Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

[nemoaz]

Hopefully someone else is filing today to have the whole licensing scheme overturned. The DC Court of Appeals seems friendly enough.

[Sarge]

A good day for us, for a change! Today, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and remind ourselves that we literally 'won by a nose'.

The dissents underscore the fact that the left, from the lowest to the highest, will never GET it- and that we will always have to guard our constitutional rights like the precious possessions that they are.

[maestro pistolero]

For those who don't have time, here are some of my favorite gems from Scalia, writing for the majority:

We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment . . .

. . . "Keep arms” was
simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. . .

. . . At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” . . .

. . .‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ ” . . .

. . . We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization. . .

. . . In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. . .

. . .It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. . .

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely under-
stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” . . .

. . .Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training . . .

And perhaps my two favorites:

But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

And last:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

[bikerbill]

"It is well to remember that the battle is never ending. We will never win it, but as long as we keep fighting, neither will we ever lose." Jeff Cooper

[PT111]

Right now I'm not jumping for joy. The only thing that this decision directly does is get rid of our no issue or 'sorta' issue counties for CCW's.

I wouldn't jump up too high just yet. I am not sure it covered that, just that you can have one in your home. It may eventually cover CCW or OC but have to see.

[Bud Helms]

WOW. This thread has grown quickly. I hope this hasn't been posted yet. I searched this forum for the string "VPC" and the most recent return was in April of this year. 'Thought everyone would get a kick out of the Violence Policy Center Action Network's latest mailout to their members.

**************

Dear Violence Policy Center Action Network Member:

Following today's 5-4 Supreme Court opinion (http://www.vpc.org/heller.pdf) overturning Washington, DC's handgun ban, but apparently allowing for the retention of the law's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiautomatic handguns, the Violence Policy Center issued the following statement from Legislative Director Kristen Rand:

"Today's opinion turns legal logic and common sense on its head. As measured in gun death and injury, handguns are our nation's most lethal category of firearm: accounting for the vast majority of the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year. Handguns are our nation's leading murder and suicide tool. Yet the majority opinion offers the greatest offender the strongest legal protection. It's analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case.

"In its ruling, the Court has ignored our nation's history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia. Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District's ban on 'machine guns,' Washington, DC's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected."

For the full release, and background information on why under the ruling DC's ban on semiauto handguns should remain intact, please see: http://www.vpc.org/press/0806heller.htm.

The Court's opinion was authored by 2007 Sport Shooting Ambassador Award winner Antonin Scalia. For more information on Justice Scalia's gun industry award, please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s..._b_109367.html

As we conduct additional analysis on the potential effects of the ruling, we will keep you updated.

Thank you, as always, for your efforts to stop gun death and injury.

Sincerely,

Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director

[Erik]

Another "it is a grand day" comment. At last, no more having to listen to blatherings about commas, muskets, militias, or intentions wrapped in the hopeful activist rhetoric of the left.

It is like fresh air flooded the room. But there is still spring cleaning yet to be done.

[maestro pistolero]

I wouldn't jump up too high just yet. I am not sure it covered that, just that you can have one in your home. It may eventually cover CCW or OC but have to see.

Read the whole thing (it's long, I know). I believe it does cover CCW and OC:

We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment . . .

. . . "Keep arms” was
simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. . .

. . . At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” . . .

. . .‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ ” . . .

[JWT]

The Violence Policy Center Action mailout would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that people like this are serious and as such committed to combating the ruling in every possible way.

For this group to suggest the Heller ruling is "analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case"is convoluted logic at best.

[KyJim]

BillCA's summary is the most complete so far on p. 4, http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...=299917&page=4. A couple of observations:

1. Even though the Court did not address incorporation by the 14th Amendment because it did not have to, there is lot's of language hinting that it would.

2. The Court did not specify what level of scrutiny it was employing in reviewing the D.C. laws. Strict scrutiny is the highest level a court uses. One has to wonder if Scalia didn't go into this in order to keep a wavering justice (Kennedy) on board. The majority did specifically reject the dissent's "interest balancing" test which would have allowed the court to essentially rule anything Constitutional if it so desired.

