POLITICS - DC vs. Heller - Update

[cnjarvis]

Per Scotusblog.com, Heller Affirmed. Will post more soon. (or someone will)


The opinion is available for download here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... 7-2901.pdf

It's 157 pages so I obviously haven't had time to review it all... Have fun.

[Ysabel Kid]

I have the TV on mute in the background (in a darn teleconference right now!) but it shows the same - "Supreme Court Overrules Gun Ban".

Sounds like great news. The devil will be in the details!!!

[Chuck 100 yd]

[kimwcook]

Before I give out a great big YEEHAA, I want to see the complete decision.

[woodsoup]

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

[Griff]

Of all times for the TV to go on the fritz!!!!! But the sound is great. Individual right is affirmed... but let's see how narrowly they ruled, waiting for the decision to be posted on their website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... inion.html

[66GTO]

To qoute the headline on The Drudge Report, "The Second Amendment Lives"
http://www.drudgereport.com/

We still need to read the opinion and see what it says, however, the good news is that Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority so it should be straight to the point.

Boys and girls, this just emphasizes the importance of who is our next president. Ginsberg can't even stay awake on the bench. There are three liberal justices on that court that are hanging on until Obama becomes President before they resign. McCain never was and never will be a conservative, but at least we have a chance that he will appoint conservative justice to the Supreme Court. You can guarantee that Obama's appointees will all be ultra liberal. Also pick the most conservative Senator to vote for, they must confirm all appointees.

This was only a 5-4 decision. One more liberal on the court and it would have gone the other way. For all the things George Bush did not do right, he did make good Supreme Court appointments. That will be a legacy that lasts for decades.

This is just the beginning of court challenges to the Second Amendment. Be vigilant. Vote.

[Premo]

Have not read the entire 157 pages but, 1st part of summary said " Held:
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."

In addition from Scalia's written 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. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

[Old Ironsights]

Before I give out a great big YEEHAA, I want to see the complete decision.

It's not that great.

The following leaves us completely open to an outright AWB - or worse:

“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.”

(Remember how many levers, bolts, trapdoors, flinters, etc were “specifically designed/used in a military capacity"? Ooops.)

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“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.”

The above means "confrontations with/against the Government... where EBRs might be useful".

The Screw is still turning. And it will start turning harder & faster for EBRs now.

The following also indicates the Court's willingness to accept and support Gun Registration:

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

Again, Government Permission required to exercise a Right. Not good.

[RSY]

Before I give out a great big YEEHAA, I want to see the complete decision.

It's not that great.

The following leaves us completely open to an outright AWB - or worse:

“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.”

(Remember how many levers, bolts, trapdoors, flinters, etc were “specifically designed/used in a military capacity"? Ooops.)

I think the militia clause ropes in a right to military weapons fairly specifically already, and they were just trying to assure that non-military weapons were covered via the guarantee, as well. At least, that's my reading of it, at this point.

Scott

[Rimfire McNutjob]

Man, that took me almost two hours to read. Scalia is brutal in his detail. I am particularly disturbed by the phrase "in common use at the time". This basically leaves the door open for the legislature to write laws to change what is "in common use" of course ... down to let's say pellet guns. A method of, in effect, banning firearms in total. I would have much rather he joined the right of the common person to posses an arm with arms employed by a single soldier or the like. Clearly, I'm no Scalia and can't articulate the concept perfectly but you guys know what I mean. His opinion will allow the continued chipping away at what we can posses vis-a-vis the recently reintroduced Assault Weapons Ban. (Apparently bayonet lugs are not in vogue ... even though I don't recall the last armed robbery where the perpetrator used a mounted bayonet to enhance the threat already posed by the rifle itself.)

The left is intellectually bankrupt on this issue ... which Scalia makes pretty clear in his rebuttals of Stevens' arguments. For some reason it's not clear to them that handgun violence, in places where handguns are already banned from possession by law abiding citizens, is rampant. As some have said in the past, the far right may indeed take over this country via dictatorship in the future and it will be the far left that allows them to do it based on their utter stupidity on this issue.

