6/28/2010
What an incredible newsday it has been! Please check out the following NPR link (if it does not work just go on to npr.org and find a linke or share another relevant site) on today's Supreme Court 5-4 decision on gun control and discuss WHY IS THIS DECISION SIGNIFICANT?
http://npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=128172317&m=128172522
gw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why is this significant? It proves that the constitution still holds some credibility. The Second Amendment is still holding strong. Supporters of Gun Rights have got to be pleased by the decision, along with constitutionalists. Others, like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, are displeased with the decision. They explain that common sense tells an individual that less guns are needed to reduce the crime in cities like Chicago! However, common sense also tells one that a criminal will get a gun if they want one. No law is going to prevent that. It's just ignorant to suggest that a criminal will obey the law. The 5-4 decision sparks more gun rights controversey, but it does result in the constitution still being the guideline of which the government must follow.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?ref=us
I find it not only astonishing but also very disconcerting that the vote was so close. The second amendment clearly expresses the right of civilians to keep and bear arms. I find it amazing that this amendment is still misinterpreted by the media and the government. The founding fathers did not write this law to encourage people to go on hunting trips or to allow for Americans to go to the local gun range and target practice. The second amendment allows any American citizen to shoot any person that is stealing from them, or attempting to harm them. This law extends into other scenarios, but my point is that the founding fathers wrote the right to bear arms in order to let American citizens protect themselves. Specifically, they intended for it to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government. While this decision does show that there is hope yet for the constitution and its principals, it also shows how scarily close America is to going back on its founding principals.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R35920100628
As you said, this ruling is significant because it confirms the individual right to bear arms. In class we will discuss the nuances of the 2nd Amendment. This ruling also brought up the 10th Amendment controversy of states rights.
ReplyDeleteI see that if they did reduce arms through violating the right to bear arms that would be seen as tyranny but I do understand how the vote was so close. There is the obvious idea that the founding principles of America should be upheld but with the recent deaths of officers and the gang violence, who wouldn't have the ideal that less guns meant less harm? I can see where the people came from because although the rights of the people should be upheld, there is the obvious concern of protecting the citizens as well... Governor Daley should not be seen as an enemy for seeing the risk of freedom with arms but this is essentially limiting the people's freedom, which is what America stands for.
ReplyDeleteThe decision ended with the protection of this amendment although it caused an uproar was made with deep thought from the court because they outlined the limits of owning a gun that would not disrupt the people's rights but wouldn't allow bullets to rage across the whole nation.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2012238583_apussupremecourtguns.html
It is obvious to me that more gun control does not equal less crime. It is exactly like prohibition worked in the early 10th century. All you are doing is taking the guns or gun rights away from those that can legally possess them. Prohibition was designed to cut gang violence, but it was arguably the greatest income and growth boost to the mob. In much the same way, it won't prevent criminals from owning guns (it may legally but not in reality) but rather it will turn regular american citizens into criminals. It is important that we try to learn from history so that we can prevent the same kind of mistakes from happening again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100702/pl_afp/usjusticegunschicago_20100702181818;_ylt=AtXxrID.BlIrlhcuDVdUNXP3SpZ4
ReplyDeleteAbove is a link to Mayor Daley's, of chicago, response to the Supreme Court decision. To me this extreme limitation on the right to bear arms is also unconstitutional. Is this going against the Supreme Court's decision? Is it unconstitutional?
I see where you are coming from (Connor Thomas) and I agree with what you are saying about Prohibition- about how merely taking away the weapon will not bring the outcome most would initially expect. But I do not see where you were going with regular citizens turning into criminals... I suppose with this it would be by simply owning a gun?
ReplyDeleteConner might be saying that regular citizens, who would normally not steal, would go to certain lengths to retrieve these weapons. People will retain there rights no matter what the cost. Conner, feel free to correct me!
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head, Heath. I also meant that by criminalizing guns, you are essentially indirectly criminalizing those that own them and that are associated with them.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and the Amendments. But I don't think that the Founders of our nation envisioned high caliber automatic weapons available to anyone. Maybe the Founders opinion of gun control (Second Amendment) is outdated in some ways due to the changing technology. However, I agree that criminals will be able to get guns if they want them, and that restrictions on legal gun sales may only increase business in illegal arms dealing. If government is going to crackdown on sales of guns, they also have to put more effort into stopping illegal sales of guns.
