The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
On June 26th the Supreme Court upheld the personal right to keep and bear arms. What are the consequences, if any, for Utah and the rest of the country?
June 28th, 2008 by Leo Brown 
Leo Brown
June 28th, 2008 by Leo Brown Leo Brown
On June 26th the Supreme Court upheld the personal right to keep and bear arms. What are the consequences, if any, for Utah and the rest of the country?
June 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Before the recent Supreme Court decision, it was regarded as settled law that the Constitution had nothing to say about any individual right to keep and bear arms, if such a right exists. Certainly it does not in English Common Law, where the phrase appears only in the context of military service.
For a full discussion, read the 39-page “linguists brief” (PDF) written by Dennis E. Baron, Richard W. Bailey, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan.
Now, thanks to Justice Scalia and the other judicial activists on the court, the Second Amendment has been effectively rewritten. The majority has created a (limited) individual right to keep arms in one’s own house.
Lawyers can look forward to years of full employment, as a flood of court cases explores the limits of the newly-created right. Mr. Heller’s objection to the D.C. law was that he was not allowed to keep firearms in his house. The case had nothing to do with bearing arms in public. Also, the District of Columbia is under direct rule of the federal government, therefore the application of this ruling to state and municipal laws is unknown.
There are no consequences for Utah, which already caters to gun owners’ every whim. If we had a law forbidding weapons in schools, which we don’t, it would be unaffected by the new ruling.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:32 am
The gun laws that scare me are the type that passed in Florida which allow people to shoot anybody who threatens them. I believe people with money would be able to win any court battle, even if they were extremely careless and flippant about shooting somebody.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Larry,
I suggest that you go back and read the Florida gun laws again. The laws do not give anyone the right to shoot anyone who threatens them. There must be a threat to life or property in progress.
These laws are similar to the Texas “Castle Doctrine” laws. I think the laws are a positive step in reclaiming the rights of the victims instead of letting the criminals have all the advantages. Until recently Texas state law required you to retreat if faced with a criminal who was threatening bodily harm, no matter where that person was. Think about that, in your own home with kids down one hallway, you and wife down another. The law would require you to retreat, to allow the criminal the freedom to move about your home before he or she could be shoot. That was ridiculous. This is the type of changes the Castle Doctrine in Texas and Florida made, removing illogical requirements and allowing self defense to be reasonable.
To answer Leo’s question: I think that the country will see more states permitting “open carry” of firearms. Scalia was very clear in the decision that carrying was a part of the rights expressed in the 2nd amendment.
I think will see states forced to move away from the “shall issue” permitting/license arrangements to “must issue” requirements. Too many states have requirements that depend on bribes, political power or the whims of local law enforcement to issue concealed carry permits. Those will be challenged and changed.
I think we will see a reduction in the places where people are forced to disarm. Utah is a great example of this with the right to carry on college and university campuses.
Why should someone be forced to helpless on campus when that is where a majority of shootings have taken place. Again, this will remove the advantage of the criminals in having areas where they know their victims are disarmed. How many rapes, murders, and robberies can be stopped by a few students carrying? Since there hasn’t been an epidemic of students shooting each other in Utah, people won’t be able to say it isn’t safe.
There will be a reduction in the number of cities banning firearms; places like San Francisco, Chicago, New York. Those cities are proof the gun bans didn’t work, let the citizens defend themselves.
I think we will see a huge number of newspaper editorials, opinion pieces, columns, etc all warning of “wild west shootouts”, “blood running in the streets”, “anarchy”, “minor traffic accidents turning into gun fights” and for the most part none of it will happen.
I think that in a couple of months we will see a rise in the number of shootings as people tired of crooks having their way start fighting back. I think this will be a good thing by the way.
I think we will see in the immediate future court cases focusing on the incorporation of the 2nd amendment at state and local levels as required by the 14th amendment. Why should this be the only amendment limited only to the federal government when all others have been incorporated to state governments?
Larry, when you talk about people being extremely careless and flippant about shooting others are you talking about folks like this?
Somehow I don’t think you are talking about the flippant and careless attitude of the crooks but will focus more on someone like this man.
I ask which do you think should be doing the shooting? Walton or Broadnax?
