I've read the SC ruling, and I've read Polman's opinion. Polman disagrees with the SC majority. Like I said, it's a difference of opinion,..

The problem, Runasim, is that neither the Second Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is an opinion. The right to bear arms is not subject to individual opinion. If it were, the decision as to whether that right existed would depend on whoever was in power. And any right that depends on the opinion of whoever is in power isn't a right in the first place.

Where the Constitution remains silent on an issue, I can see room for interpretation. But when a right is explicitly stated within the Constitution, I cannot see any reason to diminish that right (even in done with the best intentions in mind) unless the Constitution is amended.

About your concern with “endless litigation”: Every time a public school objects to some jerk kid wearing a T-Shirt that says “F- You,” the kid has the right to make a 1st Amendment Federal case about it (and often does.) And frankly, it irritates the hell out of me that a school has to spend money on such a case that could go to, e.g., programs for special needs kids. But I don't know what to do about it, because we do have a 1st Amendment (which also protects more worthy activities than that of the jerk kid.) (Justice Thomas thinks that the brat kid has zippo 1st Amendment rights in a public school, but I think he's a minority of one on this issue.)

So, you're right, the Supreme Court's decision will lead to more litigation. That's what happens when the court upholds an individual right. However, I'd venture that it will lead to less litigation than you think, because the local courts in 40-something states already hold to an individual-rights interpretation of their state constitutions' analogous right-to-bear-arms provisions, and/or have statutes which uphold guns rights and which preempt contrary municipal regulations. So we might be talking about a relatively small amount of cases, including a couple high-profile ones dealing with Chicago and New York.

Good night, all.

'Permissible regulations and restricions' is an invitation to such as the NRA to challenge what is permissibe.at every turn.

I think it was Breyer who commneted: “What have we done?”
One thing the SC has done is to make a lot of alwyers very rich, while local communities bite their nals. and worry about their budgets.

In the end, Scalia's opinion quite clearly states it is NOT an open, unfettered right, and is subject to many existing limitations, and that regulation and licensing and the like are all permissible.

All they really said that the Second Amendment is an individual right (which really is self-evident), so you cannot completely ban the possession or use of handguns, but you can regulate. Except for those who will accept nothing less than a complete ban, who else thinks this is a NRA wet-dream ruling?

And for whether it is self-evident or not, besides 'the people' meaning 'individual right' everywhere else in the constitution, as someone else said, why would there be any need for the government to create a collective right for government use?

Also, even if you tried to accept that meaning as valid, it leads to obviously ridiculous scenarios. Would it mean anyone who is a member of a state militia could own any weapon system they wish, or any quantity they wish?

Finally, the last time I checked, when you are part of a state militia (or US government force), ownership of the weapons is not vested in 'the people', but rather 'the state'. So, wouldn't 'the state' have to relinquish all ownership to 'the people' under the collective right interpretation?

I've read the SC ruling, and I've read Polman's opinion. Polman disagrees with the SC majority. Like I said, it's a difference of opinion,..
How does acknowledging that indicate that I haven't read the ruling?
Are you trying to say that a SC ruling should stop all further thought about it? if so, taht would be a first.
I don't understand what you're driving at. Please indulge me and clarify.

As to this: “it's not the Supreme Court's job to try to predict and correct for “pragmatic considerations” there is no uninimity on that ,either.
Even Scalia flip-flops when it comes to considering consequences.
I would argue that no matter how lawyerly the written opinions are, outcomes (consequences) are very much on the judges' minds. They each come with their own political, judicial and social philosophies. It's just a matter of which consequences they embrace and which they neglect.

Broadly speaking, conservatives are sympathetic to consequences for those in power, while liberals are sympathtic to consequences for the powerless.
This being a conservative court, the powerless are in for a rough time.

To what extent State and Federal legislatures will be able to decide the practical
implimenations, will, apparently be decided in the courts. since the NRA and other extremists seem determined to impede the process every step of the way.

i don't accept the position that this particular right (to gun ownership) should be treated as being more sacred than any other right, all of which have limitations.
Even voting has residency and age limitations, and increasingly, specific ID requirements)
This: “within the limits of an individual right to keep and bear arms” seems to indicate that your opinion on this is different, and we will never agree.

As I'm sure you know, it's not the Supreme Court's job to try to predict and correct for “pragmatic considerations.” It interprets the Constitution. If pragmatic considerations are as bad as you imply, then the State and Federal legislatures can deal with it, within the limits of an individual right to keep and bear arms. And if that right is just too unbearable, than the elected branches can pass an Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment.

What led me to assert that you haven't read the opinion? This:

“This is a difference of opinion about a badly written Amendment, pure and simple.
It is remarkably similar to the researched and authoritative arguments about this being a Christian nation…”

It's hard for me to believe that read it, but every individual can judge for themselves.

Yes i have, and it was more than justt a one sentence affirmation of the NRA's wet dreams. Have you read the majority opinion is detail?

