I love NPR, but.....

[Jackson1999]

Sometimes they make me want to toss my radio out the window. Check out this story on the upcoming Chicago handgun ban case before SCOTUS

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113352305

Last year, the court by a five-to-four vote ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms. The decision rejected a modern understanding that the right to bear arms was for military purposes

Sorry Nina, the court voted 9-0 that 2A referred to an individual's right to bear arms. Also, as far as it being connected to military, that is not a "modern" view. Please tell me when SCOTUS said this? (please don't bother to bring up Miller).

Experts on both sides seem to agree that by and large, the court's decision will have little impact on most state and local laws. Although there've been 170 challenges to both state and federal gun restrictions since the Supreme Court's decision last year, almost all have failed; in large part because Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court legitimized most commonsense gun restrictions.

Uh, no. I don't know the "170 cases" she is talking about, but most were probably by really bad people whose lawyers were making a hail mary with a 2A defense. Also, the reason many did not win is because 2A HAS NOT YET BEEN INCORPORATED!! (hence the Chicago case).

Finally, if she read Heller, all it "legitimized" was prohibitions on ownership by felons and mentally the ill, and carry in "sensitive" places. I guarantee you Alan Gura has NYC in its sites.

[Buzz Clik]

1. It was 5-4.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

She's really, really good. You need to document it carefully when arguing against her stories.

[Jackson1999]

3. No. It was 9-0...

On the question of whether 2A is an individual right. It was 5-4 on the legality of the DC ban.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Okay. Here's the link to the 5-4 decision

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

I cannot find a link to the 9-0 decision to which you are referring.

[Jackson1999]

7. I understand, but you need to read the dissents....

Sorry I don't have time to find the decision right now. I'll try later. In the two dissents, they said that 2A was an individual right, but the gun ban was reasonable.

I understand the confusion as most of the media reports don't mention this. They inaccurately report that 4 justices thought 2A was a collective right. This is just not true.

[Jackson1999]

8. Here you go

From the Breyer dissent.

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).


From the Stevens dissent....

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

So the two dissenting opinions acknowledge the individual right and deal with the scope of that right. This is important. Anti-gun folks try to position Heller as being a radical departure from the collective rights theory. This is just not true. Even the most liberal justices disagree. The collective rights theory is really just wishful thinking.

[Buzz Clik]

9. So, the reality is that Totenberg did not misrepresent the vote on the case.

However, upon dissecting the written opinions, one could contend that there might be unanimous agreement that the second amendment is about individual rights, depending upon how far those rights were being taken. The 5-4 vote clearly shows that four members of the Supreme Court believe that whatever those individual rights might be, the DC gun ban did not violate those rights.

[Jackson1999]

11. Of course she did.

She wrote

"Last year, the court by a five-to-four vote ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms."

That is wrong. Why couldn't she just write "Last year, all 9 justices ruled that he Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but split 5-4 on the scope of that right."


It is misleading because it suggests that the collective rights theory is a viable legal theory that only narrowly lost.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Your comment above is far more accurate than your initial contention:

Sorry Nina, the court voted 9-0 that 2A referred to an individual's right to bear arms.

The vote was 5-4, but the opinions concerning individual rights seemed to be unanimous, even if some of those opinions were muted and vague.

If the dissenting members agreed that the Second Amendment rights were clearly individual, then the vote would have been unanimous.

That's my interpretation, but I recognize that you see it differently.

[Jackson1999]

24. You are right

I should have said "all 9 agreed".

Regardless, her article states that there was a split as to whether 2A is an individual right or not.

[Jackson1999]

26. and you are wrong...

"If the dissenting members agreed that the Second Amendment rights were clearly individual, then the vote would have been unanimous."

All nine did agree that it is an individual right. The vote was on whether the ban infringed on that right.

[paulsby]

10. no, you are wrong

the court decided 9-0 that it was an individual right.

the court split 5-4 as to whether GIVEN that it is an individual right, is DC's policy violative of that right?

4 said that DC's gun ban was not violative of the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear. which is patently absurd, but that's how they ruled.

[Buzz Clik]

13. I've seen your contention on various discussion boards, but it's incorrect.

The only recorded vote was 5-4. The so-called 9-0 support for individual rights to bear arms is based on broad interpretation of the dissenting opinions, assuming that the comments in the dissent represented accurately all four dissenting members.

[paulsby]

14. that so called "broad interpretation"

is the one held by EVERY legal scholar who has commented on that case, that i have read.

even liberal scholars who do NOT believe the 2nd confers an individual right, will cede that the scotus acknowledged that it did.

i can cite some , if you want.

but it's hardly a broad interpretation. have you READ the text? i have . it's clear

and the OP's point is correct. NPR talking head claimed that the scotus ruled 5-4 that it was an individual right. that is inarguably false, whatever you think of the issue as to whether they decided 9-0 that it is.

5-4 was their decision that DC's policy violated heller's rights.

[Buzz Clik]

16. The vote was 5-4. That was Totenberg's comment, and she was correct.

Every legal scholar -- born and yet to be born -- can contend that the dissenting members all agree that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, but that doesn't change the vote: 5-4.

Totenberg was making no other argument, and neither was I.

