U.S. Supreme Court declares D.C. gun ban unconstitutional!

[Apathy]

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

What kind of effect will this have on gun laws?

[Power_serj]

F**k yes! I can't believe it was so close. It was a 5-4 decision. I'm glad that they ruled the truth and did not 'interpret' it how they want; people have the right to bear arms, not only militias.

[hank]

A lot. I'll post the opinion as soon as its up. None of today's opinions are posted yet. Hard to say too much about it until I read the opinion.

hank

[SBL]

A lot. I'll post the opinion as soon as its up. None of today's opinions are posted yet. Hard to say too much about it until I read the opinion.

hank


What's your opinion?

[hank]

I can't say until I read it. SCOTUS has never expressly recognized the personal right to own firearms. Its assumed they will (and that such right exists) and its never really been overtly challenged like this or expressly declared to exist by the Court. So until I see exactly what they said I really can't say. That law could have been unconstitutional for many reasons. If they found it unconstitutional as violative of the 2nd A because the 2nd A gives a private right then this case is huge. If not, it'll be less important. I have to read it first.

hank

[Hilbert]

Holy hell... the supreme court doing something right (especially in light of that stupid no death penalty for child rapists), is this a sign of the impending apocalypse?

[Calanen]

You heard it here first:


The Appellate bench for the District got it right. The majority decision was well researched, thorough and on point. I believe that the Supreme Court will see it that way too.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123679&highlight=district&page=12

[Firetxmi]

Those damn liberal activist judges. I can't believe they can "create law."

Sorry, had to do it.....

This is good news though.

[Sanat-e-naft]

HAHA, i love how legislation from the bench is ok when it is done by conservatives. But, in this case (and usually only this case) I am very happy to have them grant this right. I live in Chicago, and let me tell you, I need a gun. Criminals are rollin with AK's, and I have my Mace? Thank god, now I can bring my USP to the city.

[Createdeemcee]

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

What kind of effect will this have on gun laws?
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html)


What kind of effect will this have on gun laws?


What will this do?? Hell you may see a few pistol shops pop up in Manhattan! (long Overdue)

[bugkill]

HAHA, i love how legislation from the bench is ok when it is done by conservatives. But, in this case (and usually only this case) I am very happy to have them grant this right. I live in Chicago, and let me tell you, I need a gun. Criminals are rollin with AK's, and I have my Mace? Thank god, now I can bring my USP to the city.

LoL, I was bringing my Glock 21 to Chicago all the time and it goes to show how stupid gun control laws are. I'm a law abiding citizen/soldier who bought his gun legally, but then you want to tell me that I do not have the right to have it in my home for protection? Gun control laws impact law abiding civilians, not criminals. There is no point in having gun control, unless you BAN the manufactoring of guns in this country. Anything short of that is a waste of time and we all know that there will never be a ban of making weapons, not going to happen in this country.

I am completely surprised that it was a 5-4 decision and I can only scratch my head to why anyone would support a ban of owning a handgun in your home. The constitution is very clear-

"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."

People in this country has been bearing arms for over the last 200 years, but now all of sudden we got people on the Supreme Court who are trying to make a argument that the constitution meant a regulated militia should only bear arms, which is profoundly ridiculous. What forms a militia? That's right, free law abiding citizens that get together in response to threats or emergencies. They DO NOT go down to the local armory and sign out weapons, they OWN their own firearms.

What the second amendment meant was that a well regulated militia is necessary for providing security for a free state; therefore, free people in this country have the right to keep and bear arms, and it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED because they would be the ones to create a militia to combat any threats (from the government or outside forces). People talk about wiretapping as infringing on their rights, but when you lose the right to have a gun, your rights are truly being stepped on in this country.

This is a great victory for our country!

[Createdeemcee]

Thank god, now I can bring my USP to the city.

Oh you better believe that the mayor will be as stipulant as possible with this Law in DC. There won be ccw's or castle doctrines. All the things needed to properly protect a law abiding citizens rights. I guess just kill the intruder, that way its your word against thier dead word.

[Power_serj]

What are you guys going on about? The Supreme Court did not throw their papers in the air and say "FREE FOR ALL!" As far as the media says, all the Supreme Court said was that the DC Supreme Court all out ban on handguns is unconstitutional and that the "right to bear arms" applies to citizens and not just militias. That does not mean that states cannot still regulate firearms.


HAHA, i love how legislation from the bench is ok when it is done by conservatives. But, in this case (and usually only this case) I am very happy to have them grant this right. I live in Chicago, and let me tell you, I need a gun. Criminals are rollin with AK's, and I have my Mace? Thank god, now I can bring my USP to the city.

What legislation are you referring to? The Supreme Court did not write the 2nd Amendment.

As I stated, this does not mean it will be a free for all, and it does not mean Chicago is required to give a permit to carry. You will still be carrying your mace.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

What will this do?? Hell you may see a few pistol shops pop up in Manhattan! (long Overdue)
Isn't Jovino's shop in Manhattan?

But yes, this a very good thing. Let's hope next the Supreme Court overrules the AWB that still affects some states, like NY and let's hope they fix up California.

[bugkill]

What are you guys going on about? The Supreme Court did not throw their papers in the air and say "FREE FOR ALL!" As far as the media says, all the Supreme Court said was that the DC Supreme Court all out ban on handguns is unconstitutional and that the "right to bear arms" applies to citizens and not just militias. That does not mean that states cannot still regulate firearms.

Regulations are not an issue (not too big of one), it is all about having the right to own a firearm. A state can have all the regulations it wants, but as long as they try and keep firearms out of our hands, there will always be a problem.

D.C. had a ban and if they would have won this court decision, god only knows how many other states would have followed suit with banning guns. The argument of controlling guns is stupid, because the state would take away the last line of defense for a law abiding civilian, but will do nothing to deal with crime. Criminals break laws and they will get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, so what does regualtion or bans really do? That's right, it handcuffs the citizens, while criminals rape us from behind.

Owning a firearm is essential to the makeup of this country and it will only change when this country is no longer the United States of America. I do not care what side of the aisle a person is politically, but I truly believe that every law abiding citizen should be able to keep and bear arms, and it should not ever be up to debate. It does not mean that you have a right to shoot your neighbor over a dispute, or that you should brandish your weapon at the local skating rink, but that you should be able to own a weapon in your own home, and that is what every law abiding citizen wants.

[pimpdawgin]

Damn, that was close. I wish we Canadians had it as good as you guys in the States when it comes to firearms laws. You have no idea of the BS, ridiculous laws up here concerning firearms. I would start listing some of the insanity, but I don;t even know where to begin.

[hank]

Here is the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I propose a rule. No commenting until you've read the opinion. Remember - what comes out is only as good as what goes in.

hank

[hank]

Holy hell... the supreme court doing something right (especially in light of that stupid no death penalty for child rapists), is this a sign of the impending apocalypse?

Hilbert, try on this gray shirt. You might like it. Please read the opinions before using the "stupid" label. All uninformed opinions are stupid.

hank

[Hollis]

Here is the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I propose a rule. No commenting until you've read the opinion. Remember - what comes out is only as good as what goes in.

hank


I think that is a really great suggestion. I am on page 63 of 157 pages. It seems the court is skirting the "type of arms" issue.

The pdf is a excellent read, especially the historical aspect.

H.

[hank]

Classic Scalia…

"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," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to ****ounce the Second Amendment extinct."

All the Federalists out there can get on board with this.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

From the majority opinion:




The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.



Gosh, the SC actually noting that our shared national history and traditions have value? Wake me, I must be dreaming.



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 isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to ****ounce the Second Amendment extinct.


Very well said IMO. [EDIT: hank you beat me to it you rotten bastid]

From the Stevens dissent:



The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy.


Holy crap - that's just scary. It's a massive misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion?) of the framer's intent if you ask me. "The people" just finished using their personal firearms to fend off the government - he expects us to believe that the framers could never envision having to do that again?

This was waaay to close a decision for comfort. It's scary as hell to think that the Court could be so split on what has been a foundational principle of our nation from the very beginning.

[hank]

Those damn liberal activist judges. I can't believe they can "create law."

Sorry, had to do it.....

This is good news though.

You are quick on the ball. Funny thing about this opinion - its activist by any definition. Striking down a law is the epitomy of judicial activism. But here on mp.net this is activism we like bc it promotes gun ownership. But don't be fooled its just as activist as Lawrence v. Texas or any of those other opinions a lot of us scream about as activist. Nice catch Firetxmi.

hank

[wildcat]

People in this country has been bearing arms for over the last 200 years, but now all of sudden we got people on the Supreme Court who are trying to make a argument that the constitution meant a regulated militia should only bear arms, which is profoundly ridiculous. What forms a militia? That's right, free law abiding citizens that get together in response to threats or emergencies. They DO NOT go down to the local armory and sign out weapons, they OWN their own firearms.



People have been bearing arms in the Americas for a lot longer, the 1689 bill of rights from England extended that to the American Colonies long before, it was the foresight of the forefathers to put it in the bill of rights. Most states before the bill of rights had the right to bear arms. What make a militia is a civil arm, instead of a federal army, Since the National Guard was federalized in the 60's, they can no longer be classed as a militia. 23 states have there own guard, or defense force that belong to just the state and separate from the Federal Army.

[hank]

This was waaay to close a decision for comfort. It's scary as hell to think that the Court could be so split on what has been a foundational principle of our nation from the very beginning.

Not really. There will be few decisions that aren't 5-4 until the next appointments. Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are almost always going to vote together as will Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Reality is right now Kennedy is making all the decisions. Just as it was true with O'Conner now its true with Kennedy. As Kennedy votes so does the Court.

The dissent has some validity although I agree wholeheartedly with the decision. The right to bear arms is not and never has been unconditional. This law doesn't work (because its too broad) but even the majority concedes that some limits on the right are necessary and allowed. This issue will have to be worked out in subsequent decisions - as is always the case. Heller will be to 2nd A as Roe is to the right to privacy. But the subsequent decisions that define the limits will be more important in the long run (as was true with the Roe follow-up opinions).

hank

[Sanat-e-naft]

What happened to the good old days when a brief was like... 10 pages. Hell, Miller was like... 3 pages max.

[Hollis]

Hank, even the majority opinon does the say the right is not unlimited. Like freedom of speech there are limits.

[Hollis]

What happened to the good old days when a brief was like... 10 pages. Hell, Miller was like... 3 pages max.


More history to quote from? Lots of history in the PDF.

[hank]

Hank, even the majority opinon does the say the right is not unlimited. Like freedom of speech there are limits.

Exactly. The reason they took this case was it was so clear cut. That law was either unconstitutional or not. No middle ground. If it had been a mere limitation on the use/ownership of handguns they would have declined to hear it. But because it was an outright ban (and they had the 5 votes to take it - Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito) they took it to make the seminal case. Now you'll see them take some less obvious challenges to define the limits. Those cases should be fun. My guess is they'll take a case every 1-2 years for the next 5-6 years and get a body of law that guides state/municipal legislatures. You'll also see pro and anti gun lobbies start pushing legislation just to get up to the Court and decide the issue. As last we'll have the caselaw we need in this area.

I'm breaking my rule I'm not completel finished with the opinion yet. wink wink

hank

[deadtired]

I'm on page 23 right now, and it's a very good history lesson.

It seems like Justice Stevens is getting slapped around quite thoroughly as well.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Those damn liberal activist judges. I can't believe they can "create law."



Activism fosters change. How does a court decision that only affirms what has been the law of the land in North America since recorded history began, qualify as activism? The activism here came from DC who tried to abridge our consitutuional rights.



Heller will be to 2nd A as Roe is to the right to privacy. But the subsequent decisions that define the limits will be more important in the long run (as was true with the Roe follow-up opinions).


In general I agree with you, though I must have missed the part of the Constitution that granted us a right to privacy. That's one of those rights that was invented deep in the egalitarian wonderland of the late 20'th century....which had never existed before and was conjured into reality via a SC decision. It's the A word. p-)

[Hollis]

Exactly. The reason they took this case was it was so clear cut. That law was either unconstitutional or not. No middle ground. If it had been a mere limitation on the use/ownership of handguns they would have declined to hear it. But because it was an outright ban (and they had the 5 votes to take it - Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito) they took it to make the seminal case. Now you'll see them take some less obvious challenges to define the limits. Those cases should be fun. My guess is they'll take a case every 1-2 years for the next 5-6 years and get a body of law that guides state/municipal legislatures. You'll also see pro and anti gun lobbies start pushing legislation just to get up to the Court and decide the issue. As last we'll have the caselaw we need in this area.

I'm breaking my rule I'm not completel finished with the opinion yet. wink wink

hank


I think your not breaking your rule. When I took constitutional law, my instructor mention that the court looks for cases like this. Where they can set clear precedence on the issue. They will wait until a case comes up if necessary so that the ruling is more clearly defined. If necessary they will even call a case up from a lower court if it meets their criteria to be reviewed.

Of all things, reading the opinion adds a lot to understanding our Courts, especially our constitution and protections.

[hank]

Activism fosters change. How does a court decision that only affirms what has been the law of the land in North America since recorded history began, qualify as activism? The activism here came from DC who tried to abridge our consitutuional rights.

We've talked about this before. A legislature is never activist for passing a law. That is within their purview. By definition legislatures were created to do exactly that. Just becasue this law offends another law (the con) doesn't make this legislature's actions activist.

You are forgetting that it doesn't say in the Con anywhere that the Court can even do what they did - decide that a law is not enforceable. That took an activist Court decision which was highly debated to even be possible. What the Court and legilsature did in this case simply aren't comparable at all. See Marbury v. Madison.


In general I agree with you, though I must have missed the part of the Constitution that granted us a right to privacy. That's one of those rights that was invented deep in the egalitarian wonderland of the late 20'th century....which had never existed before and was conjured into reality via a SC decision. It's the A word. p-)

The word handgun isn't in the Con either, is it? And yet the right to possess one is protected no. Tomato tomato, potato potato. One man's activism is another man's inherent protected right. The framers certainly never anticipated Glocks or Sig P226s and yet we have to apply their words to those guns. Really no different to have to do the same to human reproduction and the ability to prevent it.

hank

[hank]

I think your not breaking your rule. When I took constitutional law, my instructor mention that the court looks for cases like this. Where they can set clear precedence on the issue. They will wait until a case comes up if necessary so that the ruling is more clearly defined. If necessary they will even call a case up from a lower court if it meets their criteria to be reviewed.

Of all things, reading the opinion adds a lot to understanding our Courts, especially our constitution and protections.

My conlaw professor talked about this a lot as well. He says these cases are decided the day cert is granted. They know what will happen before it happens and they only take the case that will easily yield the result the majority wants. There are of course surprises. O'Connor threw a few curveballs in her day. I miss her.

hank

[StukaJr]

I has an individual right to bear arms now?

I has a taste!

[hank]

I has an individual right to bear arms now?