ReplyDeleteThis decision is significant because it re-strengthens our government's resolve to keep the 'higher law' that is our Constitution as THE 'Higher Law'... but it also brings up a question as to whether or not the Constitution is outdated. With all of the new guns that are out there, it seems to me that the best way to approach this decision is to ask why they didn't make some sort of ruling that kept certain guns out of public hands. It would still keep the 2nd Amendment in it's power, but it would help make it safer for the world as it is today. It could also be put into the State's power to regulate which weapons it allows to be sold and be kept in someone's home, thus keeping the 10th Amendment in power as well. Unfortunatly in a world where the newest weapon may soon be a lazer gun which incinerates on impact, the right to bear arms may soon become to much of a controversy to hold up in this dynamic, ever changing world of the twenty-first century.
ReplyDeleteI find that Jennifer's comment was quite interesting and set apart from the ones above, I must say I see myself pondering exactly what she said about this constantly evolving world we live in. This is return brings forth the very question she asks about the constitution even with its greatness, could more alterations be in its future? Not to say we should get rid of it but there will certainly be many more situations that it may need some tweaking as the age mankind expands.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what she said about the importance of this case because it expresses the higher law very well.
In response to make laws to take certain guns out of the public's hands, I don't believe that's entirely possible because people will find ways to get them anyway... I mean not to say it wouldn't be a good idea but that it may not result as expected as someone posted above that there could be a black market for guns...
Ah - hah ... and that is a very important point ... should our Constitution and Bill of Rights evolve with the times or not? How should it be interpreted?? This is an issue that divides the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.seattlepi.com/sound/423738_sound98853469.html
ReplyDeleteTHIS DECISION ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN! BEFORE IT WAS ILLEGAL TO BRING GUNS INTO A STATE PARK BUT NOW THAT THIS DECISION PASSED, THE POLICIES CHANGED. THIS HAPPENED IN ISSAQUAH, ONLY 40 MINUTES FROM MAPLE VALLEY...
This is why this decision is significant.
I know that this is significant because it shows that the United States still feels that abiding to the constitution is important. But also, it shows that we as a country are afraid of change. I mean, the fact that the United states has roughly 11,000 deaths related to guns pr year, while other countries such as Britain only have roughly 70 per year (if Britains population was similar to the USA's that would still only be 350 deaths per year) it shows we need to change as a country. We made the Constitution a flexible document so we could change it with the times. I mean, we're still abiding to similar freedoms today that were protecting our ancestors from bears and indians! We dont need guns for the public anymore! But of course criminals will be able to obtain guns... thats obvious. But whats also obvious is that if we excessively lower the amount of guns that go to the public, it will be much harder for those minor Delinquents, who steal their father's guns, to obtain one and shoot other students at their school. This is just one of the infinate ways our society will improve with stricter gun policies. Although the second amendment has set a course for our country in it's last 200 years of history, it needs to be amended with the times.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what has been said about stricter gun policies not having the ideal outcome, however I do think some questions regarding the second amendment should be clarified. First of all, what types of weapons is an individual civilian allowed to own? How many may they own? The second amendment does not mean that any person can carry any weapon with them at any time. I think there should be clearer guidelines about what is acceptable and what is not. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision left open for question what the lower courts are supposed to do regarding gun usage and ownership. I think this should be clarified as well so everyone knows what is and is not protected by the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, the NPR coverage mentioned that there are certain laws banning people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. Having a personal connection with a family torn apart by domestic violence, I fully support this law. I think that with the privilege of the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to use them wisely and only for self-defense. People convicted of domestic violence involving guns and weapons show that they can’t responsibly and safely handle these weapons and in this case, I believe that their privileges should be revoked. In order for our nation to provide rights to our citizens, we must show we can handle the responsibility and act wisely.
The decision on gun control was clearly very significant because it proves the relevance and strength of the Constitution today. The decision shows that the founding fathers did not work in vain, and their documents and ideas are still valued, followed, and implemented many years later. I do believe that the decision was the right one because it is clearly outlined that people have the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment. On the other hand, I agree with Emily. Certain precautions and limitations must be taken and the meaning of the 2nd amendment must be clear and interpreted correctly. It was not intended for all people to own machine guns and grenades. There must be a limitation and it sounds like none was directly outlined in the case. I also agree that other laws against guns must be in place, like the news report said. Certain people should not be permitted to own guns because they could cause a lot of human suffering. Also, guns should not be brought into certain areas, such as schools, hospitals, airports and many other public places because of the various dangers. Overall, the government cannot legally limit gun control because of the 2nd amendment and people do have the right to own guns. Nevertheless, certain precautions must be made in order to keep our country safe.
ReplyDeleteI also was interested by the end of the newscast. This part stated that a religious group from University of California Hastings College of Law changed its bylaws to exclude gays and lesbians from membership. This group of people stated that their Constitutional rights to freedom of association and speech were violated. The courts sided with the school in this case. This concerns me because it shows that the freedom of association and speech are not being upheld as they should be. What does this mean?
This decision proves that the Constitution is still relevant in today's society. However, like everything else (even the Constitution itself), we need a compromise. Nothing is ever black and white.
ReplyDeleteI was holding off on commenting on this, because I needed some time to formulate my opinion on the matter, because in 2008, something happened that changed our lives forever. At my old Church in New Jersey, a place I grew up in, a gunman opened fire during the Church service. He drove all the way across the country and shot his wife at my Church. She was killed. He shot a 23-year-old man, someone I knew, and he was killed. Finally, he shot my aunt. Thank God, she made it, but she is paralyzed on the left side. My uncle has to spend the rest of his retirement, something he was supposed to enjoy with his wife and family, taking care of Silvy Aunty-aiding her, assisting her. It's hard for them to travel. It's hard for them to go on with their lives. Friends of mine were traumatized. My family and I flew out there to support them, we had moved from NJ only two years earlier. This was the first time we were seeing them in two years, but it was for all the wrong reasons. I remember being with my cousins, the wake and the funeral for Dennychachen, the swollen condition my aunt lay in on her hospital bed. Continuous praying. Crying. Feelings of guilt, remorse, what if's.
There was a history of domestic violence in that household. He had abused his wife. She, trying to get away from him, fled to New Jersey to live with my aunt. I believe there should be restrictions on who can possess guns. He shouldn't have been able to. The wife who was shot, Reshma, she had filed a restraining order against him. People with histories of violence or criminal records should never be permitted to own or purchase guns. Period. Because I see the consequences of that man's actions in our lives. People like that cannot and should not be trusted.
Yet, if government, including military, should be the only ones allowed to possess arms...can we trust that much power to certain people in high places? It could be tyrannical.
This may sound silly, but I think of all those movies with alien invasions, etc. People, individuals specifically, should be able to bear arms as means of defense. People who can be trusted with that power.
You may say that every criminal has got to start somewhere...that he may fire a gun. Yes, but if we pay attention to signs, to cases, and limit the number of people who can get their hands on guns, the number of gun-related homocides and suicides can be tremendously reduced.
Therefore, we should compromise. There should be restrictions on who can possess guns, but it shouldn't be outlawed. As we see from the Prohibition Era, there is something so appealing about breaking an extreme law, just look at all the people who smuggled alcohol! "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."
This decision clearly recognizes, as everyone else has stated, the Constitution. the decision is up holding the second amendment. This decision is so very significant due to the controversy that accompanies it. This controversy is even see in the vote within the supreme court 5-4. With this one vote margin it is easily seen that the decision to take away citizens rights to bear arms is a hard one. One fact that the NPR Player states is that a person is allowed to bear arms in self defense. All though this doesn't prevent guns from being used for violence, it states the intentions of the Supreme Court Justices that supported the right.
ReplyDeleteAs further support and as what others above have said placing a ban on gun ownership won't prevent bad people from owning and using a gun, as they say a lock only keeps an honest person out. In an ideal world placing a ban on guns would work, but in the reality of which we live crime will still exist and a simple law won't stop people.