And as OI says above, it opens the door for licensing now. Which would, of course, be followed by confiscation once the time is right. Scalia got lost in the verbiage and dropped the ball on the fundamental purpose of the right. So much for the SCOTUS in helping us hold the line.

I really could have used at least a 6-3 on this. Now I feel that it's precarious. Hopefully I will be long dead before it's revisited and a future generation gives up one of the Bill of Rights.

[don Tomás]

[coyote nose]

Incrementalism. We got this way with the lefties doing us in one step at a time. NOW we are getting our rights back....one step at a time. It may not be a perfect decision....but I am mighty glad this step has been taken!!!

[oldmax]

5 to 4 Do you realize how close this was......
I hate McCain, But I have to vote for him,
It's about the judges. Nothing else , at this point, really means much...

[SR James]

If the Dems pick up any Senate seats (all judicial nominees must be confirmed by the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee is a Who's Who of super liberals), McCain will have a hard time getting anybody more conservative than Karl Marx confirmed. Not to mention the fact that he's not likely to appoint someone conservative enough to vote to overturn McCain-Feingold. I'm not sure I'd count on McCain. But unfortunately, he's all we've got.

The 2nd Amendement still hangs by a thread. But today was a good start and it feels good to win one, even if it doesn't end the struggle.

[Old Ironsights]

Man, that took me almost two hours to read. Scalia is brutal in his detail. I am particularly disturbed by the phrase "in common use at the time". This basically leaves the door open for the legislature to write laws to change what is "in common use" of course ... down to let's say pellet guns. A method of, in effect, banning firearms in total. I would have much rather he joined the right of the common person to posses an arm with arms employed by a single soldier or the like. Clearly, I'm no Scalia and can't articulate the concept perfectly but you guys know what I mean. His opinion will allow the continued chipping away at what we can posses vis-a-vis the recently reintroduced Assault Weapons Ban. (Apparently bayonet lugs are not in vogue ... even though I don't recall the last armed robbery where the perpetrator used a mounted bayonet to enhance the threat already posed by the rifle itself.)

The left is intellectually bankrupt on this issue ... which Scalia makes pretty clear in his rebuttals of Stevens' arguments. For some reason it's not clear to them that handgun violence, in places where handguns are already banned from possession by law abiding citizens, is rampant. As some have said in the past, the far right may indeed take over this country via dictatorship in the future and it will be the far left that allows them to do it based on their utter stupidity on this issue.

And as OI says above, it opens the door for licensing now. Which would, of course, be followed by confiscation once the time is right. Scalia got lost in the verbiage and dropped the ball on the fundamental purpose of the right. So much for the SCOTUS in helping us hold the line.

I really could have used at least a 6-3 on this. Now I feel that it's precarious. Hopefully I will be long dead before it's revisited and a future generation gives up one of the Bill of Rights.

Here's where the Majority as much as admits that they WILL be looking at what constitutes a PERMISSIBLE "military/militia weapon". Pg 52:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179.

[45Jack]

Well it looks like the Mayor of Chicago is already planning a strategy.
According to the Chicago Tribune:
"Chicago would be "absolutely open" to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated to apply to Illinois and the city,"

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

5 to 4 Do you realize how close this was......
I hate McCain, But I have to vote for him,
It's about the judges. Nothing else , at this point, really means much...

If the Dems pick up any Senate seats (all judicial nominees must be confirmed by the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee is a Who's Who of super liberals), McCain will have a hard time getting anybody more conservative than Karl Marx confirmed. Not to mention the fact that he's not likely to appoint someone conservative enough to vote to overturn McCain-Feingold. I'm not sure I'd count on McCain. But unfortunately, he's all we've got.

The 2nd Amendement still hangs by a thread. But today was a good start and it feels good to win one, even if it doesn't end the struggle.

