A Tuesday meeting of the justices of the Supreme Court resembles a class discussion as the justices attempt to thread the vagaries of meaning and interpretation. That Tuesday meeting illustrates how debates of meaning and interpretation are not simply irksome classroom exercise, but those debates affect actual lives in actual ways. Becoming a savvy interpreter affects events in actual life.
Here is an example from the Supreme Court:
Gun case on way to Supreme Court creates strange bedfellows
Published: Feb. 28, 2010 at 8:59 AM
By HARRIET ROBBINS OST
CHICAGO, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- Otis McDonald, 76, lives in Morgan Park, a tough Chicago neighborhood where the same youngsters who used to shoot hoops in his back yard are now threatening his life.
A law-abiding citizen, McDonald wants to keep a handgun in his home to protect himself against gangs but that's against Chicago's gun-control laws.
"The people who want to control me, my family, my property -- these are the people who I want to protect myself from," McDonald told the Chicago Tribune.
McDonald's attempt to keep and use his weapon lawfully has been rejected by the trial court and the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, both of which ruled in favor of the city. The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue Tuesday in McDonald vs. Chicago.
But allowing McDonald to have a gun for self-protection could mean huge upheavals in constitutional law, involving the Second and 14th amendments.
Here is the second amendment to the Constitution:
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.
On the basis of the 2nd Amendment language, the Supreme Court must decide whether Otis McDonald has the right to defend his life and property.
I would be interested in two things: 1. What do you think about this case. 2. How has interpretation affected your life; have you ever suffered because of misinterpretation?
Dr.DuPree, is there any kind of format for the speech you want, any bans or terms or things to avoid in the speech or any tips?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Otis McDonald should be able to have his handgun. He is a law abiding citizen and he is using it to protect himself from "The people who want to control me, my family, my property". I don't understand why Chicago is against Mr. Mcdonald having a handgun. Its not like a 76 year old man is going to go on a rampage and kill everybody, he just wants to have a peace of mind and be safe.
ReplyDeleteits amusing how in a class where we try to make connections, is connected to a real life circumstance. I also agree with wilson, peace of mind, is peace of the soul which is happiness and security
ReplyDeleteI want you to think hard: How has interpretation affected your life; have you ever suffered because of misinterpretation?
ReplyDeleteCharlie Burruss said...
ReplyDeleteits amusing how in a class where we try to make connections, is connected to a real life circumstance. I also agree with wilson, peace of mind, is peace of the soul which is happiness and security
All well and good; but, this is not the way interpretation works at the Supreme court. They do not base decisions on feelings and "peace of mind"; what do you suppose they did with that poor old man?
Maybe this man will not use his weapon against others, except in self defense, but how can they prove this? Just becuase he is elderly does not mean he can not cause anyone harm. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/expats/expats_news/article1429314.ece
ReplyDeleteI think that is precisely the problem, anyone can put on a poker face and act innocent. If everyone was allowed to keep a handgun, it could be even easier for these people, who he is trying to defend himself from, to obtain weapons. - Katie Brewster
First off I do not want to sound like a cruel person who does not beleive in the right to protect ones self from harm, after all shooting someone if they threaten your life is legal, but state laws cannot be violated for certain exceptions. If this law is overturned, what is stopping the gangs from getting guns legally to even the playing field? The second question has almost certainly affected everyone in the world in some shape or form. Whether the incident be steriotyping or misunderstanding someone correctly, misinterpretation is inevatable.
ReplyDeleteWhen a statement is made it is extremely important to make clear exactly what is meant by it. If the statement has the possibility of being misinterpreted, it most likely will. That being said it is the responsibility of those who the statement applies to, to never manipulate and purposefully misinterpret the original statement to benefit their own agendas. That is what I believe has been done to the second amendment for many years to regulate firearms, where it clearly states that all people have the "right to bear arms." Every law abiding citizen should have the right to own a gun.