The right to bear arms is a very fundemental right, there is simply no way to look over the issue to the favor of anti-gun activists. While their intent on the issue is well, they propose a severe limit on the freedoms that an american citizen may have. For a land of freedom and justice that is stikingly sad.
ReplyDeleteNow that the court ruled that the law from the federal government now applies to the state and city level, every single person now enjoys the right to bear arms.
Our rights as a nation should never be subject to time, that would destroy the very foundations that would allow the citizen to change governments by force if necissary. Also, diffrent political parties have various agendas that need to be taken into consideration. THe constitution and the bill of rights area great in that they were the compromise between all of the states intrests. ANy changes now would be the result of the party in charge of the legeslative body at the time, this would limit the government.
Although I agree with Luke that gun control is a right delivered by the Constitution; I disagree that it is a severe limit on our freedoms. If gun control is enforced, millions of American lives will be saved! The constitution was drafted by our founders to be a flexible document and so we could change with the times. In their days, guns were not even one-tenth of the threat that they are today. Today they kill innocent people on large scales. If guns were restricted so only authoritative figures could use them, then America would become a safe haven where nobody would feel too scared to walk on the streets at night.
ReplyDeleteAccording to
http://astro.temple.edu/~tua19100/pro.html
*Firearms in the home are 43 times more likely to kill the owner or a family member than a criminal, and
*The Brady Act prevented firearms purchases at gun shows. The effects were a 35% drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate.
With this said, does it even seem feasible that guns should stay in residential homes?
In response to Austin's queation, "does it even seem feasible that guns should stay in residential homes?", I do think that in some cases, this should be the case. Like in areas where crimes are higher than the norm and owning a gun helps keep robbers and criminals away. Also, in some back-water areas where people still grow cattle and horses and need to protect them from people who try to steal them to make a profit. (This last case does still happen.) Besides, that 43 percent where it kills the owner or family member, is that because the gun went off in a closet, or because the owner/weilder of the gun was uneducated on the proper way to use a gun? I think that not only should it be controlled what types of weapons are allowed, but also to whom. People with past problems, like criminals and such should never be allowed to possess a gun. I also think that there should be a sort of training course that people have to get a certificate from completing in order to buy and gun and to keep it in their residence. I also believe that guns should NEVER be allowed into public areas like schools, airports, parks, stores, and other places where hundreds of people go on an almost daily basis.
ReplyDeleteWith my opinion laid out, what are some of the pitfalls in having public courses designed to instruct someone in the care and use of guns? Should there be an age limit with this? If so, what age is early enough to learn how to be safe with a gun?
Like many others have stated, the right to bear arms is stated in the second amendment of the Constitution. I believe, however dangerous that gun ownership can be, it is fundamental in order for some to feel protected. Not every person who picks up a gun is going to use it in a negative way. Some use it for sport, recreation, but there are others who abuse the power and right for gun ownership; and that’s where the problems occur. The Founders created the Constitution in a way that can be molded to different situations as time goes on. As Jennifer stated before, who’s to say that the evolvement of guns won’t create more havoc as they advance in technology. We cannot predict what will occur and so therefore, one must live in the present and focus on the issues at hand. I believe that the Bill of Rights and Constitution should evolve with times but not rush into decisions that may not help the people.
ReplyDeleteMany have also stated that regulations on gun control would help limit the ability to gain possession of guns and hence lower the amount of harm done by guns. I believe this true, and I think that it should be in the power of the state to decide the situations of gun control because there may be a higher tendency for problems in one state rather than another; and example might be rural Kansas, and crime prone Nevada. If gun ownership was outlawed there is nothing that would stop black market selling guns and still occurring problems.