Indeed.

hank

[Laworkerbee]

Here is the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I propose a rule. No commenting until you've read the opinion. Remember - what comes out is only as good as what goes in.

hank

I can't be bothered to read all of that, this is why I have you Hank, now f***ing spoon feed it to me

Praise be to Allah for this decision.

[Thor]

America FTW

[deadtired]

If I read this properly, it means that DC residents will still have to register their handguns and get a license, but the district will have to actually issue the licenses.

Any ideas what impact this will have on other "may issue" (as opposed to "shall issue") licenses?

[Hollis]

If I read this properly, it means that DC residents will still have to register their handguns and get a license, but the district will have to actually issue the licenses.

Any ideas what impact this will have on other "may issue" (as opposed to "shall issue") licenses?


It is a step in the right direction, but there are many more steps that will need to be taken.

[orionhawk]

hooray.

it looks like this will have little effect on "may-issue", though. it will require more cases, based on this one's interpretation of the 2nd and TRTKABA, to straighten that mess out.




edit: dammit, HOLLiS beat me to it.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Just offering a personal opinion here, but I think the latest appointees to the Supreme Court have helped restore balance.

[Thor]

It's amazing how the constitution and laws in general really matter on the other side of the pond.

I wish we had a constitutional court, or better yet, something that comes close to a real constitution.

[Hollis]

Just offering a personal opinion here, but I think the latest appointees to the Supreme Court have helped restore balance.


It also point to the coming years. There is a high probability that some justices will retire. Who will the President choose?


My gut feelings, is that the court has a greater influence on the Justices than politics.

[Mu-Meson]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Does they Constitution actually grant the right to bear arms or does it actually say that this pre-existing, and intrinsic right should not be taken away? That is just one thing I think the dudes who wrote it got right. In Canada, the government has granted us rights, in the US, the government recognizes that it must not infringe upon the rights inherent upon all free citizens. That, in my view, is an important distinction.

[hank]

Does they Constitution actually grant the right to bear arms or does it actually say that this pre-existing, and intrinsic right should not be taken away? That is just one thing I think the dudes who wrote it got right. In Canada, the government has granted us rights, in the US, the government recognizes that it must not infringe upon the rights inherent upon all free citizens. That, in my view, is an important distinction.

Here it is in all its glory:

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.

I think generally it fits into the latter of your two descriptions but that is debatable.

hank

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

It also point to the coming years. There is a high probability that some justices will retire. Who will the President choose?
Excellent question.

I keep wondering who will be the first to go. Although, when I hear the following, I end up hoping Kennedy will go:

The Eighth Amendment must reflect the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," Justice Kennedy said.

Different case, but It still makes my skin crawl. I do understand the problems of a having a child as a witness.

It's like an exalted being telling us Troglodytes that we don't currently have the right opinion about important issues and they look forward to declaring a new consensus.

Sorry for derailing this thread.

Back on topic: Glad for this decision on gun ownership.

[Hiroshima]

It makes my skin crawl. It's like an exalted being telling us Troglodytes that we don't currently have the right opinion about important issues and they look forward to declaring a new consensus.

Well, just to ratchet that skin crawl feeling up more: Some of the founding fathers didn't want to do a popular vote method of election. The compromise is what our current system's been working with. They certainly weren't trusting us troglodytes in our nation's formative years.



Also, I liked one of the dissenting judge's opinion:
Breyer, however, argued in his dissent that the framers of the Constitution did not present self-defense as their main reason for the Second Amendment.

"The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest," he wrote. "The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.' "

Washington residents can protect themselves from crime though other means, Breyer wrote: "The law concerns one class of weapons, handguns, leaving residents free to possess shotguns and rifles, along with ammunition."
(found on CNN.com)

[Hollis]

Also, I liked one of the dissenting judge's opinion:
Breyer, however, argued in his dissent that the framers of the Constitution did not present self-defense as their main reason for the Second Amendment.



Think of it this way "Self Defense against Tyranny."


BTW have you read the PDF yet, there are a lot of corrections on Breyer's opinion.

[swamper]

Can someone please critique my train of thought here? It's basically about possible measures that may be taken since this decision in some of the more strict areas of the country, i.e. registration of arms. Please let me know if my thinking is flawed.

As good as this decision is, I'm still concerned with how other aspects of "gun control" will be debated/handled. I'm specifically concerned with laws for registration of guns. I say that, while having read some of the opinion, Scalia alluded to some of the similarities of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Being that the First Amendment has "expanded" in its forms speech, so has the Second Amendment in its forms of arms. Knowing that there are responsible restrictions as to the legality to own certain arms (machine guns, explosive armaments, etc.), do we in fact have to register the legally obtainable arms? I mean, are we going to start requiring registration for forms of speech?

[hank]

Can someone please critique my train of thought here? It's basically about possible measures that may be taken since this decision in some of the more strict areas of the country, i.e. registration of arms. Please let me know if my thinking is flawed.

As good as this decision is, I'm still concerned with how other aspects of "gun control" will be debated/handled. I'm specifically concerned with laws for registration of guns. I say that, while having read some of the opinion, Scalia alluded to some of the similarities of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Being that the First Amendment has "expanded" in its forms speech, so has the Second Amendment in its forms of arms. Knowing that there are responsible restrictions as to the legality to own certain arms (machine guns, explosive armaments, etc.), do we in fact have to register the legally obtainable arms? I mean, are we going to start requiring registration for forms of speech?


This is a very complicated question because the registration of firearms falls under the commerce clause where the federal govt is given wide latitude. If its from a state (and presuming its not a bar to ownership) then it really wouldn't implicate the 2nd A. That's a bit oversimplistic but its close to being right. The reality is this opinion will not really effect registration at all because this opinion doesn't deal with the commerce clause. Hope that helps.

hank

[Hollis]

Interesting statement, clarifies that more is come.


"
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents thisCourt’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, leftthat area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justificationsfor the exceptions we have mentioned if and when thoseexceptions come before us. "

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Hiroshima]

Think of it this way "Self Defense against Tyranny."

*shrug* There's always that, but realistically speaking, wouldn't a rifle or a shotgun be more use than a handgun in defense against Tyranny?

[swamper]

This is a very complicated question because the registration of firearms falls under the commerce clause where the federal govt is given wide latitude. If its from a state (and presuming its not a bar to ownership) then it really wouldn't implicate the 2nd A. That's a bit oversimplistic but its close to being right. The reality is this opinion will not really effect registration at all because this opinion doesn't deal with the commerce clause. Hope that helps.

hank

Thanks for the look-over. The registration is somewhat off topic for this current discussion, but it has been eating at me this morning. And yeah, it's a bit oversimplistic, but it was a quick reasoning for my non-law brain (engineer here).

[Hollis]

*shrug* There's always that, but realistically speaking, wouldn't a rifle or a shotgun be more use than a handgun in defense against Tyranny?



So why does our military still maintain a healthy selection of side arms?

The right of self defense is not limited. Read the PDF.

[hank]

The Eighth Amendment must reflect the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," Justice Kennedy said.

That is actually not a Kennedy quote, it goes back to previous punishment cases. Scalia has actually addressed it a few times (Harmelin v. MI comes to mind). The basic premise is that at the time of the con it was ok to shackle a debtor in the town square (meaning that was "decent" punishment in the 1770s to 1800s). That now is of course not decent and most everyone would agree that being shackled for being a debtor is not constitutional. So SCOTUS must take that into account when deciding what is cruel and unusual. You've not the first person to point out that phrase in horror but I've always believed it to be a red herring. The alternative to a Court not recognizing evolving standards of decency is frankly not a workable position. Our current society just won't stand for a lot of the punishments that the founding fathers found perfectably acceptable (like a public whipping).


