Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

[tyme]

Only one affirming opinion, so no split in rationale (5 justices)
Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg dissented (2 dissenting opinions)

Decision (pdf, mirror 1): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Decision (pdf, mirror 2): http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf
Decision (pdf, mirror 3 @TFL): http://www.thefiringline.com/library/07-290.pdf

Direct link to the page with the decision:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...ipopinion.html

Commentary w/ liveblog of SCOTUS session:
http://www.scotusblog.com

SCOTUS Wiki page with links to oral argument transcripts and briefs:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

Please read the decision before making comments about what the decision will do.

[TheBluesMan]

Heller has been affirmed. (VICTORY!)

Many more details to come.

[jfrey123]

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!

[Al Norris]

Read the opinion, before you speculate as to what it will do.

[SkySlash]

YES!!!

Waiting for the actual PDF of the opinion now.

Affirmed and Individual Right!!!!

-SS

[Creature]

Common sense and logic prevails. Hallelujah!

[Al Norris]

It's being reported that there is one majority opinion and 2 dissenting opinions.

[bikerbill]

A sigh of relief, tho 5-4 is not as good as I thought it would be ... it will be fun to see how it's interpreted ...

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Good news!

Hats off to Justice Kennedy for coming down on the correct side.

[SkySlash]

That's really unusual Antipitas! Be interesting to read won't it

-SS

[TheBluesMan]

Here is the link to the opinion just released: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

[HKuser]

The 4 sisters in the dissent are no surprise.

[Pilot]

The 4 sisters in the dissent are no surprise.

X2. They will NEVER vote to uphold the Constitution. They are activists who want to legislate their ideology from the bench. This shows how important judicial appointments are. We came within one vote of losing our gun rights!

[HKuser]

Decision looks to be verrrrrry narrow.

[SkySlash]

From the opinion

1. The Second Amendment 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-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

This is a step in the right direction, but this is a very narrow victory. There are 157 pages in the opinion, and the above is just one paragraph.

Here is another that makes you go Uh Oh...

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

-SS

[tyme]

Excerpts (but PLEASE READ the decision if you're going to comment)

Held:
1. The Second Amendment 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-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
...
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[Al Norris]

SkySlash, yes, it is unusual for a decision of this type.

Danged dial-up! The pdf is loading very slowly for me... arrrrgggghhhh!

[divemedic]

The decision certainly sounds as though the machine gun ban is possibly going to fall.

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 limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Anyone else see otherwise?

[jfrey123]

we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,
“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

[divemedic]

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interestbalancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.”

Hmmm- that is a cop out of the scrutiny question

[mvpel]

the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

DAMN IT, GURA!!!!

Do you need a license to criticize government officials?

Guess another case will have to be brought, at great expense and hassle, to overturn the patently unconstitutional prior restraint of licensing requirements.

[JWT]

It's a victory for sure, but will take some digesting to see exactly how much of a victory. I certainly is not a broad approval to own arms under any conditions and seems that certain restrictions will probably continue to be allowed under this ruling.

[Waitone]

Finally, pushback!

[ElectricHellfire]

Huzzah! Finally, a victory.

[FrontSight]

"We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!