• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Heller Affirmed! (Discuss Supreme Court Decision here)

Chris

Chris

NES Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
13,382
Likes
8,209
Location
Just east of Zone 9, but in Worcester County.
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.


Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
 
HELL(er) YES!!

I need to read it and see how out it alll plays out lest I celebrate to much in ignorance, but right now, unless I am missing something this looks very good.
 
The fact that 4 of 9 supreme court justices dissented, and believe the 2nd amendment does not provide an individual right, is truly frightening. Can you imagine what will happen to this country if Barack Obama and his cronies get to pick a few justices?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Guns.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:16 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
 
That the NY Times doesn't seem happy about it is good news. I thought that the Administration was asking for a limited decision, so it's stupid of the Times to say that it's broader than "even" Bush wanted. It's way broader than Brady or Obama.
 
I can't understand how there are 4 dissenting … These are supposedly the highest educated legal authorities in the country, and these 4 idiots can't read, understand, and comprehend the words "Right of the people …" and "Shall not be infringed".
 
"Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional."


I like.[grin]
 
Good Lord!

Justice Stevens dissenting opinion starts right off with the rookie error "Upholding a convic
tion under that Act, this Court [in Miller] held that..."

Does he read anything? What about all his clerks? No fact checking?

How can his analysis be trusted if he doesn't even understand the simple facts?
 
Last edited:
[Rant] Sorry but I feel the need to continue my tirade against souter but did the SOB even bother to READ The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire?

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

WTF does he NOT UNDERSTAND about the wording? Shit, give me 1/4 of what he makes and I can do a better job than this a**h*** can! [/Rant]
 
BigWarden said:
I can't understand how there are 4 dissenting … These are supposedly the highest educated legal authorities in the country, and these 4 idiots can't read, understand, and comprehend the words "Right of the people …" and "Shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...

Apparently, the Gang of Four think that "people" in the 2nd means something different than "people" in the 1st, 4th, and 9th.
 
Hate to be all gloom and doom, but the last part of the decision does nothing to affect licensing or concealed carry. Heller never challenged the registration and/or licensing of firearms.

Well, it is a small step in the right direction!
 
Could please somebody clarify this:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
"The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violatrion of denying any access to a handgun."
 
Chris said:
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.


Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
Click to expand...

Cliff notes:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

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.
Pp. 2-53.
(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. Pp. 2-22.

- --henry schaffer

Yes, we win, they lose. [smile]
 
I am worried about the wording od this decision.

While it allows for self defense, it makes cotradictory
statements.

It allows for "licensing", which as we know in Mass can be very "select.

It seems to say "guns in common use", but saya... "not specifically military weapons. Does that mean AR15 type rifles are not for "Common use"?

I am appalled that 4 justices disented. One liberal appointment to the court can reverse this as soon as the next election.

While some good news today, the "silver lining" is obscured by "dark, dark, clouds
 

Similar threads

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
638
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
376
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom