Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

[alan]

Read the opunion, before you speculate as to what it will do.
__________________
Al Norris

Seems a sensible idea.

[mdreb]

Amazing!! They got something right. Still somewhat overshadowed by
terrorist and child rape death penalty rulings.

[Yellowfin]

It seems like he defended CC restrictions, but since 2A rights are about self defense that OC in places that have no CCW is a protected right.

[xd9fan]

really...really...another 5-4 ruling....
can these monkeys agree on ANYTHING

I would be worried what ruling would be handed down if we asked them if George Washington was ever president..

[USAFNoDak]

As for licensing an registration, isn't there some case where the USSC ruled that licensing a right by the government makes it a priviledge instead of a right. Also, if the government taxes the right by charging a fee for the license, isn't that akin to a poll tax? Cripes, the libs argue that making someone have an ID to vote is a poll tax because a drivers license costs about 20 bucks or so, even though it's valid for 4 years in most states.

[Playboypenguin]

from the opinion:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose.

This is exactly what I have been saying for years.

a quote from one of my earlier posts:
IMHO, they were saying "because we need this, we do not want to do anything that might be misused and cause this to not be possible in the future." I do not think they were saying "guns are only allowed for militia members" so it really does not matter what form the militia takes since it was merely a reason for the right and not a condition on it.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I also completely agree with the idea that the right, like most rights, is not unlimited.

from the opinion:
Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s
right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v.
Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the
Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry
arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read
the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.

This pretty much says that some restrictions are allowed as long as the principle is not compromised. I have always agreed with restrictions on felons, mentally ill, and non-citizens owning firearms. I also agree that a person should not be allowed to produce high explosives in mass quantities or drive down the street with M2's mounted on their hood.

Even though I despise Scalia, this seems to be one instance where we are in complete agreement.

Looks like this is one time where he sided with liberals like myself.

[USAFNoDak]

many state constitutions which clearly spell out that their citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, allow for the regulation of carrying concealed. When most of these states became states, carrying a concealed weapon was considered to be bad form and was a likely indication that the person carrying the gun concealed was up to no good, since no one had any problems with citizens carrying openly where ever they went. Times have changed now. The media, the liberals, and our schools, have some people so scared of guns, that many people are prone to soil themselves at the mere sight of a gun being carried by anyone other than a uniformed government agent. Also, most federal agents (BATF and such) carry concealed. Hmmmmmm. Are they up to no good? Not necessarily, but it shows how times have changed. We are going to have a very hard time, if we try, to get laws which allow regulation regarding carrying concealed weapon overturned on 2nd A. grounds. My $.02 worth.

[Robby]

Current as of 1:22 EDT, Washington post poll on decision.
Yes.
64%
No.
33%
Don't know.
1%
Created on Jun 26, 2008
Total Votes: 8,081

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/20...l?hpid=topnews

[Crimp]

Looks like Krusty was right after all!

There are three reasons to own a gun.
To protect yourself and your family, to
hunt dangerous and delicious animals,
and to keep the King of England out of
your face.

--Krusty the Clown

[sandbag]

It is a victory on the main ground-the individual right to keep and ber arms.It specifically says handguns are covered and appears to strike down mandatory gunlocks in the home/business setting.
Most importantly,it takes the wind out of the sials of the anti-gun movement.Dianne Feinstein,the pistol-packing hypocrite criticized the decision,while Pat Leahy praised it.And Leahy is pretty liberal.He's just not picky about which of the Bill of rights apply to citizens.he ACLU has opposed individual gun ownership all along.They can go throw up in a spacesuit.
Ginsburg and Breyer were no surprise-the Clinton appointees.I can't stand George W Bush,but at least he appointed two good justices.

[Tibu]

So does this mean that residents of D.C. can head out TODAY and buy a gun for home defense?

[Dust Monkey]

Ok, if its a RIGHT, affirmed. Why do we need to pay for a permit to carry concealed? Paying for a permit is asking permission to exercise your RIGHT.

[SkySlash]

Email Alert: Send the ACLU an email.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
Link

Everyone reading this thread needs to send the ACLU an email asking them when and how they intend to update their outdated and incorrect policy.

-SS

[Playboypenguin]

So does this mean that residents of D.C. can head out TODAY and buy a gun for home defense?

Washington mayor Adrian Fenty did make a statement on CNN that he has issued an order to local police to quickly get into place a system that would allow citizens to register firearms for lawful possession in their homes.

[JuanCarlos]

Ok, if its a RIGHT, affirmed. Why do we need to pay for a permit to carry concealed? Paying for a permit is asking permission to exercise your RIGHT.

Haven't read the whole decision yet. Did it affirm the right to carry outside your home? Or just ownership?

Also, because the exact same decision that just affirmed it as a right also affirmed that some restrictions are still Constitutional.

[Playboypenguin]

Haven't read the whole decision yet. Did it affirm the right to carry outside your home? Or just ownership?

Also, because the exact same decision that just affirmed it as a right also affirmed that some restrictions are still Constitutional.

I fear that way too many people are not going to read the whole thing or comprehend the actual ruling.

It says we can own them and bring them to bear with just cause. It does not say we can strap guns on our hips and walk around downtown. Nor does it disallow restrictions on the right that would not prevent ownership or the ability to bring said weapons to bear under proper circumstances.

It does say defense of self is just cause. That would sound like a defense of the right to carry. Even then, restrictions as to how you need to carry would still be allowed if it did not prevent defense.

[BillCA]

After reading Scalia's often amusing decision (that certainly takes Steven's dissent to task), I came up with these points made by the court...