Oldmax, you are dead on. SR, you are too. It will be much harder for McCain, but just keep in mind, it really won;t be his choice. It will be the Rep party that decides who he appoints so the appointed will be as conservative as they think they can get approved.
I have said this before, the next party in the white house will appoint at least two Supremes but I have seen folks here say even if the Dems get the WH they will only be replacing two liberals with more liberals. That is just short sided. The Supreme court is just the last stop. there will be many lower court appointment handed out as well and it is always these lower courts that filter everything the Supremes rule on.

I don't trust McCain at all but I will vote for him because he will have to vote the party line.

[Old Ironsights]

Well it looks like the Mayor of Chicago is already planning a strategy.
According to the Chicago Tribune:
"Chicago would be "absolutely open" to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated to apply to Illinois and the city,"

Well, that will just get laughed out of court...

OTOH there IS a real concern that the antis will use this affirmative reading to say that "yep, you've got a right to be licensed and keep a registered pistol in your home... BUT NOT TO CARRY IT ANYWHERE ELSE".

That's already where the Mayor and Police Chief of DC are running with this.

[Old Savage]

Struck down 5 to 4 according to the news - shows there are 4 justices on the Supreme Court that don't belong there. - they can't understand the constitution.

[O.S.O.K.]

Struck down 5 to 4 according to the news - shows there are 4 justices on the Supreme Court that don't belong there. - they can't understand the constitution.

Yep. And we have President Bush to thank for two of the four that do. Kennedy... I don't know - he did good on this one but has been "off" on others.

Let's hope that we get McCain in this November - the next President will need to appoint one or two....

[oldgerboy]

In regards to the election choice (?)... actually, I don't feel we have a choice ... there's only one to even consider.

I'd like to make two points relative to Supreme Court appointments by the next President:

1. McCain's V-P will be critical considering McCains age.

2. Regardless how much I/we might like and have supported another certain candidate, I urge everyone to stick to McCain and do not write-in anyone. Any vote other than for him will in effect be a help for Obama. McCain has a bit of an uphill battle.

[Cliff]

I wonder according to Scalia we have the right to own and possess arms, he also states they can be used for self defense and mentions bearing them. With the word smiths out there it is possible this could be the right to carry side arms concealed or openly. Might be a nation wide right to carry coming down the pike. Would be nice.

[Old Ironsights]

I printed the whole thing and have some highlighters ready. It may take a bit though...

[Rimfire McNutjob]

Here's where the Majority as much as admits that they WILL be looking at what constitutes a PERMISSIBLE "military/militia weapon". Pg 52:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179.

Well, that makes me feel a bit better. But that consideration probably won't come until more liberals are packed onto the court. Still, I'm glad you pointed it out. My head was still spinning after reading the dissent by Stevens. I just can't achieve an understanding as to why this wasn't a 9-0 decision. How does politics get entwined into something as straight forward as the 2A.

[bunklocoempire]

Didn't take a step backwards and that's about it, am glad for the D.C. crowd and others.

Hard for me to get excited about this, I've got a clean record yet still I am considered guilty, and I continue to be at the mercy of government through licensing and registration and waiting periods. Difficult for citizens to form a militia when they gotta jump through the hoops of the governments they're suppose to be keeping in check.

The militia opinion mentioned is bitter sweet, these days, what is considered militia? National Guard? Blackwater?

And perhaps most importantly, the question of why a militia is necessary, we know the answers.

"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."

Show me a candidate who admits government is to be kept in check by an armed population and he'll likely get my vote, any other is asking for trouble.

"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 pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Leaves it wide open, does he mention keeping government in check? I'll have to read through the whole thing. Sorry all, I don't exactly feel like buying the guy a beer.

Bunkloco

[FWiedner]

The left never expected to win on the collective rights argument.

What this decision does is support the status quo, and leaves us to wrestling to determine just exactly what the boundaries of "reasonable regulation" might be.

Can a local Barney shoot you dead on the street if he thinks you might be armed?

Sounds "reasonable" to me.