We now have to see how it will play out in real life.
That's the part that interests me,. That's also the part where all this hyperventilating won't be much help. It could be a great detriment, however, as it tries to drown out pragamatic questions and answers..

If McCain is smart, he'll make it one of his key election issues. He can compare what the court says to Obama's voting history on the subject.

What nonsense. The Bible is also clear and unequivocal to believers, and the arguments about that never stop.

This is a difference of opinion about a badly written Amendment, pure and simple.
It is remarkably similar to the researched and authoritative arguments about this being a Christian nation, only to be countered by other researched and authoritative arguments claiming the opposite.

I really wish everyone would just stop with the ideological argumenys and come down to earth, where we have to figure out how this works out in different communities, different environments and for different individuals.

Poleman writes:

“The Second Amendment has no wording whatsoever about an individual right to bear arms, or individual home-defense; the amendment talks only about the collective security of “the people,” led by “a well-regulated militia.”

This is so bad, it borders upon bad faith. It uses the technique of interspersing the 2nd Amendment's actual text with Poleman's conclusions, thus speciously establishing those conclusions.

Let me use the Poleman technique, to establish that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right:

“The 2nd Amendment contains wording explicitly establishing an individual right to bear arms. For it says that every individual has 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…' “

Good enough? Anyone out there in comment-land think that the above passage proves that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right? It doesn't, of course, because I used Poleman's technique of cutting and pasting my conclusion into the text of the 2nd Amendment.

To convince us of his collectivist interpretation the 2nd Amendment, Poleman interposes his phrase “collective security” before the 2nd Amendment's “the people,” as if that establishes the point. But Poleman is asserting the conclusion he fails to argue for. If Poleman were to attempt an argument, he'd have to deal with the principle of construction that words are presumed have the same meaning when used more than once throughout a document, and that “the people” in, e.g,, the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment, refer, indisputably, to individuals, thus making the right to free expression and the right against unreasonable search and seizure individual rights.

Poleman writes of ” 'the people' led by 'a well-regulated militia.' ” But where did Poleman get the phrase “led by”? It's not in the 2nd Amendment; Poleman just made it up. The argument which prevailed in the Supreme Court is the straightforward grammatical point that a prefatory clause (”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) does not control or limit an operative clause (”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) This view conforms to a natural reading or understanding or the Amendment, and if Poleman wants to contest it, he must supply an argument, and not merely stick his conclusion in the text of the 2nd Amendment.

Poleman's overarching point is that Scalia & Co. are engaging is judicial activism by distorting the text of the 2nd Amendment so as to support a predetermined political goal. But Poleman's shoddy non-argumentation actually proves quite the opposite. By the standard of the public meaning of words in the 18th century – and in accordance with the ordinary rules of construction – the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right. That's what the actual text says, on a natural reading. And that is why it is Poleman – and not Scalia & Co. – who has to distort and depart from the actual text, and stick in his inventions “collective security” and “led by,” in a failed attempt to support his predetermined political goal.

Talk about fitting reality to your pre-existing opinion.

It's not the Supreme Court which has ignored the plain meaning of the Constitution. It's people like Polman and the politicians that wrote the D.C. gun ban into law in the first place who have ignored the Constitution.

The word “militia” in 18th century usage (and even in today's usage) is not restricted to government-backed force. The term, when used in a general sense, rather than a specific sense, has often meant a body of citizen soldiers who fight independently of professional soldiers.

Additionally, a bit of common sense with regards to English grammar is in order here.

Within the wording of the Second Amendment are two clauses. The first clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is a DEPENDENT clause. That is, the clause cannot stand alone. It does not represent a complete idea. The secondar clause, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” on the other hand, is an INDEPENDENT clause. It forms a complete idea and a complete sentence, and thus, is capable of standing alone.

People who argue that the right to bear arms is restricted only to members of the militia (and a state-backed militia at that) are reading into the Second Amendment something that is not there. Nowhere in the Second Amendment is it stated that the right to bear arms is restricted, and placing a dependent clause before the statement “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does not somehow imply that the right to bear arms is restricted. That's just not the way English grammar works. In the above example, the dependent clause provides justification as to why the independent clause should hold true. But it does not provide any exclusivity that would render the independent clause untrue in certain cases.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted to restrict the right to bear arms only to those people who were part of a state-backed militia, they would have explicitly said so. They also wouldn't have included such an idea in a Bill of “Rights”, as granting a right solely to those who are working on behalf of the government isn't really a right, but rather a power that the government is granting itself.

The number of 5-4 decisions we are seeing with the same four on each side coming down together time after time, is ample evidence of the poison in our court system. Obviously, I don't agree with Polman's interpretation of “the people” in the 2nd amendment, but I recognize that many people agree with him on that count. But no matter which way they decided, I do wish that we had a court which could have met in private, discussed the issue on its merits and come up with a greater concensus between them. This is an earthshaking, precident setting case which will be used in centuries to come, but having it come from such a sharply divided, partisan court with such vitriolic dissent, will weaken it when it is studied by future justices, in my opinion.