June 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Last week here in Utah, a beautiful young white girl pulled out a handgun and shot a police officer in the face for no apparent reason during a routine traffic stop. It’s not only black kids that are causing problems, but they are much more likely to be placed in a venerable position, and made bitter by zero tolerance drug laws. These laws cause even bigger problems by jacking up the price of the drugs and introducing a whole new level of violence into the problem.
Guns do not solve the problem, sane legislation could. The new rulings on removing the disparity between punishment for powder cocaine and crack cocaine is a good start toward showing the poor people that laws are for everybody. The new retroactive immunity for giant telecom corporations does the opposite.
Whatever the Florida law says, the bottom line is that it will make it easier for wealthy people to kill. The biggest reason we have all of the violence we have is because of the Republican belief that if they have all the money, everybody will be better off. They, (rich and poor), are not.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Larry obviously keeps up with local news better than I do. The story about the shooting of Lehi police Capt. Harold Terry last Monday during a routine traffic stop is a shocker. The good news is that Capt. Terry survived.
These incidents affect all of us, because every driver at one time or another gets stopped by the police. It would be better if police officers didn’t have to worry that everybody could be armed. Just ask Jared Massey.
June 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Larry,
I see it’s make excuses for the criminals day here at 1Utah. Amazing how many poor people don’t realize they should be shooting anyone and everyone. Millions of poor every day forget that, shame on them. Millions of poor don’t deal drugs, don’t they realize “The Man” is holding them down and forcing them to be criminals?
Let’s put some personal responsibility back into use and stop providing excuses for criminal behavior. Victor Frankel, in some of the worse circumstances imaginable, stated “Between stimulus and response is the freedom to choose.” Let’s provide accountability for those bad actors that choose a criminal response. Stop telling me they don’t have any options when millions don’t follow the same path.
Many more millions of gun owners don’t shoot up their neighborhoods or nieghbors, why should we provide an out for those that do?
For every article about the criminals that mis-use firearms, I could match where firearms save lives, save people from robbery, save women from rape. Is it worth it to put those people at the disadvantage because a small percentage of people mis-use a tool? I say no.
We have cities and states that have what you would call “sane legislation”; cities like San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C. Did any of those laws stop the violence? Absolutely not! All the “sane legislation” did was provide the criminals with un-armed victims.
I completely disagree with this statement. Money or no money that isn’t the reason we have a culture where violence is often the first answer to problems. How about the highest rates of single parent family homes, highest levels of absentee fathers, highest drop out rates think those affect people more than the presence or not of a firearm?
Money isn’t a zero sum game, everybody can have as much as they need or want. The problem is we’ve raised generations that expect the government to provide them with what they need instead of expecting them to work for it.
I can not believe that because I make a good living somebody out there must deal drugs or rob a store, not going to buy that at all.
We need to get back to a culture where people are responsible for their actions. Liberalizing concealed carry or open carry laws is a good start. Fewer criminals will be willing to gamble on attacking someone if the odds are higher that person is armed. Fewer criminals will rape a woman if there is a possibility of getting shot. Firearms don’t cause crime; criminals making bad choices cause crime.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Bob S:
If you don’t make $600,00 grand or more per year, and you support the republican party, you are a moron; simple as that!
June 30th, 2008 at 12:06 am
This country was much less violent when successful businessmen made dozens of times more money then their employee’s, and everybody had a chance to compete if they put a good effort forward. Now, successful businessmen make hundreds of times more money then their employee’s and spend of lot of it on lobbying politicians and vendors to sway things their way. How can somebody who works harder and longer then they do, for a fraction of the wealth hope to compete in a system like that Bob?
By sane legislation, I’m talking about the counterproductive drug war, which makes criminals out of people who just want to get high. As with prohibition, it creates a violent reaction and corrupts thousands of otherwise law abiding people.
How about not voting for leaders who strong-arm congress members to give themselves “retroactive immunity” for their crimes. The responsibility for a lawless and violent society doesn’t lie entirely with it’s most helpless members. Bush doesn’t have to walk around with blood on his hands; he forces people with less means to do that for him…
…and to fill his coffers.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Albert,
I don’t know what you are smoking, but ease off guy. I simply believe in equality of opportunity instead of equality of results or income. If that means I support the Republicans, those are your words not mine.