Well, just to ratchet that skin crawl feeling up more: Some of the founding fathers didn't want to do a popular vote method of election. The compromise is what our current system's been working with. They certainly weren't trusting us troglodytes in our nation's formative years.



Also, I liked one of the dissenting judge's opinion:
Breyer, however, argued in his dissent that the framers of the Constitution did not present self-defense as their main reason for the Second Amendment.

"The self-defense interest in maintaining loaded handguns in the home to shoot intruders is not the primary interest, but at most a subsidiary interest," he wrote. "The Second Amendment's language, while speaking of a 'militia,' says nothing of 'self-defense.' "

Washington residents can protect themselves from crime though other means, Breyer wrote: "The law concerns one class of weapons, handguns, leaving residents free to possess shotguns and rifles, along with ammunition."
(found on CNN.com)

Frankly Breyer's point is well made and Scalia and the other conservatives have bought into and adopted similar arguments many times. If a law is narrowly tailored to achieve a fundamental governmental interest in other contexts then its constitutional. Applying that logic here its is thoroughyl plausible to say they can still have a sawed-off shotgun so its ok to ban handguns. I'm glad the Court didn't take that position but there certainly is precedent for such a decision. The point being (as I alluded to earlier) this decision is not a blanket statement that gun ownership can't ever be limited in serious ways. That would be unworkable. What it says is that simply banning a gun type outright is not constitutional. I'll posit that the next case may deal with prohibiting licensed firearm possession in a certain limited location (like a park or something like that) where the govt interest outweighs the 2nd A. That will be where these cases head I think. I haven't a clue how the Court will decide but it wouldn't surprise me to see Kennedy limit this decision in his future voting.

As to the new Court in coming years, Stephens has said publicly he'll resign on the first day of the next Democratic President and not a day sooner. Expect him to die in office if McCain wins. I imagine that Ginsburg will do the same. Breyer and Souter are relatively young. If McCain gets to appoint Stephens' replacement that could change the dynamic very much. Kennedy would no longer be the swing vote. The conservative 4 could become the conservative 5. That might not be very fun in other contexts but would be great for 2nd A decision.

The interesting question will be when Scalia goes. If he gets replaced in a Democratic Presidency that will shake the Court's foundation.

hank

[orionhawk]

Washington residents can protect themselves from crime though other means, Breyer wrote: "The law concerns one class of weapons, handguns, leaving residents free to possess shotguns and rifles, along with ammunition."
(found on CNN.com)


*shrug* There's always that, but realistically speaking, wouldn't a rifle or a shotgun be more use than a handgun in defense against Tyranny?
Actually, the D.C. ban also prevents use of longarms for self-defense in the home. It requires that all firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or locked, making no allowance for loading up for defense. The moment you put a shell in ANY arm in D.C., you are breaking the law, IIRC.

[Hiroshima]

So why does our military still maintain a healthy selection of side arm?

Well, last I checked it was to provide a defensive capability for certain vehicle crews, officers, people who's weapons require a bit more effort to reload, and otherwise close in situations. Now, what does that have to do with the banning of handguns?


The right of self defense is not limited. Read the PDF.

I'm reading through Breyer's dissent. Of course it's not limited, but it's not absolute too. He makes a point that it's not banning firearms all together, but rather a particular type of firearm. And you do not require a firearm to defend yourself. There's other lethal and non lethal methods you can use to defend yourself and your property...

[hank]

Actually, the D.C. ban also prevents use of longarms for self-defense in the home. It requires that all firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or locked, making no allowance for loading up for defense. The moment you put a shell in ANY arm in D.C., you are breaking the law, IIRC.

That is not the issue in this case and is not part of what's been overturned. There is no right to keep a loaded firearm (before or after this decision) and if that would have been the issue I guarantee the pro-gun forces would have been disappointed. This case is only about the ability to ban a type of firearm. Restrictions like loaded v. unloaded are ok and always have been.

You guys will be disappointed if you continue to read to much into this. It has limitations and will be further limited in future decision I bet.

hank

[Hiroshima]

Actually, the D.C. ban also prevents use of longarms for self-defense in the home. It requires that all firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or locked, making no allowance for loading up for defense. The moment you put a shell in ANY arm in D.C., you are breaking the law, IIRC.

According to the Supreme Court's summary of the law and the case in total:

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.

Well, the longarm makes an excellent club... Yeah, that is a bit extreme. I never really paid much attention to the law since it really didn't effect me. And yes, I know that really doesn't lend weight to my opinions here, but how many people replying here actually live in D.C. and were effected by the law?

[Mastermind]

As limited as this "Reaffirmation" of the 2nd is, I am comforted in the fact that it drastically sets the liberal agenda back a few years or even, perhaps, decades. It underlines the vital importance of not allowing liberals to appoint judges...and that means keeping Obama out of the WH and well away from the Justice nominating paperwork.

As for Chicago, Detroit, New York et al, I see a dim future for their gun ban laws considering the litigation that is now going to be headed their way. Almost certainly, the rights of citizens of the United States of America have been somewhat bolstered...it's about time. It's past time.

[Laworkerbee]

I'm reading through Breyer's dissent. Of course it's not limited, but it's not absolute too. He makes a point that it's not banning firearms all together, but rather a particular type of firearm. And you do not require a firearm to defend yourself. There's other lethal and non lethal methods you can use to defend yourself and your property...

The second amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or self defense. It is about being able to defend against government tyranny, nothing more.

[Hiroshima]

The second amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or self defense. It is about being able to defend against government tyranny, nothing more.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Others would probably disagree. Like those throwing the phrase 'right to self defense'...

[bugkill]

People have been bearing arms in the Americas for a lot longer, the 1689 bill of rights from England extended that to the American Colonies long before, it was the foresight of the forefathers to put it in the bill of rights. Most states before the bill of rights had the right to bear arms. What make a militia is a civil arm, instead of a federal army, Since the National Guard was federalized in the 60's, they can no longer be classed as a militia. 23 states have there own guard, or defense force that belong to just the state and separate from the Federal Army.

But who does the National Guard answer to? That's right, the government (state and federal), not the people. People are trying to change the meaning of the second amendment, because times have changed, but the spirit of that amendment lives on. Every able bodied citizen can be called upon for military duties, to become a "militia". Yes, we have a volunteer force, but that can change at any time. People take their freedoms for granted and think that our country could never change from within (like some crazy bastard getting into a seat of power), or get attacked by a significant force. You only need to look back at Rome to remember that not all great things last forever.

The framers were very specific in saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that is NEVER going to change. Yes, the states have every right to have regulations, but they sure as hell cannot tell you that you cannot own a firearm. DO you understand the sheer madness that would have come out if the Supreme Court would have approved the DC gun ban? It would have led to many states trying to pass laws that are similar, and that would have been a serious problem.

[Weasel]

The second amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or self defense. It is about being able to defend against government tyranny, nothing more.

When will you use your weapons accordingly? p-)

[Laworkerbee]

When will you use your weapons accordingly? p-)

When Zee Germans come.

[bugkill]

The second amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or self defense. It is about being able to defend against government tyranny, nothing more.

Exactly! And Breyer's dissent points directly to the problem of the dissenters, and people that believe in a ban. A firearm is a firearm, and even the lowest caliber can potentially kill you, so what the hell is he talking about? Oh, we can keep the .22 caliber pistol, but a 9mm is a bit too much. What the hell is Breyer trying to say? If I want a damn .50 caliber gold plated desert eagle in my home, I should have every right to have it.