And for obvious reasons, guns should not be permitted in school settings, public locations, airports etc because they are areas of high population and the presence of a gun could potentially impact a large number of people. Also, to answer Jennifer’s question of “what are some of the pitfalls in having public courses designed to instruct someone in the care and use of guns?” my personal opinion would be that you have no clue who you would be teaching to use a gun. In a situation like this you just have to use judgment. You could be teaching an old lady who wants to learn how to use a gun properly because maybe she lives alone and fears her home being broken into or a robbery. Or, in a worst case scenario, you could be teaching a potential criminal how to use a gun. There are many things that can be brought up, but if there weren’t ways or classes in which someone could learn how to use a gun, who’s to say that there would be more or less incidences. With a class, at least a person wouldn’t guess on how to work the gun and fire off the weapon by accident and causing harmful effects. According to NRA-ILA, Federal Law states that one must be 21 to purchase a handgun/ammunition and 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun. If this is the age in which the Federal law allows a man or woman to own a gun, then this is the rightful age in which to learn how to use a gun properly.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=43
I think this decision is very significant after having read Unit 4, in which it talks about the Constitution and the interpretation of it. The book goes over the four different ways to interpret the constitution-as we all have read, and one of this methods was to ensure that the original meaning and purpose of the amendment is followed through with.
ReplyDeleteNow, to jump a little; there are many reasons why people should not own guns. Not only do many burglary-gun deaths occur with the homeowners gun (the burglar uses the persons defense as their own weapon against the family). It is REALLY hard to find an accurate percent or number for this type of accident; mostly because there are either entirely anti- or pro-gun use websites. Quite biased.
So, not only can your own gun cause your death but with improper training can lead to fatal accidents against others. We can also see instances like the Columbine shooting and other public outbursts that can lead to the death in the hundreds-the deaths of many innocent people, and children.
Now, while these are all sad facts-they can be said about automobiles, knives, etc.
What bugs me the most about this law, that doesn't really follow with the interpretation of the constitution to me, is that when this amendment was first processed into the Bill of Rights, it was 1791. And if I am correct, guns back then could take up to two minutes to load, with gun powder and a metal stick in which you jammed the gun powder deep into the gun.
Now, do we all seriously believe that when the framers created this amendment they meant that they wanted to extend this right to 18 year olds with guns that can fire hundreds of shots in a few minutes, can be hidden easily, and kill silently?
Frankly, I don't think this is what they intended. Because, there are so many gangs, irresponsible teenagers, and angry adults that kill silently, quickly, and effectively-because of guns. These people are assisted and so many others are now given the opportunity for mistake with this new Supreme Court ruling.
I, in my mind of minds, do not believe that the framers wanted the opportunity for anyone over 18 to own a gun. What a world of hurt we shall be in.
Now, there are many limitations to place on this ruling to be progressive. If not already a law in all states, a back ground check and at least 200+ hours of gun training should go on before owning a gun. At it should be the law that guns must be locked up in a safe at all times when not to being used to try and prevent some of the accidents.
All in all, this decision may have some good outcomes but in the long run I feel it will be extremely detrimental.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260
The Supreme Court states that gun owenership is an inidividual right. But I feel like its a right that must be earned-not deliviered.
In response to Angela:
ReplyDeleteI quite agree with your statement that the Framers didn't foresee what the world would turn into. They didn't know what new technology would bring, with small hand guns that can be easily carried around, but it is a right granted within the Constitution, a right to protect oneself. But I have a question in response, like I stated previously, will a law against guns stop bad people from using them?
While I do agree that we must uphold the Second Amendment, I question to what degree. My belief is that the Constitution should be interpreted to apply to modern times. As Mrs. Wulfing brought up, the way in which the Constitution is interpreted is a very controversial matter. However, this case concerning gun control seems to be an apposite example of why I support Modernism. As Thomas stated, the founder’s may not have anticipated civilians having the opportunity to carry high caliber guns. The situations of the time period were completely different than those of today. Not only is the type of weaponry different, but the types of crimes as well. The Constitution, while still relevant, must be adjusted to adapt to these changes. For example, because the fundamental provisions of the Second Amendment provides that all have the right to posses and bear arms, it must remain so in modern times. The types of arms available to everyone, however, could be limited. While that may not be how someone who approaches the Constitution through modernism would interpret it, I still feel that it is a necessity for the Constitution to adjust to changing circumstances in some way. This is also the reason I am not surprised by the 5-4 vote. It is difficult to apply the Constitution to such modern, controversial issues.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, does anyone else support the idea of modernism? If not, what do you support and how would that view impact this case?