated Militia”" as you suggest. Let's try to understand the words from the 18th century interpretations. Militia: A militia is/was NOT an Army. It is The people at large not involved in military service, but who would be capable of military service. Think of all persons elliglible to enter Selective Service, that's a fair approximation of the Militia. Though I think it's sexist to suggest that women shouldn't be able to defend their country, and ageist to insist that the elderly can't have arms for the same purpose either. Perhaps a less descriminatory modernized definition would be "All persons who are phsyically able to bear arms, and have not been disqualified due to: criminal or irresponsible conduct, been found mentally incompetant or dangerous, been found a danger to themselves or others, or to endorse violent overthrow of the constitution." Regulated: In 18th century military parlance, this means "well trained", it referred to having the private populace well familiar with weaponry, and military tactics that they might aid the Regular Army in times of crisis (something the early American Militia had a hard time doing effectively during the revolutionary war due to lack of training). Keep and Bear: This encompases the idea to have/hold/own/carry and employ a firearm for defense of self, the community and the nation. The DC ban clearly infringed in this reguard, and many laws still do, in preventing lawful and responsible people from bearing their arms for self protection, especially in cities most prone to criminal/gang violence. Now as to "machine guns, assault weapons, bazookas, even cannons" and the notion that "having such weapons in the hands of ordinary people is absurd". Keep in mind that American citizens CAN and DO own machineguns, bazookas, and cannons in accordance with the NFA restrictions (youtube zXxUfsNW4ss). Mind you only the wealthiest of Americans can have them since the closure of the NFA weapon list in 1986 drove prices for firearms such as the tommy gun up to $30,000 due to scarcity. But is this something to be scared of? There have been hardly a handful of cases of crime with NFA weapons in the last 75 years! It's essentially unheard of. This system of control seems to actually work! I think it is unfair however that the 1986 NFA list closure reserves the ownership of these arms to only the richest Americans. The bill you suggest "Allowing anyone to own anything" is foolhardy, but I think more Americans than you suspect, if given the real story of how NFA weapons work, and are regulated, would not be fearful to allow regular people to own them again in accordance with the NFA controls as opposed to just The Rich. I certainly hope we can reduce the paranoia and engage the people enough in rational conversation to make progress on this issue of inequal availability of rights based on economic standing.

Actually, much of Scalia's opinion is politically-motivated. What other source speaks of "reasonable restrictions" and the even more creative "unusual and dangerous" test? Unusual and dangerous? HA! Funny thing is, Scalia applies that "test" to AK-47s and M-16s. Let's examine the logic. Because machineguns have been heavily regulated and all but denied to the People since the Gun Control Act of 1934, they are now relatively rare. That makes them "unusual", without which you don't get "unusual AND dangerous". It's a bit like saying, "We've had laws permitting slavery for a few hundred years. It would be UNUSUAL to let blacks be free, so we can clearly interpret the 14th Amendment to mean it doesn't apply to blacks because that would be "unusual". Or of the 19th Amendment, that women have NEVER voted. So in interpreting the 19th Amendment we carve out an exception that says women cannot vote because it's "unusual" (and dangerous!) What rubbish! AK-47s and M-16s are exactly the sort of small arms used by the military - and thus precisely the sort of arms the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. One might hope for a more honest ruling from the court. But it seems we cannot expect it.

Mr. Spicer's attempt to incite people by saying, "my best suggestion would be to introduce in Congress a bill which would give the right of individuals to own “any kind of weapon a person desires to own in accordance with the right conveyed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States”. Let’s see how pro-gun advocates would vote on such a bill. They are the ones consistently defending those rights given in the Second Amendment, there should be no hypocrisy here," is what I personally think should happen. The fact of the matter is, that is what the 2nd Amendment says. A weapon, of any type, in the possession of the most law-abiding segment of our society, is still a weapon that will be used only when neccessary. Those in our society that now carry firearms legally ARE the most law-abiding segment of our society. It would not matter what type of weapon they had, they would continue to be law-abiding. These individuals respect the rights of others and desire to protect their rights. Criminal activity of law-abiding citizens will not increase because different types of weapons are available in society Only econmics keep the law-breakers, (ie. criminals) in our society from having any type of weapon they desire now. The judicial system is supposed to take these violent people out of society, but more and more is ineffective in fulfilling it function. Criminal activity will decrease when the justice system works and the law-breakers in our society are taken out of our society.