It is all about what people do with firearms, and that is why there is a difference between law abiding citizens and criminals. Criminals break laws, and if there is a ban on handguns, they will bring a gun to break that law as well. Look at Chicago for example, they have a very restrictive law against handguns, but look at all the gun crimes being committed there. You don't take the actions of criminals and use that as an excuse to strip away law abiding citizen's rights, especially when it is in the Constitution.

[wildcat]

But who does the National Guard answer to? That's right, the government (state and federal), not the people. People are trying to change the meaning of the second amendment, because times have changed, but the spirit of that amendment lives on. Every able bodied citizen can be called upon for military duties, to become a "militia". Yes, we have a volunteer force, but that can change at any time. People take their freedoms for granted and think that our country could never change from within (like some crazy bastard getting into a seat of power), or get attacked by a significant force. You only need to look back at Rome to remember that not all great things last forever.

The framers were very specific in saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and that is NEVER going to change. Yes, the states have every right to have regulations, but they sure as hell cannot tell you that you cannot own a firearm. DO you understand the sheer madness that would have come out if the Supreme Court would have approved the DC gun ban? It would have led to many states trying to pass laws that are similar, and that would have been a serious problem.

I think you miss understood, What I was saying is the National Guard is no long a militia, and that 23 state now have there own. Not all are blind followers.

[bugkill]

I think you miss understood, What I was saying is the National Guard is no long a militia, and that 23 state now have there own. Not all are blind followers.

The President still has the power to call up the National Guard with a presidential order. We (I'm currently in the Army National Guard) are still beholden to the federal government. Yes, it is limited, but we still can be used by the President. Also, I did a bit of checking and it looks like many other states already have gun rights written into their state constitutions, so if the decision would have went the other way, they would have still kept their laws the same.

[wildcat]

The President still has the power to call up the National Guard with a presidential order. We (I'm currently in the Army National Guard) are still beholden to the federal government. Yes, it is limited, but we still can be used by the President. Also, I did a bit of checking and it looks like many other states already have gun rights written into their state constitutions, so if the decision would have went the other way, they would have still kept their laws the same.


What I am saying is because the The President still has the power to call up the National Guard with a presidential order, 23 state have there own militia, separate from the national guard, like the Washington state guard, Alabama defense force, Virgina defense force, Ohio state Guard, California State Guard, and not to forget Texas State Guard. The president of the united states have no power on these state guards, the power is with the governor of the state.

[bugkill]

What I am saying is because the The President still has the power to call up the National Guard with a presidential order, 23 state have there own militia, separate from the national guard, like the Washington state guard, Alabama defense force, Virgina defense force, Ohio state Guard, California State Guard, and not to forget Texas State Guard. The president of the united states have no power on these state guards, the power is with the governor of the state.

LoL, I see where you are coming from, got it.

[wildcat]

LoL, I see where you are coming from, got it.

I just think it cool, that states have there own militia, to me, it the ultimate living of the second amendment, and does add to the term "Security of a Free State", It is good to see some states exercise this right. No that many people know there are state militias, In Washington everybody think it the national guard, but the uniforms, are ACU, but instead of US Army, it just states Washington. Texas uses it defense forces a lot, I read an article on a medical unit, being deployed in Texas to render medical care to the poor, and it cool to know this is a state force and not National Guard. Alabama has developed lots of doctrine, used by different states, including NCO schools and OCS schools, there is a National Orginaztion which helps set guideline and standards for the states to follow (most is taken from the US Army doctrine, and some standards are reduced down some too).

[bugkill]

I just think it cool, that states have there own militia, to me, it the ultimate living of the second amendment, and does add to the term "Security of a Free State", It is good to see some states exercise this right. No that many people know there are state militias, In Washington everybody think it the national guard, but the uniforms, are ACU, but instead of US Army, it just states Washington. Texas uses it defense forces a lot, I read an article on a medical unit, being deployed in Texas to render medical care to the poor, and it cool to know this is a state force and not National Guard. Alabama has developed lots of doctrine, used by different states, including NCO schools and OCS schools, there is a National Orginaztion which helps set guideline and standards for the states to follow (most is taken from the US Army doctrine, and some standards are reduced down some too).

I agree with you 100% about the states having their own militias, and I fully support such a thing. It would definitely be nice for them to lighten the load off the National Guard duing floods and other national emergencies, because of so many guard units being sent to active duty to fight the wars overseas.

[justagoodolboy]

The 2nd ammendment is not about hunting deer, it's about hunting politicians.

[noname]

As limited as this "Reaffirmation" of the 2nd is, I am comforted in the fact that it drastically sets the liberal agenda back a few years or even, perhaps, decades. It underlines the vital importance of not allowing liberals to appoint judges...and that means keeping Obama out of the WH and well away from the Justice nominating paperwork.

As for Chicago, Detroit, New York et al, I see a dim future for their gun ban laws considering the litigation that is now going to be headed their way. Almost certainly, the rights of citizens of the United States of America have been somewhat bolstered...it's about time. It's past time.



Game, set, match

[WarriorMonk]

When will you use your weapons accordingly? p-)

It doesn't look THAT bad yet, to quote a friend, "America is at the awkward stage, it's too late to work within the system, but its too early to shoot the bastards."

EDIT: someone got me.

[Ratamacue]

If we wanted a violent revolution, the country needs to replicate the conditions of 1776, when EVERY frikin citizen was itchin' for a fight with the Crown.I think you need to brush up on your history.

[Calanen]

I'm glad there is finally a Supreme Court decision on this point. It was really irritating arguing with gun control people who would say that the 2nd Amendment only meant that the national guard could have guns because it was the 'militia'.

[SilentType]

I've read about 25 pages now of the PDF decision and I'll read the rest tomorrow, but Justice Scalia's argument is extremely strong and so well founded in terms of the language component of the Second Amendment to define the various terms. It really is a sometimes even humerous opinion to read when Scalia points out the flaws of the petitioner (D.C.) and Justice Stevens logic.

This of course is a serious step toward restoring the Second Amendment while allowing for real common sense laws. I have always argued firmly that regulation such as license requirements are one thing, but out right Draconian bans are clearly unconstitutional. I would like to see all outright bans and those restrictions that are so great they are are tantamount to bans ruled unconstitutional one-by-one.

I'm glad that the poor elderly woman unable to move from urban areas of crime in D.C. can now have the right to defend herself in her own home. Such a basic and fundamental right is a natural right of every man and woman on this planet.

[WarriorMonk]

I think you need to brush up on your history.

okay, you probably have me here (I'm not a history major), but most everyone seemed to be itchin for a fight, except for the Tories, but if you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly retract my previous statements.

[Hollis]

okay, you probably have me here (I'm not a history major), but most everyone seemed to be itchin for a fight, except for the Tories, but if you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly retract my previous statements.


No, about 25% of the colonialist may have been that way once the fight started. At first it was addressing grievances as Englishman. The King did not see them as "Englishman". As the King became more indignant on these upstart colonialist and cracked down on them, he added fuel to the "separationist" fire.

[Zoomie]

okay, you probably have me here (I'm not a history major), but most everyone seemed to be itchin for a fight, except for the Tories, but if you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly retract my previous statements.
It was more of this kind of a break down when it initially kicked off:
1/3rd wanted a fight with the Brits, 1/3rd wanted to fight for the Brits, and the other third could just care less. (And yes, I am a history major, that has specialized in American History and US Military History)

[WarriorMonk]

alright you guys win.

