I haven’t read Scalia’s or Stevens’ opinions yet, but the whole “military service” line always struck me as wrong by simple dictionary definition. The “militia” is not the armed services, but the mass of civilians (historically, adult males) who might be eligible for military service. Now, things have changed a lot since 1791; someone joining the army doesn’t usually bring along his own rifle anymore, which may have been an unspoken assumption behind the 2nd Amendment; also, 18th century military hardware was available to anyone who cared to pay for it. You could have your own private warship with cannons if you wanted. These days, it’s pretty much accepted that civilians should not have nuclear weapons, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, and so on. It could be argued (though I wouldn’t necessarily do so myself) that these changes make the 2nd Amendment an irrelevant anachronism. But even if we agree that this is so, it is not for the Supreme Court to decide the matter. Congress and the states would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment formally. I’m ready to have that conversation if the gun control advocates want to start it, but they seem to prefer the path of ignoring the Amendment entirely, or eliminating it by creative (if unhistorical, ungramatical, and generally intellectually dishonest) re-interpretation. This is not how our legal system is supposed to work.

Supreme Court nominations can matter in these tight situations.

Well arms could be those two appendages attached to ones upper torso. Bear could be a large grisly animal known to eat berries, seals, honey and sometimes people.

So yes, I want to ‘keep’ but not ‘bear’ my ‘arms’

But really I think they meant to own [keep] and bear [shoulder them, point, have on person, carry, for use] arms [firearms]

I would imagine this ruling would have some effect on the patriot act as well. IE a militia could be defined as a terrorist group. Guess we will have to wait n see.

If you don’t like to hunt, why would you need weapons? You’re not afraid of your own government, are you, you traitorous scum?

The Court did the right thing in the situation.  But the idea that an armed citizenry can withstand government tyranny is meretricious.  Uncle Sugar has much greater firepower available than do the neighbors, even in a rough neighborhood.  Also, if the neighbors start shooting, any decent instinct Uncle Sugar may still have will go out the window.  Standing up to the ZOG monster or whatever may sound virtuous and macho to the denizens of rural Idaho, but it may not be practicable for urbanites.  Philadelphia, say, would look like Falujah if the natives shot back.  Let us remember that John Wayne was able to portray such all-American manhood so well because he never had to face live ammunition.  Resisting Uncle Sugar with arms would be like peeing into a fan blowing towards one, only far nastier.

Having personal firearms is all well and good, but let’s be realistic.

It’s cute that folks still look at a Supreme Court decision and way the merits of the arguments, but it’s just kabuki theater.

Scalia, who plays a Conservative on the Tele, writes his learned opinion about self-defense and hunting, but folks, this is a lie.

The 2nd Amendment is about resistance to Federal Tyranny.

But wanting to make this election seem relevant, we get a close 5-4 vote that does nothing.

This is indeed good news.  Jet, some excellent statements,(though I dispute your remarks at another post conerning JG0.  RS, the fact that the centgov has more advanced technology in some sectors does not automatically equate to a victory against a widespread insurgency.  It would be more of battle for hearts and minds, as well as a test of gutss on either side.  The US military would split into various factions regarding a US resistance, some evidence given by a US military survey regarding US troop reaction to orders to confiscate firearms in a future scenario.  Most of the respondents said they would refuse, with the highest % of pro-confiscators being Marines.  It would be groups like Blackwater, and elite military units, who would be most likely to follow orders.  The centgov lacks the overall numbers to enforce its writ.  There are simply too many firearms, both known and unknown, in the hands of the citizenry, and most importantly, still enough guts, to stop DC.  I already know that the State is an illegal, immoral murder regime by it very existence - once a critical mass of people share the belief, mere refussl to follow the centgov’s orders will be enough to topple it, with hopefully no bloodshed.

C Brown, I read Scalia’s opinion and didn’t see any references to hunting.

Simon Tregarth has some interesting thoughts.  One is that there may be a great national shootout.  Let’s skip the one that the federal government is illegal and immoral by definition.  Granted, it needs an enema administered with a firehose, but that’s another topic.  The problem with a citizen insurrection is that the losses of life and property would be horrific.  And the idea that the good guys and dolls would win a national High Noon at the OK Corral is optimistic enough that I don’t care to bet on it.  Should such an event break out, I intend to play safe by swimming to Switzerland via the Panama Canal.

I have 10+ hits ‘hunt’ when I search the opinion.

It’s quite simple, the question, for a conservative is whether DC can make its own laws. 

