McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue

[DonnaL]

<p>As I mentioned in my post above, Scalia’s opinion specifically mentions laws restricting the carrying of concealed weapons as examples of the types of restrictions that would still be permissible under the Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>

If a lifting on the DC or gun ban would result in one more violent death of a child then would be with it, I vigorously oppose it.

</p>

<p>We should outlaw all of the following as well:</p>

<p>Automobiles
Fire
Cleaning Supplies
Water
Anything that will suffocate
Tripping or falling</p>

<p>All of these things kill vastly more children every year than guns. Why don’t you work on those first and then we’ll worry about the guns?</p>

<p>[Statistics</a> Top 10-Causes of Death Kids](<a href=“http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html]Statistics”>http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Kids.html)</p>

[Icarus]

<p>On the topic of concealed carry - while it does say that restrictions would likely be constitutional, the rest of the decision reveals that he most likely meant “restrictions” to mean licensing (however, this licensing cannot be “arbitrary or capricious”, i.e. would have to be Shall Issue), etc., and not an outright ban. It also sounds like the decision paved the way for unlicensed open carry.</p>

<p>Consider the following bit of the decision, on what the meaning of “bear arms” is:</p>

<p>

JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.

</p>

<p>The next several pages of the decision is dedicated to backing up this argument, ending with:</p>

<p>

Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

</p>

<p>Sounds like pretty strong support for carrying of a weapons (concealed or otherwise).</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Icarus, I agree that it is not clear what will come out of this opinion. If self defense is elevated to a constitutional right on par with free speech, then the standard that will be imposed to infringe upon will be very difficult to meet. I guess I’m envisioning shot gun booby traps.</p>

[Icarus]

<p>Yeah - the decision didn’t espouse any particular standard of review, but it seemed like strict scrutiny was hinted at. They certainly struck down “rational review” scrutiny. The DC Circuit basically applied strict scrutiny (DC has no valid compelling interest for its law), and Heller upheld that ruling, while not giving a new standard… who knows. It will take lots of lawyers and follow-up cases to figure out how far Heller will go.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>Heller is the new Attorney Full Employment Act for 2008. ;)</p>