I support anyone who is willing to stand up for my rights and yours, not a particular party.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Larry,
I think this country was less violent when firearms were easily purchased. Firearms at one time could be purchased through mail order, local hardware stores, many local retailers; all without background checks, fingerprints, ballistic fingerprint, etc.
Guess in your version of history there was never a J.Paul Getty or any one of hundreds of successful business owners that made hundreds of times what the lowest paid worker made.
As far as competing in the system, I’m not sure what you mean?
As far was working longer and harder, I guarantee you that I and most people don’t work as long and as hard as most executives. I made that choice and don’t regret it. I also don’t regret the executives making the money they make, why should I?
Money isn’t a zero sum game; if the executives are making a lot of money it doesn’t mean there isn’t any left for me or others to make. See this is where I think a person’s efforts should be rewarded monetarily; let the executives and managers make theirs- I’ll make mine. There is enough to go around.
People who don’t like the amount of money they are making have many alternatives; change jobs, start their own business, get an education and change careers.
None of this has anything to do with the topic that I addressed: we have created or allowed to be created a culture that does not respect other peoples rights. There is a thug culture that has an entitlement mentality and that is where a large degree of the crime; especially violent crime is coming from.
Note there are millions of people just as poor, just as disadvantaged, just as un-educated as the thugs, but those others aren’t committing violent crime. Please don’t tell me businesses created it, the government created it. It is entirely a choice made by a sub-sect of the people; people who choose violence and crime over honest choices.
This I agree with and it shows why the Heller decision was so important
The responsibility also lies with the politicians who take away people’s rights; especially in areas of self defense. When the government forces people to rely on it for protect; that encourages criminals. When the government takes away the means to resist crime; it encourages people to accept crime as a fact of life. It doesn’t have to be that way.
The responsibility also lies with politicians and those that want to control every aspect of peoples lives. From smoking to environmentalist, from mandatory public education (check out the recent California home schooling ruling) to trans-fat; there isn’t an area of our lives where someone isn’t trying to tell us how to live. Get out of our lives; the more you try to tell people how to live, the more they expect you to provide the means to live that way. Sorry, but we need to roll back the entitlements and have people accept responsibility for the decisions they make in their lives.
Want to reduce the deficit; how about getting rid of nearly 50% of the budget in entitlements. Let consequences of choices have an impact in people’s lives and people will start making better choices. If they don’t, we can’t change them and we shouldn’t have to support those that can do for themselves.
This is especially true in crime and self-defense. That is why ‘castle doctrine’ laws are being implemented nation wide. Florida and others provide strict guidelines on when deadly force can be used. If a criminal encounters those circumstances and dies because of his or her actions; so be it- it’s choice they made.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I don’t work as hard as most executives myself Bob, but I’m sure they don’t work hundreds of times harder then I do. How do I know that? Because I work damn hard every day and when I’m not working, I’m trying to get guys like you to understand the fact that Republicans are wrecking the country.
Bob said:
You’re not under oath Bob! Can’t you just say what you mean. Instead of saying Albert is calling you a Republican, can’t you just tell him what party you ARE in that is standing up for your rights. You sound like David Addington or John Yoo at the hearing last week.
You seem to actually believe that if everyone had a gun, all our problems would be solved. The economy, poverty, crime; everything!
Let me say this about the ‘castle doctrine’. Let’s say a very poor colored man and a very, very, very rich man were walking past each other on a dark night and gave each other a very threatening stare as they passed. Both men are armed and the fear overcomes them so they produce the weapons which obviously constitutes a threat large enough to allow both men to fire away!
Do you think the rich man is going to pay as high a price as the poor black man. Don’t smoke or especially DRINK anything before you give the answer.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Larry,
Hate to tell you this, but life isn’t as simple as the two-party system. I don’t base my decisions on the person’s party affliations. Does it matter that I voted in one primary or the other, absolutely not. I voted for the candidate that I thought was the best. I’ll do the same in the presidential election in November. Some of us base our decision on what is best; first for the country, then for the future, and finally for ourselves. I like to think of myself in that category.
As to working hard or not; that isn’t what I said. Your decisions don’t have the same impact as the executives, you don’t risk as much as they do. Why should you get paid the same? Or is it that ” from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” your motto? Thanks but I’ll pass up the communism.
Want to earn more? In America it is very simple, take a position that pays more; start your own company. If you are not satisfied with the income you are receiving don’t try to take away someone else’s pay, raise your own.
As to ‘castle doctrine’; what you cite is not remotely related to any castle doctrine laws that I’ve studied. In studying for concealed carry, armed citizens have to learn the laws as to when lethal force and even the threat of it can be used. The situation you described isn’t sufficient to rise to that level.
How about people being robbed via home invasion robbery? Should the average citizen be disarmed and forced to fight unarmed? That is the basis of castle doctrine. Recognizing those breaking in, those attempting to do so are already putting the person at home in jeopardy. Castle doctrine laws remove the specter of civil suits when the home owner has a legitimate reason to use lethal force.
If a person, at home or in the street, does not have a legitimate reason to use lethal force then both criminal and civil proceedings can be pursued.
Is there a disparity in resources available to the rich and the poor, yes. Is that sufficient reason to disarm everyone? Nope.
I also never said nor thought that arming everyone would solve all the problems of the world but it makes a good place to start.
There are many things we can do to fix society , why not start with simple manners and civility. Those basic things like respect for others, watching language, not breaking into other people’s homes, raping, robbing. An armed society that is willing and allowed to stop those criminal acts has more time and energy to focus on other issues; Poverty, education, health care, etc.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Larry,
I honestly don’t think that you have the slightest clue regarding the Castle Doctrine.
Most simply put, it forces a prosecutor to begin looking at the case as if the homeowner acted in self defense. It doesn’t lower the bar to self defense. It doesn’t work to clear someone who acted recklessly. It doesn’t excuse murder.
It’s interesting that folks think that the doctor, school bus driver, airline pilot, mechanic, teacher - people that we trust with our lives on a daily basis - will somehow become homicidal maniacs if allowed to posess a gun.
What does that say about you?
July 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I shouldn’t have even brought up the ‘castle doctrine’ because in reading Bob’s reply’s, I thought that referred to the laws that they loosened in Florida. I imagined they were calling it that because people would be considered to be carrying their castles with them wherever they went now. I’m an slightly familiar with the rights people have to protect their home, but I spend no time at all combing over gun laws. So, it’s true, in this case I am an idiot and didn’t know what I was talking about.
I have no desire whatsoever to get money that other people worked harder for then I did. I worked for three years on a computer program which got published. I had every intention of keeping that money for myself. To make a long story short, Atari went out of business and I made virtually nothing. I had offers to continue programming and might have been able to work in some capacity with a few of the best programmers in the world, even though my skills were not even close to theirs. I was just burned out, so I stopped programming and fell back on my optician career which was providing me with money. The others went on to produce “3ds max” and related products, a breathtaking piece of programming history that built on their work for Atari.
Do CEO’s work harder then I did when I spent every bit of my time working a full time job and coming home to program? NO! Do I deserve anybody else’s money because I ran into some bad luck and gave up? NO! Should I lie and cheat to make sure I get ahead now that I’m old and running out of time? NO! Do I believe all of my tax money should go to liars and cheaters who steal elections and profit from war? HELL NO! Should I have to spend all my spare time trying to inform people who just won’t learn that we have been scammed because the media is in bed with the war profiteers? DOUBLE HELL NO! I could be spending my time trying to start a business, if I didn’t have to spend time trying to save my country, but it doesn’t look like that is in the cards right now!
Some wealthy people’s children will never truly have to know what it’s like to be the least bit venerable while the rest of us struggle harder every day. Is that type of society better then communism? I think that’s debatable. What is wrong with an inheritance tax? Why can’t we provide a decent living for people in our society who work full time or longer? There are so many questions that need answering.
Go ahead and vote for any man who will protect your right to own a gun and let everything else slide. I plan to fight a class war that was started by the upper class, and I won’t have to lie, steal or shoot anybody to do it. Just tell the truth.