[Calanen]

okay, you probably have me here (I'm not a history major), but most everyone seemed to be itchin for a fight, except for the Tories, but if you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly retract my previous statements.

If the King (who was really quite mad) had agreed to give the colonies a a few seats in Parliament, probably no revolution would have happened. What upset the colonists the most was the heavy handed way the British crown treated them, when they were paying big taxes, and got no say in anything.

[gaijinsamurai]

The second amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or self defense. It is about being able to defend against government tyranny, nothing more.

I know I'm entering this discussion kinda late (hey, I didn't get home from work until after 7:00!), but I totally agree with LAWB on this. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they gave individuals the right to form militias to guard against government tyrany. They believed in strong government, but with checks and balances, and after the experience with the British, knew the final defense of liberty was the citizens' ability to pick up a rifle and defend his freedom.

[Power_serj]

I'm glad there is finally a Supreme Court decision on this point. It was really irritating arguing with gun control people who would say that the 2nd Amendment only meant that the national guard could have guns because it was the 'militia'.

LOL, do you know what would have happened had they ruled in favor of DCs ban (Which would create a scary precedent, federal ban on weapons maybe)? The southern states would have said, okay now we will build militias. Everyone in the militia will be issued fully automatic M4s, LAWs, and grenades to keep in their homes at all times to keep the security of this free state! rofl

(Okay, maybe that wouldn't have happened, but I would have liked to see that happen if the Supreme Court took my rights away.p-))

[loganinkosovo]

Take the Guns away from the Law abiding Citizens to stop gun carrying Criminals?

Thank Christ we've been able to stop this kind of Idiocy in America so far......

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/76335


Toronto mayor David Miller’s proposed measures to ban or relocate gun clubs, firing ranges and firearm businesses are off target, York Region law enforcers and sport shooting enthusiasts say.

A staunch national anti-gun proponent, Mr. Miller also wants the city to eliminate loopholes so collectors couldn’t own handguns.

The mayor contends more than 30 per cent of handguns used in Toronto crimes come from local owners, either through illegal sale or theft.

In 2007, York Regional Police seized 68 handguns and 232 rifles and shotguns, Chief Armand La Barge said.

The weapons were either used in crimes, domestic disputes or not registered. He agrees handguns are the tool of choice by the criminal community because they are easily concealed.

Banning handguns and ancillary lawful enterprise, however, is fraught with thorny issues, he said.

“As long as handguns are legal, I don’t see why we would make gun clubs illegal,” Chief La Barge said.

“Philosophically, would I like to see less guns in society? You bet I would. But, I have no issue with lawful owners.”

York has two shooting clubs, the Aurora Gun Club and the Sharon Gun Club.

Canadian Shooting Sports Association executive director Larry Whitmore isn’t as diplomatic in his reaction to Mr. Miller’s campaign.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” said the head of the 15,000 member association based in Vaughan that has 250 affiliated gun clubs.

“It’s preposterous to think the most law abiding segment of Canadian society is linked to drug gangs. We have a gang problem in Toronto, not a gun problem.

“To accuse us of fueling violence on Toronto’s streets is ludicrous.”

Mr. Whitmore contests the Toronto mayor’s handgun statistics. The vast majority, up to 90 per cent of traced handguns used in crime, are smuggled into Canada.

“The police are doing the best they can,” he said. “But, it’s impossible to tear apart every car, truck and boat crossing the border.”

The solution, he said, is adopting tougher laws for gun offenders.

United States law calls for an automatic five year jail term without parole if someone is caught with an illegal handgun.

“You throw away the keys,” he said. “You can’t shoot someone when you’re in jail.”

Mr. Whitmore said states where the law is in effect have witnessed fewer handgun toting felons.

“All of a sudden, drug dealers are unarmed,” he said. “Here, it’s a social issue that needs to be addressed. The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a joke. Bottom line, we are not the threat. We are not the problem, never were.”

Tom Bradbeer, president of the Toronto-based, 130-member Canadian National Recreation Association Handgun Club threatened by a ban, agrees.

“It’s a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “It’s the easy way to go. We’re perceived as an easy mark so the city can say the number of guns on the street have been reduced. It’s ludicrous. We’re trained users of handguns. There is no correlation between legitimate sport shooters and criminal violence.

“Your police chief is right. We all have (gun) safes in our homes. The ammunition is stored separately and securely. The guns are registered.”

His range is used by Olympian Avianna Chao training for the upcoming Beijing Olympic Games and para-Olympic marksman Karen VanNest.

“Mayor Miller should be focused on the street,” he said. “The government should give the courts more teeth. There should more of a police presence in neighbourhoods.

“We can’t keep handing over the night.”

Shutting down York Region’s few gun and rifle ranges would be a disservice to lawful hobbyists and law enforcers, Chief La Barge said.

Police have an indoor practice facility in Vaughan. Officers also train with long rifles and other weaponry at the Sharon Gun Club.

The York Regional Police community services bureau offers safety audits for homes and businesses where guns are stored. Call 1-866-876-5423 for information.

Handguns: the facts
• In 2004, the Toronto Police Services Board reported that of the 183 identified crime guns (all types) recovered by Toronto Police, five were reported as stolen.
• Lawful handgun owners can obtain $5 million liability insurance for less than $10 per year. There have been no claims in 40 years.
• All handguns have been registered since 1934, effectively banning them from criminal possession.
• The law requires all legal gun owners to possess a RCMP issued firearms licence. All Canadian police services have access to this information.
• There are more than 1.1 million legally owned handguns in Canada. Of these, 230,000 are registered in Ontario.
• A handgun ban will cost Canadian taxpayers approximately $2 billion in lost revenue.
• There are 212 handgun shooting clubs licensed in Ontario
• Of the 108 handguns used in Canadian homicides in 2006, only six were registered. In 2005, of 129 handgun homicides only four were registered.
• The Vancouver Police reported in their 2004 Strategic Plan Report that 97 per cent of the firearms (all types) seized in crimes had never been in the Canadian system.
• In May 2007, an Access to Information request filed by the Canadian Shooting Sports Association to the Ontario government showed that no studies or documents had ever been done regarding a handgun ban in Ontario.
• Of the 1,527 firearms (all types) collected by the Toronto Police Service in 2006, 4.2 per cent were registered handguns. These firearms include crime guns, turn-ins and recovered guns.
• After a complete ban on handguns in Great Britain in 1997, handgun offences more than doubled and injuries from handguns rose from 314 in 1997 to 1,024 in 2006 .
Sources: Canadian Shooting Sports Association, Vancouver Police Department
Strategic Plan, 2004, British Home Office.

[IraGlacialis]

Does this mean I can finally get my hands on that M61 Vulcan I have been having my eyes on? p-)

[Ought Six]

A couple important points....

First, there are a lot of arguments presented in the decision. They talk about "reasonable restrictions", "dangerous firearms", and the like. These are arguments only presented to lay out the logic used to reach the decision. They are not the subject of the decision. This decision *does not* make any ruling on these peripheral subjects. It only rules that, A) the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, B) sporting and self-defense are valid reasons to own arms, along with the clearly stated militia right, and C) handguns are covered as a class of arms protected under this individual right.

Second, in discussion of the militia, it is important to know what the militia is. Federal law has clearly defined this:
United States Code

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.So the unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 years of age. This long-standing federal law trashes the 'National Guard only' argument.

