decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

A cure for gun violence? | 398 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A cure for gun violence?
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM EST

It's my opinion that the 2nd Amendment is a protection against the Federal Gov't disarming the citizenry, by insuring the States the right to keep "well regulated militia[s]".

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.


The various National Guards being select militias. Item 2 of the syllabus as PJ so ably pointed out elsewhere denotes limits on the individual right ensconced in the nations more than 22,000 gun laws, some small number subject to eventual Supreme Court review. One could do worse that to read both opinion and dissents presented by the Supreme Court in this case as well as McDonald v. Chicago which extends the Second Amendment to the individual States.

The Heller decision also approaches whether or not the Second Amendment extends to modern firearms referring to speaking to limitation to arms at the time of ratification as bordering on the frivolous in the opinion.

From a spectator's point of view your opinion does not appear to be fully informed. While it seems unlikely the Supreme Court comprised of a different set of idealism can undo the opinion in the future, there's always the old saw of increasing what is reasonable in terms of limits on an individual right, as we see in Fourth and First Amendment cases of late.

That the first ten amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights gives rise to a common defense of the meaning of 'The People', limiting excesses on restrictions of individual rights without Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional Convention.

Both seem likely to fail the from the ratio of Red and Blue states and ratification mechanisms by the states, no tyranny of the majority by popular vote due to population numbers is likely to succeed with each state in control of it's own voting procedures.

Attacking one individual right through political expediency is to allow the camel's nose under the tent skirt perhaps leading to restrictions on other civil liberties held more universally dear.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A cure for gun violence?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 09:51 PM EST
"That said, there is no justifiable reason for personal ownership of
automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, except the reason that everyone is afraid
to say: Overthrow of the U.S. Gov't."

I call "shenanigans". You've obviously never been charged by a pack
of javelina. I have, and was glad I had an AR15 with a 30 round magazine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No reason for that gun... no reason for much of anything if you think about it that way
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 10:52 AM EST

I think it is very odd that a community of people who are generally
freedom-loving types seem to lean so often on the "no reason" reason.

"No reason" is exactly why we have a constitution with a bill of
rights. Otherwise there is "no reason" I shouldn't be able to vote to
shut down your newspaper or outlaw your religion or keep your flag-burning
carcass in chains.

a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The amendment is there so the populace could revolt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 01:22 PM EST
Free Press, Free Speech, and The right to own firearms were
all put in the Bill of Rights in case a tyrant rose to power
displacing the republic (Think Caesar)... The people could

Now as to why the rise in general violence against one
another and kids shooting up schools... That is a different
story altogether. Gun control isn't the answer though...
roll it back to 1812 and I can just about grantee you that
every rural household, and many of the urban households, did
in fact have guns in them... Heck even in 1912 that was
probably the case... The male children, over the age of 10
were most probably taught how to fire the them.

There aren't newspaper stories of teenage children in these
communities in these time periods shooting up the
schoolhouse though... The entire gun control issue is a
straw-man... It's not the gun's.. it's something else in
society that has changed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I agree
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 01:46 AM EST
and let me add from the CDC

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%)
involved an alcohol-impaired driver.

I can see no justifiable reason for people to be able to buy alcohol ...
especially hard liquor.

Now that I think of it sports cars have very high accident rates as compared to
other car models. I can see no justifiable reason why people should be allowed
to own sports cars.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )