Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

[applesanity]

The next fight will probably take place in San Francisco or Chicago.

The Chicago "Dewey Defeats Truman" Tribune spit out a giant piece on the Daley machine et al. gearing up for the fight. Wow, it's one of the most biased papers ever.

Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'

Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for the city, asserted that the Supreme Court decision only applies to the federal government. Washington D.C., she said, is part of the federal government, but Chicago is an independent home-rule unit of Illinois.

Say what? At any rate, it's a sign that just because we got DC v Heller doesn't mean it gets any easier. Don't forget to rig the poll, too.

[ginshun]

Originally Posted by Obama

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.

So that is where terrorists get their guns from? from gun shows and failed backgorund checks? Is this guy for real? Has anybody ever read a more transparent statement?

He might as well have just prefaced the statement with "Hi I am Barrack Obama, and I want to ban guns, but I don't want to look bad soooo..."

[gvf]

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.

EXACTLY! I am a pre-1972 liberal - like JFK, Truman etc. My friends who are current liberals consider me a conservative. Nonsense.... I really am a centrist in today's climate.

This is a ruling for common sense - sorely lacking in our political discussion, where everyone is someone else's villain. By ruling the right is individual and fundamental, but not over-riding the purpose of the amendment, Scalia gets it right.
------------------------------------------------
Seperate Q:
What may this mean in terms of states that have a present "MAY" issue policy for handgun carry?

--------------

[STAGE 2]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Running Gunfight: While I haven't had time to digest all the implications of the decision, I would say that licensing requirements that are arbitrary and/or capricious will not survive.

I dont know Al...

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.

This could come back to hurt us. There are plenty of ways to have a restrictive program that is enforced equally, say only calibers .380 or less. By conceding this point, we've backed ourselves into a hole that we didn't need to be in.

Generally, there is no license required for exercising your first amendment rights. Where one is, it is completely analogous to a ccw situation.

It a bad point to start from.

[huchahuchax]

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.

I only skimmed through the decision, but I got the impression that Justice Scalia believes Justice Stevens' reasoning runs along the lines that the second amendment was written in slang, which was well understood in the day. If that is what Stevens is saying then I would say his reasoning is grotesque.

That is like saying the founding fathers got at least as far as the second amendment before they got bored and decided it might be cute and maybe even a little amusing to drop a "fo' shizzle my nizzle" into the United States Constitution. The implication of that is terrifying. How much of the rest of the Constitution can be interpreted as slang from the 1700's?

[Playboypenguin]

EXACTLY! I am a pre-1972 liberal - like JFK, Truman etc. My friends who are current liberals consider me a conservative. Nonsense.... I really am a centrist in today's climate.

Righties call me a bleeding heart and a socialist and lefties call me a gun toting nazi. That is what makes me feel good about my liberalism. I must be getting it close to right if the extremists on both sides disagree with me.

Any true liberal believes in the right of an individual to protect themselves and their love ones but also realizes the necessity of some restrictions to prevent abuse.

[HKuser]

Generally, there is no license required for exercising your first amendment rights. Where one is, it is completely analogous to a ccw situation.

It a bad point to start from.

Then Gura should have had a broader prayer for relief, bad on him.

[PT111]

Something that struck me is that in the city there is an ordinance against discharging a firearm inside the city limits. Now there is no exclusion for self-defense against a person or rabid animal. Although I don't know if anyone has ever been charged it is possible that they could be.

Could this ruling affect that or similar laws?

[milemission]

Remember, these men (even the dissenting ones) are not fools. Just because Justice Stevens reasoning leaves a lot to be desired doesn't necessarily mean he believes himself. It just means he's writing as he wishes things were, not as they are. In other words, he's not a fool, he's just got ulterior motives.

[Playboypenguin]

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."

I actually agree completely with Obama's statement and understand what he is saying.

Cheyenne probably has very few issues with black market gun sales or straw purchases. They do not have a huge felon population nor a huge gang youth population that would make such a business profitable. Therefore, they would not need to be wary of such things nor need added precautions beyond basic background checks.

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. Because of this fact, gun shops need to be more cautious about looking out for this type of activity. They might want waiting periods or limits for certain types of mass purchases...or have a system in place that alerts business owners to people making multiple purchases from different sources.

Apparently, my cousin's husband is serving time now for buying multiple guns from multiple sources and then reselling them for a profit to his friends. He is Vietnamese and was apparently a member of a local asian gang in Columbus, OH and was supplying guns to other gang members as far away as Atlanta, GA and California.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Scalia

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.

My reading of this says, "We don't have to rule on the constitutionality of licensing schemes at the moment, so we won't."

Add to this the many cases that have indicated that licensing of a right is the same as transforming the right into a privilege (yes, I can cite most of them, if this is required), well, you can see where I think that will ultimately go!

[Wait, I'm Reloadin']

hip hip, hooray for DC!!!

[hkg3]

I wonder how much an M249 will cost next year?

[applesanity]

Originally Posted by Playboypenguin

I actually agree completely with Obama's statement and understand what he is saying.

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?

You could swap out the part where it says "chicago" in your post and replace it with "Washington D.C." (except that there are no gun shops in DC)

Given Obama's history, I highly doubt that he'd merely want something like a 1-gun-purchase-per-month. 5 rounds per ammo 'clip' sounds reasonable, yeah? What about those dreaded cop-killer bullets? It would be reasonable to ban those evil things too. Now that mandatory trigger locks have been deemed a hindrance to self defense, why not mandatory storage of all guns in gun safes at all times? That sounds reasonable too. Think of the children! Gun safes are the only way to keep those guns out the hands of kids!

We've already got Mayor Daley announcing today that DC v. Heller doesn't apply to Chicago because DC is federal and Chicago is part of a state.

An example: Seeing as how I work in DC, I occasionally get tired of all those freaking protestors that pop up so often. They block traffic, stop the metro, vandalize property, etc. But say, if there were a protest in a cornfield in Kansas, I suppose the protestors can't really block traffic. By analogy, I think we should curtail the right to assemble and petition in DC, but not in Kansas. Just think of all the commuters who just want to get to work on time! If they can't get to work on time, they'll be fired, and then they can't afford to feed their children. Think of the children! What works in DC does not necessarily work in a Kansas cornfield.

[ghalleen]

My reading of this says, "We don't have to rule on the constitutionality of licensing schemes at the moment, so we won't."

Add to this the many cases that have indicated that licensing of a right is the same as transforming the right into a privilege (yes, I can cite most of them, if this is required), well, you can see where I think that will ultimately go!

I agree that the fight is not over. It will never be over.

However... The bar has been raised. The right to keep and bear arms is now affirmed as an individual fundamental right. This places it in the same category as freedom of expression. Reasonable limits can be placed on it, but these limits will need to bear scrutiny they didn't face before.

Today is a great day in America!

[HKuser]

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.

I don't know about that. An incorporation case may advance very quickly, maybe less than 5 years. In the meantime, I expect the Fifth, the Seventh and the DC Circuits, in particular, to come up with some very persuasive caselaw.

[STAGE 2]

Add to this the many cases that have indicated that licensing of a right is the same as transforming the right into a privilege (yes, I can cite most of them, if this is required), well, you can see where I think that will ultimately go!

I hope you're right. As a californian my main concerns are 1) roberti-roos and its progeny 2) the CA approved handgun list and 3) our 10 day wait and 1 month laws.

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.

[Van55]

Something that struck me is that in the city there is an ordinance against discharging a firearm inside the city limits. Now there is no exclusion for self-defense against a person or rabid animal. Although I don't know if anyone has ever been charged it is possible that they could be.

Could this ruling affect that or similar laws?

Well, the majority was very clear that individuals have a constitional right to keep loaded and operable handguns in their homes. It said nothing about a right to fire those handguns, though I suppose it is implicit that the right to possess a handgun in your home includes the right to use it to defend yourself, your family and your possessions.

Regrettably, your question is a good one and I didn't find a clear answer in my limited reading of the opinion.

[HKuser]

The only thing that this decision directly does is get rid of our no issue or 'sorta' issue counties for CCW's.

How's that?

[JWT]

Mayor Daleys' comments on the decision are certainly combative. Appears he, and his Chicago political brethern (including Obama?) will may every effort to circumvent the ruling and continue to enforce their very restrictive laws.

Obama is a product of the Chicago Democratic machine. Does this mean he shares Daleys' sentiments?

[HKuser]

Regrettably, your question is a good one and I didn't find a clear answer in my limited reading of the opinion.

Actually, in the decision, there was a discussion of an early Boston ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms around New Year's Day. It was noted that the purpose was to keep people from shooting in the air and would not have prevented self-defense use. The decision though narrowly drawn is very rich in implications in its dicta and footnotes.

[nemoaz]

In my book, he is an idiot. A complete idiot. Or as the other expression goes, "an educated fool." Being a Supreme Court Justice does not make one a genius, nor does it shield one from being a complete idiot.

Stevens soils himself and dribbles slobber on things he's trying to read. His law clerks, long ago overtaken by liberals, write for him and tell him what to think.

If you review his opinions back to the 70s, you will see he wasn't a lunatic fringe liberal back then.

[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?

That is a very "right wing over-reaction" to what I said in my post. At no time did I say the 2A did not apply...nor did Obama. I said nothing about preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm...nor did Obama. I simply made a case for why certain precautions need to be observed to prevent certain crimes...especially in high risk areas.

Are you opposed to preventing criminal possession of firearms and illegal sales? Even if precautions can be taken that would not interfere with legal ownership?

[HarrySchell]

The only thing that this decision directly does is get rid of our no issue or 'sorta' issue counties for CCW's.

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.

the best part of the decision is the clear intent of 2A as being a right to effective self-defense. That argues for less intrusive state policies even though the 14A status is "open".

It is going to be a long slog, but now is not the time to let up, much less if Barry O does make it into the White House. You do recall FDR's packing of the Supreme Court to get his programs launched to "fight" the Depression?

[Danzig]

It's a start..but only a start. There are MANY battles left to fight. I am pleased with the decision but wary of what the future may hold.