At the time of the Second Amendment, hunting firearms were actually better than most military firearms. If you want to go back to historical interpretations, then there really is no big distiction between personal recreational and self-defense weapons versus militia weapons.

However, the flaw with that historical argument is that a militia armed with 30-30s is going to melt like butter in an oven if it came into a firefight against a modern army unit. That's why tactics for such rebellions have changed to hit-and-run actions, IEDs, terrorism, etc.

I think the idea that the general US population is going to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical future US government using hunting weapons is a right-wing fantasy. Red Dawn.

It's also unwise to remember that much of the US was "frontier", and people really did use these hunting/defense weapons as everyday tools. They would have never survived if they had been diarmed. It's a whole new world, however.

I think it is only practical for the justices to consider what the right to bear arms means in the current context, rather than what it meant in George III's day.

The framers of the Constitution never expected it to be unchanged, and I doubt many of them expected it be in force for over 200 years, either. After all, they had just overthrown one government, installed a new one, and then about a decade later replaced that new one with a third one. Who would expect the third one would then last as long as it did?

 

The language seems to imply that a citizen has the right to keep a firearm in his home for self defense. Regulations to control firearms in other places seem to be allowable.

 

I disagree. The average infantryman - and infantry is still the most important element of any army - is armed with a weapon distinguishable from a 30-30 primarily in that it is slightly lighter and fires lighter ammunition. Even if there were a big difference in personal arms, plenty of veterans still retain their military rifles, and it's not that difficult to purchase them legally.

Again, I disagree. Hit and run actions, improvised bombs, and terrorism are favored by small bands not representative of their populations. That isn't the same thing as a popular resistance.

My mother fled a nation torn by civil strife and rebellion that had relatively recently experienced nearly three centuries of peaceful, civilized government. It's the American idea that such things can never happen in the new world that I think is a fantasy.

Heck, some people have felt that recent administrations have edged towards tyrannical - different people feeling that way about different administrations, of course. To take one example, people who, with a fair amount of justification, think of Ruby Ridge as an example of the leading edge of tyranny probably feel the second amendment is what has prevented the government from being quite a lot more tyrannical.

Agreed; that's why they put in an amendment mechanism.

The government they threw out - which they didn't actually overthrow, they merely expelled it from the colonies - most considered to have been established by the Magna Carta of 1215, more than five centuries earlier. While the articles of confederation hadn't worked out, I think it quite likely that the drafters of the constitution hoped it would survive as long as the Magna Carta.

Edit: by the way, while Scalia wrote his opinion to conform to Kennedy's view, he spent about 60 pages on precedents from the day of King George III, and none discussing issues from today.

 

Exactly: why is the debate always framed around the right to "bear arms" and never around the right to "keep arms."

 

I agree with the ruling, but I still have a problem with people who have guns that carry more than 9 bullets. What are you shooting at that you need more than that? I also do not understand why do we need metal piercing rounds as civilians?

 

Any reason you picked 9?

 

No, it just seemed like a good number that was larger than 6 (revolver) and would be in the automatic range. As you can probably tell, I am not well versed when it come to guns.

 

I believe some pistols have magazines that carry more than nine rounds, simply because that's how many fit in the grip. Also, some revolvers carry fewer than six rounds, and others carry more, though I doubt any exceed nine.

I haven't heard of metal piercing rounds. There are teflon bullets designed to penetrate kevlar body armor, but I believe they are banned in most states.

 

A quick google shows the Glock 19 handgun has a 15 and 20 round magazine available.

 

Legal Bill is absolutely right that this case is going to cause more litigation. People could disagree about whether the decision turns on judicial activism or strict interpretation. But Scalia did go to some lengths to stress that his decision was confined to the facts of the case. Left unresolved by the ruling is the extent to which governments can regulate firearms, short of laws that amount to an outright prohibition. Clearly there is no abolute right to firearms since a prohibition against felon's owning them or minors purchasing them would probably be all right with the court. Trickier questions remain about how far the government can go in regulating them: what about cooling off periods, gun registration, or assault rifle bans?