• The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm;
• No connection with a "militia" is necessary to possess a firearm;
• Citizens can use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home;
• The court views "militia weapons" to be "firearms in common use at the time" which would include most common handguns, rifles and shotguns, but not necessarily a sawed-off shotgun or other " dangerous and unusual weapons".
• The right is not absolute and the court did not change many of the existing restrictions, such as prohibitions against felons or the mentally ill from possessing firearms.
• The court left intact most existing restrictions, such as prohibitions against carrying in certain buildings or schools.
• Nor did the court suggest laws imposing conditions and qualifications on commercial sales were unconstitutional in this decision.
• The question of protection for automatic rifles, like the M-16, is still debatable.
• The Court let stand the D.C. licensing arrangement since that was not contested as unconstitutional.

Most importantly, the court was silent on incorporation under the 14th Amendment. Nor did the court declare the 2nd Amendment to be a fundamental right, which would typically trigger strict-scrutiny rules on any gun control laws.

One thing I did pick up on was that today's decision implied that restrictions should be based on prohibiting abuses of the right, not limiting the right itself.

I'll let others have their turn now.

[mvpel]

So does this mean that residents of D.C. can head out TODAY and buy a gun for home defense?

No, because due to the federal law on licensed dealers' transfer of handguns, a resident of DC cannot buy a handgun from a dealer not located in DC. Since there are no dealers in DC, here's another hurdle that will need to be cleared before the self-defense rights of DC residents can be vindicated.

[divemedic]

First person to open a gun shop in DC is going to make a mint.

[Van55]

Wow, I skimmed the first 70 or so pages, the others not having loaded by the time I got there. I abandoned the effort for now.

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.

Twenty-seven words that take 157 pages to interpret.

If the framers of the constitution had intended it as asserted by the dissent, they could have written, "A well regulated militia, being necessary ot the security of a free state, the right of the militiamen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In my opinion that's all the majority needed to say.

It's interesting to me how many times and an how many ways Justice Scalia says that dissenting Justice Stevens is "dead wrong." He even refers to Justice Stevens' reasoning as "grotesque" at one point.

In any event if it weren't for Pres. Bush's appointees the result probably would have been the opposite. Thank goodness for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

[applesanity]

Then can some resident of DC apply for FTF?

I was thinking about the impact of the case in regards to the election. We've got McCain, who's been mostly good to 2A, and then there's Obama.

McCain:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Well-said.

Obama:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Isn't that most wishy washy lawyerspeak CYA pile of drivel ever? You gotta love the, "I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." As in, "Well, um, I support the high court's ruling but I think that local communities are entitled to do whatever the hell they want anyway. So yeah, it's okay to ban guns on the SouthSide, where I'm from, but feel free to go duck hunting in Wyoming."

Selectivity over rights. That's a new one. Apparently the Supreme Court is not so supreme, apparently it doesn't apply to chicago. Akin to saying, "Well, we're gonna ban the right to assembly in Skokie, Il, but feel free to march around in Montana."

By the way, Obama - it hasn't been working in Chicago.

[toybox99615]

before the issue is completly settled. A decision is only a basis from which further action can be taken. Don't believe you local gun shop is going to change its way in a matter of days based on untried interpretation of this decision. Don't run out think you can now carry without any limitations.

There are hundreds of those despicable city, county and state laws on the books that are simply not going to go away without some fighting. You don't have to examine motives behind so many of those who are anti-gun to see the wheels turning already. Let see a school zone might now get changed by some yokel to be twenty miles around every school. Then it will take some challanges to get that thrown out and put into realistic limitations.

As previously stated there are some 150 plus pages in this decsion. Thus far the posters have cherry picked a few selective situations to support their interpretations. That leaves a lot out of the overall decision.

The previous posting on the military firearms are insightful. They show how many of the firearms we own or currently own are military by design. There are sure to be challanges to the decision on multiple interpretation of the military arms section. Will a M1911 military issue be classified as a military arm under this decision or will that M1 now become military arms and be restricted? Lot of this BS is going to pass before the issue is ever concluded. Most definatly don't believe everyone who deals in weapons under the 86 ban will want to support the removal of the restriction. Why would they. They profit from the high prices and stand to loose thousands if the laws are repealed.

I believe there are only a few actual things we can claim this decision affirms besides the obvious individual right. First and foremost is the issue itself will not be back in the court for decades. Second is hundreds or thousands of existing laws will have to be evaluated and in some cases tried to reflect the application of the Heller decision. Third, the RKBA is far from settled as we find ourselves challenging the existence of issues this decision did not address. Fourth nothing in this decision appears to deal with the BATF and that entire set of BS.

[johnwilliamson062]

I agree with Penguin, reading through it myself now. Put an absolute stop to some abuses but supports some restrictions. I am not sure I would go as far as saying I am comfortable with the restriction it supports, but I am not too uncomfortable with them.

[Samurai]

Ok, if its a RIGHT, affirmed. Why do we need to pay for a permit to carry concealed? Paying for a permit is asking permission to exercise your RIGHT.

What Scalia said is that, because Heller previously told the court that he is not complaining about having to get a permit for his gun, the Supreme Court is not going to rule on whether the permits are unconstitutional at this time.

We'll have to come back to the USSC sometime later so that they can tell us whether permits are unconstitutional. But, based on Scalia's (and the majority's) stance so far, I would guess that permits would be found unconstitutional.

p.s. - WHEW! Thank GOD for a clear and favorable ruling! Now, the Great State of Franklin doesn't have to declare secession from the Union!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's interesting to me how many times and an how many ways Justice Scalia says that dissenting Justice Stevens is "dead wrong." He even refers to Justice Stevens' reasoning as "grotesque" at one point.

No kidding, he was brutal. There's some bad blood between them now, you may be sure.

First person to open a gun shop in DC is going to make a mint.

Be a great place to move to, if you really didn't want your handgun collection anymore...