[paulsby]

17. no, she wasn't correct

the vote was 5-4 that DC's policy violated hellers' rights.

the vote was NOT 5-4 that the 2nd is an individual right, and THAT is what she claimed.

read the OP again.

to claim the SCOTUS voted 5-4 that the 2nd is an individual right is INARGUABLY wrong. it is NOT what the 5-4 decision decided.

read it again

[Buzz Clik]

18. Ok. Totenberg's contention that the 5-4 vote was strictly on individual rights was an extrapolation.

However, the case was not deciding whether or not the second amendment was about individual rights.

Any claim that the Court voted 9-0 that the Second Amendment is an individual right is every bit as dead wrong as Totenberg's claim that the vote was about individual rights.

So, I agree with you 100% that the case was not deciding invidual rights; it was not deciding that at all. However, to then turn it around and claim that there was some 9-0 vote supporting the notion of individual second amendment rights is pure fantasy. NO SUCH VOTE WAS TAKEN.

[paulsby]

21. it was a false extrapolation

but you are correct. the decision that the 2nd protects an individual right was not VOTED on.

to put it in legal terms that are precise, it was decided in dicta that there is an individual right.

iow, each dissent acknowledged that fact. and the decision did as well.

iow, there was unanimity that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

so, we can agree that

1) totenberg was wrong
2) the supreme court did not VOTE 9-0 that it is an individual right, however they DID declare it in dicta

[Euromutt]

29. No, not "every bit as dead wrong"

Totenberg's claim that the Court voted 5-4 that the RKBA is an individual right was dead wrong. The claim that the Court voted 9-0 that the RKBA is an individual right is incorrect only in that the Court did not vote, but rather, ruled obiter dicta 9-0 that the RKBA is an individual right. It is less of an error because, when it comes to creating jurisprudence, the effect, while not quite the same, comes damn close. While any statements made obiter dicta are, strictly speaking, not legally binding, any lower court, and any future incarnation of the Supreme Court, is going to have to produce some damn compelling arguments to support any opinion that holds that the RKBA is not an individual right.

Your claim that the case "was not deciding individual rights" is, for that reason, while de jure correct, de facto wrong. All nine justices stated in the various opinions that the RKBA is an individual right, and this in practice not be ignored.

Frankly, you look like less of an asshole if you'd just conceded that you were wrong from the start by claiming that Totenberg was correct, and trying to defend that position for several posts even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Asshole.

[imdjh]

2. Yep - and Amy Goodman is no better.

There is a lot of stilted language and soft to hard bias to be found on NPR and Democracy Now. But we don't have anyone watching NPR and Democracy Now because the are supposedly the good guys.

[frebrd]

4. K&R! n/t

:banghead:

[Jackson1999]

5. Most news reports are missing the "fundamental" importance

If Heller is incorporated, there is a chance that 2A will be codified as a "fundamental" right. This would be huge as it would force courts to use "strict scrutiny" when judging gun cases. This means that NYC and DC's firearm registration procedures would be open game.

[imdjh]

15. The bottom line is that the gungrabbers can't support their position.

They think it's clever to cite CDC reports that a teenager could tear apart with a slight application of logic and common sense. If all else fails, they keep repeating lies, mantras, and other horseshit in hopes that everyone else will simply tire of it. And why?

Why?

Because a whole lot of people in this world, especially in our liberal or progressive world, begin sentences with "I feel" instead of "I think". And yes, it's a god damned shame when I'm quoting Neal Boortz in a 'room' full of people whom I ought to be able to expect intellect and logic from.

[Buzz Clik]

19. I'm a bit surprised at your selective outrage.

You are spouting off about Totenberg's misquoting the essence of the decision, but you have absolutely no comment about the repeated misstatement that there was a 9-0 Supreme Court vote supporting the notion of individual Second Amendment rights.

Indeed, even a teenager can see though that.

[imdjh]

20. mine was a general comment

I expect better of NPR. If I want pure bias I can listen to RW radio. At least I don't have a conflict in wishing to bitchslap Michael Medved or Dennis Prager.

[Euromutt]

23. Maybe that's because the latter comment wasn't made by a paid and supposedly professional journalist

I hold news media outlets to a slightly higher standard than I do some guy on an internet discussion forum. Call me strange.

[Jackson1999]

25. And I admitted I was mistaken

I should have said that all 9 justices agreed that 2A is an individual right.

[Xela]

22. And I love Bill Moyers...but...

...he's rather irrational when it comes to the Second Amendment.

He ought to have Don B. Kates or Gary Kleck as guests if he won't have the JPFO.

Past link:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/06/bill_moyers_michael_winship_wh.html

Xela

[benEzra]

27. NPR is my favorite Old Media news source...

but I have to say their reporting on gun issues tends to be uncharacteristically amateurish, in stark contrast to their reporting on most other issues.

I suspect this results from the fact that guns and gun law are relatively unfamiliar to many reporters and editors, as well as from the unconscious tendency to frame the gun issue as a "good vs. evil" caricature of itself.

[JonQ]

28. That was a smooth way of slipping her views in there

and pretending they were the generally accepted viewpoints in this country.

Riddle me this gun grabbers: which of the other 9 rights guarantee the right of the *government* to perform some action? Seems to me all the others restrict the actions of the government, but somehow not the 2nd.