I noticed the phrase "ordinary people" in this column. That, ladies and gentlemen is the point. The majority of journalists know that there is real power in individual gun ownership, and that the more restrictions that can be placed upon gun ownership, the more power that can be reserved for the "elite", of which they consider themselves a part. Elitism at work.

Wow...I must have touched a real "hot button" on this one. The righties are off an running as usual. I was particularily struck by the comment on "murder rates". Check the murder rates on European countries (Enland is 1/6 of the US), Canada where hunting is popular, but guns controlled had their murder rate drop when they began gun control; and Japan, where the lack of handguns makes murder by firearm almost nil! America would be better and safer with similar restrictions -- our murder rates are among the highest in the world. I certainly do not object to common sense regulation of hunting rifles-- but handguns are specifically designed for concealment and only to KILL PEOPLE. And, that is why crime in America is so dangerous, and minor crimes often end up in a needless death. Further, there has been discussions that if handguns are outlawed, such non-lethal weapons as Tasers could provide equally or better defense with far less random and senseless deaths unregulated handguns now create. Plus, they require less skill to use. If my article is so "left-leaning" as suggested, I might remind you, many or most Police Departments and police officers support some sort of gun control and regulation. The DC law did not work well, because residents there were able to bring in guns from other locales. If we are to become a safer, more civilized, less violent country, following the example of those countries where handguns are either prohibited, or closely regulated may well be worth considering.

Hey CCW4ME2 , "“A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” came from one of my posts somewhere else! Not a problem. I think it makes the point extremely well and I'm glad to see that others do as well. Mr. Spicer, you need to check your facts. First of all, I'm not a "righty". I've never voted Republican, I'm an atheist, and I have an advanced degree from a very liberal university. I was also a police officer and served in the military. As to your arguments about gun control in other countries: You're wrong that violent crime rates have dropped in countries that have increased their control over civilian ownership of guns. As an example, England has instead seen a dramatic increase in violent crime since they virtually banned gun ownership. Their rates are still not as high as ours, but then they never have been. But compared to what they were before the ban, they are much higher, as reported by the British Home Office itself. Your example of Japan is completely idiotic. Japan has a drastically lower rate of ALL crime, not just gun crime. Even in their prisons, convicted felons almost never commit violent crimes against each other or against their guards. You can't say the same about American prisons, and guns obviously have nothing to do with this. So gun control in Japan obviously has absolutely nothing to do with their low murder rate. If you try to make such a claim about Japan, how do you explain how countries like Switzerland and Israel have such high gun ownership and "gun culture", but also have some of the lowest crime rates in the Western World? If you don't try to cherry-pick the countries you compare, there is absolutely no correlation between gun ownership and national crime rate. Related to this is your incorrect reasoning as to why the DC law failed to work. Assuming that the law at least decreased gun ownership rates a little, given that at least law-abiding citizens no longer had them, why did DC's murder rate relative to the rest of the country go UP after the ban, not down? Also, how do you expect to stop people from getting guns from elsewhere? So we outlaw them in all bordering states - you just go one state over; so we ban them nationally - you just go to Mexico (just like everyone does for all the illicit drugs that 30+ years of police-state tactics have failed to even keep from INCREASING!). How come even island nations like England and Japan can't keep guns out with national bans and legal systems so repressive that we'd have to trow out the entire Constitution to match them? England not only saw a violent crime rate more than triple, but actually saw GUN crimes increase by 50% after the ban. And in Japan, the same week as the VTech shooting, Japan saw two very public high-profile shootings, including the killing of the mayor of Nagasaki on a public street, over a parking ticket. Obviously, though people are less likely to use guns in these countries than they are here (for cultural reasons), they can still get them whenever they want, despite the fact that these countries have much tighter border control and much more repressive legal systems. As for the support of police officials, of course they support gun control laws. Most of these people are police administrators, not working law enforcement officers. Gun control laws give them more power over the populace. But we are not supposed to live in a police state - which is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. We're not supposed to give up our rights just to make their jobs easier. We're not supposed to give up our 4th Amendment rights just because allowing the police to search us and our property without a warrant (like they can and do in both England and Japan), even though that would make their job easier. We shouldn't give up our 5th Amendment right to not be forced to give testimony against ourselves (like in Japan, where confessions can legally be extracted by torture and are admissible in court), even though that would also make their job easier. Just because SOME (nowhere near all) police would like to be able to disarm the public, that's not a legitimate reason to argue that we should allow it.