[arkie2]

Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District's ban on 'machine guns,' Washington, DC's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected."

How could a rights group dedicated to eliminating firearms be so completely ignorant? Or maybe it's not ignorance but an attempt to promote ignorance in the public by trying to change the meaning of a word. In any case, they are going to be severely disappointed when the courts allow semi auto handguns in DC.

[KyJim]

The Violence Policy Center Action Network's argues that semi-autos should remain banned in D.C. because they carry more ammo and can be shot faster than revolvers (they should see Jerry Mikulek). They also argue they should be banned because they are the most common handgun in the U.S., accounting for 73% of handguns manufactured in 2006.

According to the majority in Heller, the fact that semi-autos are the most prevalent for self-defense is exactly why they should not be banned.

[Dead]

Well I think it is time to apply for a Assault Weapons Permit, and Carry Permit in NJ..hmmmmmmmm...

when denied what woud heller do for me there? I will be denied on both 100% certain... my reason for wanting those "Self-Defence"...

[carguychris]

Being in CA (but I have not read the decision in detail) I suspect CA governments will try to keep CCW as infrequent as they can by whatever means they can. Rural counties are close to "shall issue" but Los Angeles country only issues to the wealthy who help Baca or other politico's get elected. Just sort CCW's by zip code and places like Beverly Hills have them, Compton and South LA don't. It is racial and class discrimination by outcome which follows the original intent of concealed carry laws in LA as enacted in the early 20th century.

It is morally indefensible that there is apparently no one in Compton who is at risk or cannot pass a "shall issue" background and proficiency check. It is simply impossible. But that is what Baca, LAPD and the local political class would have you believe.

I think that one of the first outcomes of the SCOTUS decision is that licensing and/or registration on a local or state level will have to be done using a transparent, fair, and legally contestable set of rules. A right can't be taken away without due process.

The good news is that this will probably spell the end of arbitrary and capricious licensing systems such as the one in place in MA, where the director of local law enforcement can (as I understand it) arbitrarily approve or deny licenses.

The bad news is that some anti-gun jurisdictions will inevitably react by setting the "shall-issue" standard absurdly high. ("Unpaid traffic ticket? Misdemeanor conviction for public intoxication 10 years ago? NO GUN FOR YOU!!") The rulles will then have to be challenged and hashed out in the courts.

[Socrates]

The court should, in theory, only rule on the issues brought before them. The first baby step is Individual right.

I found the "must issue..." statement about the license in D.C. VERY interesting. That appears to be a very clear statement that if Heller is not issued a 'license', that the court will rule in his favor on the 'shall issue' situation.

Here, in Kali, we currently have police chiefs, and country sheriffs that only issue to a select group of fund raisers and friends. With this ruling, they are ripe for a Supreme Court case, but, the next step is establishing the individual right to be secure in your person, and to protect your body, when not in your home.

Another is the financial discrimination caused by the license garbage. A starving substitute teacher having to pay 300 dollars a year to have a CCW constitutes discrimination, based first on income, and, second on race, since certain groups have lower income then others.

The fact that Scalia wrote about a specific, automatic weapon, the M16, and how such weapons that many consider to not be mainstream would be proper for militia purposes, and uses, certainly makes me wonder what
Kali's assault weapon ban is going to do, if challenged.

Finally, the court in Lopez actually came out for states rights. This brings to light a major problem:

As Bill mentioned, the Constitution was intended to limit the FEDERAL government, of which D.C. is a part. Now, like many other amendments, is the 2nd amendment incorporated to the states, limiting the states writing laws regulating firearms?

The door is open, and, either the Federal government, or the states needs to be estopped from writing laws limiting firearms. Is the right to regulate firearms a Federal right, or a state right?

[mvpel]

Chicago is not so lucky. It has a big black market for guns and has tons of felons and gang members willing to pay extra money to illegally obtain a firearm.

Maybe the reason Chicago is not so lucky as Wyoming is BECAUSE OF the gun ban, but you'll never convince Mayor Daley of that fact - his brain would short out before that sequence of neurons ever fired.