Third, with this decision firmly estabilishing the individual right to keep and bear arms, that principle combined with the militia clause provides a firm legal foundation to challenge 'assault weapon' and .50 caliber rifle bans nationwide. In the arguments for this decision, the court mentioned dangerous weapons only in the context of Miller. U.S. v. Miller was a very narrow decision that only ruled that a 'sawed-off' shotgun was not a militia arm, thus was not protected under the right to keep and bear arms. The argument can and certainly will be made in future cases that semiauto military-style weapons are the quintessential modern militia arms, and thus are protected under the individual right to keep and bear arms. This puts 'assault weapon' and perhaps .50 caliber rifle bans in severe jeapordy.

Fourth, those of you who voted for George Bush in 2000 can now claim a small amount of vindication. With this one-vote majority, I think that it is pretty clear that if Al Gore had become Prez, and had been appointing Supreme Court justices for last two terms, this decision would have gone the other way.

[hank]

It only rules that, A) the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, B) sporting and self-defense are valid reasons to own arms, along with the clearly stated militia right, and C) handguns are covered as a class of arms protected under this individual right.

Good point Ought Six. One thing to keep in mind and its a lawyer thing. Only your point number A is the holding in the case. Points B and C are more than likely what's called dicta. Meaning I as a lawyer can't cite this case for those 2 propositions. I can say that this case supports those points but its no settled law from this decision. Its a rule on construction of judicial decisions. Lawyers often even get it wrong. Points B and C are very likely the law but it will take follow-up decisions to make them actual settled law.

I say more than likely because point C may be a holding. Point B though is almost certainly dicta because they court was not specifically asked to decide whether there is a constitutional right to self defense.

Otherwise, spot on.

hank

[hank]

Exactly! And Breyer's dissent points directly to the problem of the dissenters, and people that believe in a ban. A firearm is a firearm, and even the lowest caliber can potentially kill you, so what the hell is he talking about? Oh, we can keep the .22 caliber pistol, but a 9mm is a bit too much. What the hell is Breyer trying to say? If I want a damn .50 caliber gold plated desert eagle in my home, I should have every right to have it.

It is all about what people do with firearms, and that is why there is a difference between law abiding citizens and criminals. Criminals break laws, and if there is a ban on handguns, they will bring a gun to break that law as well. Look at Chicago for example, they have a very restrictive law against handguns, but look at all the gun crimes being committed there. You don't take the actions of criminals and use that as an excuse to strip away law abiding citizen's rights, especially when it is in the Constitution.

This is nonsense. There are lots and lots of firearms you can't possess. Try to buy a maching gun or a cannon or a mortar. Good luck on some and impossible on others.

What Breyer was trying to say is that the law is not a ban its an allowable restriction. Meaning you can own a shotgun for self defense so its ok to say no firearms. I'm not saying I agree with that but that's Breyer's point and frankly there is precedent for such an argument. He would say that unless all firearms (longgun included) then its no sideways with the 2nd A. Frankly, had O'Connor still been on the Court that might have been the decision (and she was put there by Reagan).

Its not the job of this Court to say that crime happens anyway so bans don't work. That is not their task and frankly it would be wrong for them to consider that. They look only at the issue of constitutionality. Its a legislature's job to craft an effective law, not this Court.

hank

[orionhawk]

...As for Chicago, Detroit, New York et al, I see a dim future for their gun ban laws considering the litigation that is now going to be headed their way. Almost certainly, the rights of citizens of the United States of America have been somewhat bolstered...it's about time. It's past time.
Detroit doesn't really have specific notable gun laws. Michigan has full pre-emption, and is a shall-issue state. Wayne County (where Detroit is located) has been fighting not to comply, but they are losing that fight.

[Createdeemcee]

This is nonsense. There are lots and lots of firearms you can't possess. Try to buy a maching gun or a cannon or a mortar. Good luck on some and impossible on others.



Hank are you aware that citizens in most states can own machineguns, and Flare launchers that can be made to fire grenades??

[hank]

Hank are you aware that citizens in most states can own machineguns, and Flare launchers that can be made to fire grenades??

I am aware. But the govt can make restrictions on who and how those firearms are possessed so long as the restriction is limited etc. Look at what California has done. Those laws have been passed over for consideration by the SC several times.

What I am saying is that this opinion does not say (and I don't think the Court ever will say) that a govt can't limit firearm ownership to this specific situation or type, etc. So, for instance, a state govt can now say you can't possess a firearm (even a legal one) within 100 yards of a school (those law exist in some places) and you can't own a working bazooka anywhere. Those are reasonable limitations that are constitutional. And, you can't have teflon-coated ammunition anywhere. Those are all constitutional laws which restrict firearm possession and usage.

Bugkill was saying he should be able to own any gun he wants anywhere he wants and I was simply pointing out that that is not now the law and never has been. Govts can and have restricted the types of weapons we own and the places we can possess them. All this case says is you can't completely ban possession for every person because that denies 2nd A protections.

For example, DC could pass a law that says you cannot possess a licensed handgun on any public street. That law sould not be unconstitutional under this decision. It would have to be argued again. Might win might lose but that issue has not been decided.

hank

[Createdeemcee]

For example, DC could pass a law that says you cannot possess a licensed handgun on any public street. That law sould not be unconstitutional under this decision. It would have to be argued again. Might win might lose but that issue has not been decided.


Gotcha Thanks Hank.

[Hollis]

What SCOTUS did was say, the right to own firearms is a individual right.

SCOTUS did not say what firearms are included or excluded, when or where or how.

There still are a lot of unanswered questions that goes along with the individual's right to own a firearm. The Majority opinion was pretty clear on this. We can probably say, SCOTUS will visit the 2nd Amendment again and again as time goes on.


So it ends up to be another waiting game for friends of the 2nd Amendment and those who endeavor to promote a ban on firearms.

[Mastermind]

Here we have the City of Boulder. You may not even transport a fire arm...it must be broken down, and it is illegal to have one in your home. I'm waiting to see what happens there....city ordinance.

In my town, North Las Vegas, all hand held fire arms must be registered within 24 hours (as in all of Clark County) and may not be transported in city limits unless in a locked box that is not within reach of the vehicle operator or occupants. That will probably pass muster.

However, Las Vegas (and the rest of the county except Boulder city) has an open carry law...and only a few of the casinos are posted, "No Firearms Permitted". So when I go to work, I have to start with my pistola in the locked box...I leave the NLV city limits and enter Las Vegas, I can strap it on and walk around fully armed all I want. Go figure.

[orionhawk]

that's why I love state pre-emption...

[SilentType]

I am aware. But the govt can make restrictions on who and how those firearms are possessed so long as the restriction is limited etc. Look at what California has done. Those laws have been passed over for consideration by the SC several times.

What I am saying is that this opinion does not say (and I don't think the Court ever will say) that a govt can't limit firearm ownership to this specific situation or type, etc. So, for instance, a state govt can now say you can't possess a firearm (even a legal one) within 100 yards of a school (those law exist in some places) and you can't own a working bazooka anywhere. Those are reasonable limitations that are constitutional. And, you can't have teflon-coated ammunition anywhere. Those are all constitutional laws which restrict firearm possession and usage.

Bugkill was saying he should be able to own any gun he wants anywhere he wants and I was simply pointing out that that is not now the law and never has been. Govts can and have restricted the types of weapons we own and the places we can possess them. All this case says is you can't completely ban possession for every person because that denies 2nd A protections.