It is not a debate about the 2nd Amendment.  It’s clear the Federal Government cannot make any laws restricting possession.

There is nothing more to add.  All else is a distraction, a thought out calculated distraction. 

The reason there is a 2nd Amendment was to sell the coup d’etat government to the public- we will not take your guns.  That is the historical context of the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia does spend the majority of the prose on self-defense of “criminal” home invasion, but it should be freaking obvious this is a set-up.  He is the conservative so he is the only one who can sell this nonsense.

Right decision, a fool’s celebration.

RS, it would be nice to visit the Helvetians at such a time.  If a widespread resistance developed it could become bloody, but it is not inevitable that it would.  If you are thinking of a High Noon scenaio you are thinking of a setpiece engagement. Think instead of 4th GW, mass confusion, a far more complex version of current Iraq.

ST - righto!  A setpiece shootout would at least have the advantage(?) of being over rather quickly.  A long war of attrition is just what I wish not to attend.  How civilian life could continue without epidemics, starvation &c;. is beyond imagination.  A decade or two of guerilla warfare isn’t worth it, at least to me.  Let’s figure out how to give Uncle Sugar an enema instead.

RS, you have my full agreement.  One person injured, a person’s home destroyed is too large a price, so I’m all for a non-violent solution if possible.  As a first step, I would be happy to see the gradual restoration of constitutional government. To C Ap’Owen (Welsh?), you are right on all points. It was a coup detat

I think Rodney Balko offers serious food for thought over at Reason with this one: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127227.html

What’s the fuss? This decision merely codifies the status quo in most jurisdictions. If the Supremes had found a right (or even a presumption) for any citizen in his right mind to bear arms on his person in public then that would have been something notable (don’t hold your breath)!

How the court’s ruling finished gave me my biggest smile of the week:

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.”

(take two:)

How the court’s ruling finished gave me my biggest smile of the week:

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.”

“Well trained police forces provide personal security”

Maybe for Supreme Court jsutices, but not for serfs, his own court ruled so,
cops are under no obligation to provide for your safety -it’s not their job

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189

Scalia is a paradox - or schitzophrenic, here he was decent on the 2nd, but recently
absolutely deplorable on habeus corpus.

As far as the futility of resistance (due to superior weaponry)if confiscation
were ordered, we have a living labratory going on right now - Iraq.

But I highly doubt it would ever come to that her in the late Home of the Brave.
There would be pockets of resistance here and there, easily handled by the Marines
and Blackwater (hey, Support the Troops, ya commie!!) but I submit the vast majority
of fireams owners would grumble some, hand ‘em over and get back to NFL football and
FOX news, all the while considering themselves Patriots.

America is just completely effed up to the hilt.
would gr
to such an order but they’d be

Man, an edit and/or preview button would be nice…

@ Marty, Right you are.  That’s why Obama is so dangerous. Posted by mcbrown

Obama is an Ivey Leaguer just as Bush was. When will people learn that our rights are being removed not because of left/right ideologies bit because both parties are working to secure the oligarchial collectivism.

I once read what some guy, anon, wrote that the more he collected [assets] the more and more he became a security guard for his belongings. This is the real reason why governments, at the request of the immensely wealthy, reduce the rights of the people thruout history.

I dont want their money, I just want to be free.

Supreme Court nominations can matter in these tight situations.

At this very site, Mr. Flynn has, rightly, demolished the falsity that voting for a republican means a right-thinking SCOTUS Justice will be nominated.

No mater which collectivist is elected - Obama or McCain - we is screwed; until the Legislative or Executive Branch grows a set and tells the SCOTUS, “Fine.That is YOUR interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution, now here is ours. We have a disagreement. What are you gonna do, R. Bad Ginsburg, order me arrested? Try it and we’ll impeach your ugly ass.”

This decision does not support the false idea that we need to vote Republican.

Of the 4 dissenting judges 2 were Republicans. 7 of the 9 are Republicans.

One commenter suggested this is kabuki theater.  More support of that particular notion is the fact that there are no federally licensed firearm dealers in DC.  As such, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals in DC can own firearms in their home, they cannot be legally purchased.  As I underand it, firearms must be purchased in the purchaser’s state of residence.  Or, if purchased in another state, shipped to a licensed firearms dealer in the purchaser’s state of residence.  This being the case, and the liklihood of federally licensed firearms dealers popping up in DC being fairly nil, I don’t suspect there will be too many “legal” firearms