[B.N.Real]

The victory today is only a temporary one if we do not fight to limit the inevitable attampts that will be made to make it as difficult as possible for D.C. residents that want to legally protect themselves.

The joy I feel at this decision can be best described as this sentence.

Now,it is not ONLY the criminals that have guns in D.C.

Every D.C. resident that feels they need a handgun to defend themselves, their family and property can (with phenomenal effort no doubt) now legally buy a firearm.

The D.C. courts will no doubt try to make an example of the first person that successfully defenses his or her property or self or family with a firearm.

The battle is only started.

We've only won the right to start the process.

Now we have to fight to make sure the process is totally fair to all the D.C. residents that want to legally own a firearm.

One last thought,most D.C,. residents are Afro-Americans,therefore the handgun ban all these years was promarily designed to rob Afro Americans of the right to legally defend their selves,their families and their property.

What kind of law does that make that law?

Fantastically fair decision to return the right to keep and bear arms to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Now,we have to make sure the decision gets carried out right.

[mvpel]

No, DC residents can't legally buy a handgun, because under Federal law delivery of a handgun to the final purchaser must be done via a federally licensed dealer within the jurisdiction of residence. There are no FFLs in DC, and therefore no way for a resident of DC to comply with Federal law when purchasing a handgun, unless they can find a private party also living in DC from whom to purchase one - fat chance.

http://www.auctionarms.com/help/FFLStateSearch.cfm

[Playboypenguin]

But see the argument you're making in defense of Obama is one of the many arguments that DC Mayor Fenty made, and is also the dissenting opinion written by Justice Breyer. Like saying "2A don't apply here 'cause we got lots of crime." Supremacy clause?

I think trying to make that argument would be like trying to push a pile of molasses up a hill with a pointed stick. These conditions are of a socioeconomic nature and not because of any gun law.

The battle is only started.

We've only won the right to start the process.

Once again, B.N.Real is right on the money.

[STAGE 2]

I find it very funny that the dissenters were almost using a states rights approach in order to invalidate the 2nd. Pretty funny if you ask me. Seems that Ruthie, John, David and Stevie think what the states think is important when restricting rights, but no so when protecting them.

[milemission]

Dead, go ahead and apply for those, and if rejected, call up the NRA and get them to help you take it to court. Same goes for the California assault weapons ban. As far as DC, perhaps the interstate commerce ban should be challenged as well as that prevents residents of DC from legally buying guns.

[roy reali]

Don't guns need ammo to be effective?

[USAFNoDak]

Good decision. Sort of like a Sam Adams. Not an excellent one, due to many factors already discussed here.

Here is one of my fears, as it pertains to D.C. "Ok, we have to allow you a license to have a gun in your home so that you can defend yourself. Well, that license will cost you $500.00 because we have to pay for extra police which will be needed as blood runs in our streets, and we have shoot outs like the Wild West at the OK Corral. Oh, by the way, you only get one license per household, and that license is good for only one firearm, period. You must renew your license every 4 years, just like a drivers license. How's that grab you potential gun owners? We are allowing you a gun in your home, so this isn't a ban anymore, in accordance with the ruling of the USSC".

They could also say, "We will only allow 9 mm or smaller caliber handguns in to be licensed because we don't feel anyone needs any more firepower than that for self defense in the home. But we won't allow any ammo smaller than 40 caliber to be sold in the city. Criminals favorite ammo is 9 mm, 38's, .25's and .22's. We have a vested interest in not allowing criminals to get access to that ammo".

I look for the liberal control machines in places such as Philadelphia, New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, etc, to push this to the limit as to what they can "get away" with.

I'll also claim, "lot's of work and hard fighting ahead of us". Take a quick breather and a sip from the canteen. Get ready to go back to the front first thing in the morning.

[Socrates]

Such restrictions exist in Kali. In my county, only 'approved'
guns are allowed for CCW. Seems an idiot sheriff shot himself with a 1911, so those are now not allowed in that county for ccw.

[maestro pistolero]

. . . In a press conference a little while ago. The fudging has started already. Our work has just begun.