For example, DC could pass a law that says you cannot possess a licensed handgun on any public street. That law sould not be unconstitutional under this decision. It would have to be argued again. Might win might lose but that issue has not been decided.

hank

Hank, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals is not the Supreme Court. Just because the Court didn't grant cert to hear them doesn't mean anything now. The Supreme Court has never issued an opinion on any firearms law in California. Part of what made Heller so historical is that this is the first time the court has ever addressed directly whether the Second Amendment is an individual right. Prior to the Heller decision the 9th Circuit had held that the Second was a collective right, but that decision has now been overturned by Heller.

All that Heller says is that the government can not ban firearms that are in common useage. Heller also says that the Second gives individuals the right to use those firearms in self-defense so the government can not take that right away by requiring trigger locks and other restraints that would infringe that right. Since semi-automatic so called "assault rifles" are among the top selling rifles in the United States I would say that those firearms come under the classification as those in "common use." I see the various state Assault Weapons Bans being ruled unconstitutional very quickly.

The government will still be able to regulate how those firearms are transported and sold as well as who may own them reasonably, but these outright Draconian bans will soon be a thing of the past. I believe that Heller will be the vehicle in which the ban on post 1986 Machineguns will at some point fall as well. The NFA registration is more than enough to accomplish the governments interests in protecting citizens from so called "abnormally dangerous" firearms. Regulation and licensing will always be present, but outright bans are going to go buh bye and those regulations or licensing requirements that are tantamount to bans will be ruled unconstitutional as well.

So in my opinion Bugkill will soon be able to own any firearm he wants if he his a person who can under the law possess them (ie. not mental, felon, domestic violence conviction). I agree with you though that he will not be able to walk down mainstreet to go to the post office with them or just be able to pick one up at the Walmart without registration.

[Ought Six]

myself:
".... and C) handguns are covered as a class of arms protected under this individual right."

h:
"I say more than likely because point C may be a holding."The court ruled that the D.C. handgun ban specifically was unconstitutional. The D.C. law did not ban the possession of long guns. For this reason, the decision seems to clearly rule that handguns specifically are included in the individual RKBA. Thus it is a ruling, not a holding or dicta.

If you disagree, please explain.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Another personal opinion of mine is that, with this ruling, law-abiding citizens are now guaranteed individual access to lethal force.

Quite impressive for a young country such as ours.

[LaoSexMachine]

US handgun ban challenge spreads
A powerful gun lobby group in the United States has filed legal challenges to handgun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.
The lawsuits come a day after the US Supreme Court ruled that a ban on the private possession of handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.
A National Rifle Association lawyer said the cases were necessary to expand the ruling to other states and cities.
San Francisco's mayor says he plans to fight the NRA challenge.
The San Francisco lawsuit challenges the city's handgun ban in public housing, while in Chicago it challenges a ruling that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.
Self-defence
The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and said the ban was good for public safety.
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing? I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority," Mr Newsom said.
The Supreme Court's ruling says that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home".
The ruling enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.
"The Supreme Court's decision was very encouraging, but it is just a start," NRA lawyer C D Michel said.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7478832.stm

[Createdeemcee]

Thats great news, I cant wait to see what turns out in dc. I lived there for four years and felt really out of my element with out a gun around. I would like to see locals be able to really exercise their right if the can have some freedoms just to observe the statistics. Home invasions would be dealt with for sure. Criminals run that city.

[loganinkosovo]

The Leftist Wackos on the Court showed just what kind of losers they really are on this one. SCOTUS's job is to interpret what is and what isn't Constitutional not make up sh!t on their own.


John Paul Stevens in his dissent on the DC gun ban bill today wrote that the majority, meaning Scalia and the gang, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

I'm no constitutional scholar like this idiot is supposed to be but I know that is exactly what those Divinely inspired Men did. The English blamed us for the French and Indian Wars and were trying to disrupt, disband and disarm American settlers in the Ohio Valley since it was ticking off the French and Indians again. The Framers wanted to make sure no Tyrannical Government could try to disarm the American People ever again!

Anyone with a high school education knew this when I was growing up. We had to take Citizenship Classes in Elementary School and Government/US History Classes in High School so we learned all about the Why Fors and Where Hows of our Country.

The Leftist Teacher's Union eliminated the Citizenship Classes and Government/US History in High School is a Joke now. The attack on our Constitution has almost succeeded a number of times because of this planned and indoctrinated ignorance of our population.

My High School History Teacher was a wounded veteran of the Battle of the Bulge. We were taught really honest to goodness American History, not the revisionist crap they spew out now. It was like having US History with Lt. Jean Rasczak.

An Armed Man is a Citizen. A Disarmed Man is a Subject. Subject to any damned thing anyone wants to do to him.

[SBL]

Gun Shops Await New D.C. Rules

Stores Turn Away Buyers After Ruling


By Allison Klein (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/allison+klein/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 30, 2008; Page B01

D.C. resident Anthony Mason walked into Atlantic Guns in Silver Spring on Friday afternoon and asked a question the staff had heard all day: "How can I buy a small handgun?"
This Story


Gun Shops Await New D.C. Rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/30/ST2008063000361.html)
Raw Fisher: The Next D.C. Gun Battle (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/06/the_next_dc_gun_battle.html)
Gun Legislation in the U.S. By State (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/gunlaws/)



"With the overturn of the gun ban," the retired Metrobus driver began to explain to the sales associate behind the counter.
"We're telling everyone to wait 30 days," said Atlantic manager Dale Metta, something he's repeated dozens of times in the past few days. "We can't do anything until the D.C. government says, 'These are the rules.' "
Gun shops in suburban Maryland and Virginia felt an immediate impact from the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Supreme+Court?tid=informline)'s ruling Thursday that the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional. City leaders said it would take about three weeks to iron out the details: Which kinds of guns will be legal, and how will the registration process work?
But with the court clearing the way for D.C. residents to legally arm themselves, many wasted no time.
Mason and about 50 other people called or came into the Atlantic as of Friday after the ruling. The well-stocked gun store next to a tattoo and body-piercing shop is about a half-mile from the District border, making it one of the gun shops closest to the city and among the busiest after the ruling. It's been in the same brick, one-story building since 1955.
"We've had a lot of people inquiring," Metta said. "What's happening now is a huge history maker."
He said his best-selling handguns are Glocks, Berettas and Rugers, which cost $350 to $700. People usually say they want them for self-defense, or sometimes as collector's items, he said.
Mason, 53, who lives in the Brookland area, was looking to buy a gun for his wife, who works at a hair salon that was recently burglarized.
"I would feel more comfortable knowing she can protect herself if I'm not there," Mason said.
Having a gun around his house offers him a measure of security, he said.
"If people looking for trouble know you have protection, they'll usually move on," he said.





Read the rest of the story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901886_2.html?sid=ST2008063000361&pos=

[Createdeemcee]

yeah im anxious to see. They will probably tell all citizens that single shot .22 are the only round legal. Fenty's mouth will shut once violent crime dies down substantailly. Killings may go up, but they will be self defense deaths of criminals.

[Mordecai]

What some of our founding fathers thought about the 2nd Ammendment...

http://www.rense.com/general2/right.htm

James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

[wildcat]

What some of our founding fathers thought about the 2nd Ammendment...

http://www.rense.com/general2/right.htm

James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

nice quotes, thank you.

[Ought Six]

CMC:
"Fenty's mouth will shut once violent crime dies down substantailly."You do not seriously believe that, do you? Politicians like him live on denial of reality and agenda-driven lies.

[Createdeemcee]

You do not seriously believe that, do you? Politicians like him live on denial of reality and agenda-driven lies.


Hes not good on this issue, just look at the states surrounding the dc metro area. All are pro gun and have lesst than half the crime. Sucks bad.

[koalorka]

Great news.
(http://imageshack.us)