ReplyDeleteMr. McDonald has the right to keep his handgun in his home. It is included in his basic rights to keep a gun, especially in his circumstances. The gang members have obtained guns, or weapons of some kind, so Mr.McDonald must be able to defend himself. The Second Amendment gives McDonald the right to bear arms and defend his life. Nearly everyday people suffer from misinterpretation, whether your parent misinterprets something you tell them, or a friend misinterprets a text. I am affected almost everyday by misinterpretation when I text and talk to friends and family.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Mcdonald has a right to keep a gun as well, if he and his family are really being threatened then he should be allowed to. This however is also not good, because he does not no for sure whether the gang has guns, so if allowed this would open up people having guns out everywhere leading to more deaths in the world through shootings
ReplyDeleteI think that all American citizens should have the right to own a gun even realizing the fact that a few years ago my mother was held hostage in our home by someone with a gun. I think that if everyone was allowed to have a gun that the world would not be so different, because there are ways of currently getting your hands on arms even without permission from the state. So if the right to bear arms is given to all American citizens, then maybe more citizens would register their weapons instead of obtaining them illegally, and legal cases involving guns could be solved using the registration and ballistics. Based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of our Constitution, it will be interesting to find out if the common American belief of a right to self defense will be supported.
ReplyDeleteMr. McDonald should be allowed to have a handgun if it is on his property and his life could be threatened. He could be killed if he does not have anything to fight with, however if he is allowed to have one, then everyone else is allowed to have one which would be very dangerous. There would more likely be more gangs who would be trying to harm people, but there would also be more people who could protect themselves and less people would be breaking the law because people have them illegally now.
ReplyDeleteEveryone suffers from misinterpretation. The new technology we have makes it even harder. Communication in the form of an email or text is very easy to misinterpret, everyone interprets it as something different. That is why writing, from e-mail and texts, to important legislation needs to be very clear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelliann
ReplyDeleteHe most definitely should possess the gun. The second amendment to the Constitution justifies the right to bear arms. If Mr. McDonald is properly licensed to own and operate the firearm, then by all reasons he should use it properly.
ReplyDeleteHe should be able to carry a gun. As a 76 year old man he cannot defend himself as well as he once was and a gun will provide that protection. Even if he never has to use it, the knowing that he could and will have access to one in dire situations provides a level of comfort
ReplyDeleteOtis should be able to have a gun because he is using it for self defense and it is legal due to the 2nd amendment.
ReplyDelete1. Personally, I believe that everyone should have the right to defend themselves even if it means owning a gun. But my opinion and Otis' opinion do not matter, it is the law that is important. According to what Dr. DuPree posted, the state law said that civilians do not have the right to own firearms in Chicago. Therefore, regardless of my opinion, Otis did break state law. However the Bill of Rights does say that we have the right to bear arms, but this amendment has been a controversial topic for decades and it is unclear whether or not the forefathers meant the right to own firearms. I believe the outcome of Otis' trial is ultimately going to come down to what the Supreme Court Justices interpret the second amendment to mean. In addition to this, because federal law is not dominant over state law and because of the unclarity of the second amendment, it is completely legal for the state of Illinois to say their civilians can't own firearms.
ReplyDelete2. Day to day I run into misinterpretations, normally when talking to a friend, teacher, or parent. The cause for this is not only because we misword things or say things that we don't mean to, but it is also due to the fact that our tone and body language make up a huge part of how we communicate with each other. I am wondering what this has to do with what we are learning right now. Could it have something to do with misinterpretations in the middle English of the Canterbury Tales?
ReplyDeleteI think that this case should go in favor of Mr. McDonald. He is 76, and he lives in a rough area, so I think he has a right to protect himself in a situation like this especially if he keeps the gun in the confines of his home. But on the other hand I agree with Kevin in the way that this could cause issues beyond personal rights, it could also escalate gang violence and lead to greater death than it could prevent. I have many times been hurt from misinterpretation. Humans are imperfect, and communication between us is bound to falter at one point or another.
ReplyDeletebut.... doesn't the constitution say we HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?????
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mark, but you would think that a 76 year old man, who seems to be normal would use his firearm for protection. If they make this acception or something similar to it then who knows what will happen, there are also gang members I'm guessing who can be older, like Mr. McDonald, but they can end up being the people who cause the violence. I just think that Mr. McDonald should just get a powerful tazer or pepper spray and maybe even a pellet gun.
ReplyDeleteabout the gun thing: i think that theres two sides that can be argued. First you could say that someone should be able to have a gun in there house for protection because it could be the difference between life or death esp depending where they live and the possible dangers. The other side is that it could be a possible danger for others with a man posesing a gun because he might not know how to use it properly. I think they law should be that if u have a gun lisense and have passed a test for it, you should have the right to own a gun and keep it for protection.
ReplyDelete