Heller Affirmed! (Discuss Supreme Court Decision here)

[drgrant]

The Dutch are nice people, they don't deserve that.

That's classic. He should have suggested France instead, or better yet, Nigeria.

-Mike

 

[TomH]

Ok now someone needs to keep their guns unlocked in MA and get caught and bring lawsuit!

Definitely a win for the real "common sense" and for the Constitution. Gun owners still have a long way to go and a long fight.

 

[strangenh]

Well, at least the opinion essentially rules out "rational basis" (i.e. anything goes) scrutiny.

Yeah, I guess in essence it does. Good point.

 

[vellnueve]

That's classic. He should have suggested France instead, or better yet, Nigeria.

-Mike

Yeah, maybe he can go after those 409 scammers or whatever and make something useful of his existence.

 

[drboom]

So .. the opinion of the court is that licensing is OK if it is not arbitrary or capricious. OK then. In the town I live in, we are "red", license to carry is arbitrarily and capriciously granted. I wonder if there would be a case that this ruling would make that unconstitutional. The Heller case never touches the right to carry outside of the home though, so it's kind of disappointing. But still a "Heller" of a lot better than if the court had swung the other way.

No, the court ruled that they are not ruling on licensing because Heller agreed that issuance of a license would be sufficient to remedy his case. Basically, they said because we haven't yet heard the arguments on licensing, we aren't giving any opinions on it. The decision seems to me is expecting a number of future appeals on:
licensing
incorporation against the states
limitations on sale
limitations on posession and manufacture
if any trigger lock provisions related to self-defense are allowed
and wants the lower courts to fight it out on these issues and then it will rule.

 

[Admin]

I hope everyone understands the importance of voting for McCain.... Don't vote for Obama... just to send a message!

+1

 

[Coyote33]

...I also find it interesting that I got a BREAKING NEWS ALERT email on Entwistle getting life from the Boston Globe but nothing on Heller.

Doesn't even get a mention on the T&G yet.

So .. the opinion of the court is that licensing is OK if it is not arbitrary or capricious. OK then. In the town I live in, we are "red", license to carry is arbitrarily and capriciously granted. I wonder if there would be a case that this ruling would make that unconstitutional. The Heller case never touches the right to carry outside of the home though, so it's kind of disappointing. But still a "Heller" of a lot better than if the court had swung the other way.

Yeah. I was wondering the same thing. Your last sentence for sure. This is a good thing, people, not something to complain about.

Ok now someone needs to keep their guns unlocked in MA and get caught and bring lawsuit!

Definitely a win for the real "common sense" and for the Constitution. Gun owners still have a long way to go and a long fight.

How does all this square with the following?

Massachusetts State Constitution "Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. "

Is there room now for mass (class action?) suits in states like MA? All very interesting, and I think at this point just academic exercises so far.


Finally, in the keep it local theme, should everybody request their city councils and select boards to officially accept the new ruling and pledge to uphold the Constitution?

 

[Patriot]

From the globe:

"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"

- John McCain


Uhhh John......WTF is McCain Feingold all about then?

East answer... speaking out of both sides of his mouth and it's an election year.

 

[Transporter]

So .. the opinion of the court is that licensing is OK if it is not arbitrary or capricious. OK then. In the town I live in, we are "red", license to carry is arbitrarily and capriciously granted. I wonder if there would be a case that this ruling would make that unconstitutional. The Heller case never touches the right to carry outside of the home though, so it's kind of disappointing. But still a "Heller" of a lot better than if the court had swung the other way.

From the Syllabus:

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.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I just came out of a meeting and heard the news. I'm very encourage with this, but the negative side of me is waiting to see what happens over the next few months. My hope is to see if this will start a movement that will eventually make things better for us MA residents. It's definitely a great first step, but I think we need to keep focused and not let our guard down. There are still a number of ways the antis will try to use this and find loopholes to get at what we've gained.

Forever vigilante, even in celebration!

 

[TomH]

If you asked the MA courts to interpret the MA Constitution on that point, I think you'd be pretty dissapointed. They would just say the "common" defense wasn't an individual right, but collective. But with the new ruling you can challenge MA law based on the US Constitution which rules over all states.

 

[Patriot]

News Release

Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke
On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling
For Immediate Release:
06-26-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319 Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”

Sounds like their next fund-raising blurb to be sure!!! Nothing excites the BB and the NRA
like potential Armageddons to fuel the beg cycles.

 

[tele_mark]

One thing's for certain. Whatever else, expect to see an increase in "back door legislation" such as microstamping and anything that causes ammunition or guns to be so expensive to own that few will. If they can't have their way through legitimate legislation, they'll do that.

 

[Garys]

That's classic. He should have suggested France instead, or better yet, Nigeria.

-Mike

I can see it now,

"I am a former Supreme Coart Jistice who wants to trust you, a total stranger, to move millions of dollars of my inharitance to a bank in the United States..."

 

[TomH]

Feels good to be an "ideological extremist"!

 

[JRyan]

I just came out of a meeting and heard the news. I'm very encourage with this, but the negative side of me is waiting to see what happens over the next few months. My hope is to see if this will start a movement that will eventually make things better for us MA residents. It's definitely a great first step, but I think we need to keep focused and not let our guard down. There are still a number of ways the antis will try to use this and find loopholes to get at what we've gained.

Forever vigilante, even in celebration!

Exactly. As evidenced by the statement from the Brady bunch, they are going to be more underhanded now, not less.

"You have nothing to worry about, you paranoid extremist, you can keep you precious gun... all we want is a little common sense" - "Mr. Anti douche-bag Hoplophobe."

Overall I'm still happy, though I wish we could have taken more of our rights back.

 

[Carguy]

It clearly stated that TRIGGER LOCKS are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I tried to read the decision on the Supreme Court's website and gave up after about 17 of the 157 pages of the decision! But I did not read that trigger locks were unconstitutional. I understood it as the law in DC that a registered firearm in the home had to be unloaded, disassembled or rendered harmless by the use of a trigger lock was now unconstitutional. So the need to have one applied unless using the firarm for it's intended purposes (by means of the license issued) is now not necessary.

I do not see the interpretation helping us in Mass anytime soon as Mass restricts the need for trigger locks to un attended (stored) firearms. At least mass allows for the carry of a loaded firearm in the home...unlike the DC law allowed.

Believe me I'd love to be able to legally store a loaded handgun in my nightable drawer when I go to sleep at night. But I don't see this decision helping that cause.

 

[MassMark]

Don't you people have jobs?

 

[vellnueve]

From the Syllabus:

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.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

I read that as a potential aid for shall-issue licensing.

 

[Admin]

I tried to read the decision on the Supreme Court's website and gave up after about 17 of the 157 pages of the decision! But I did not read that trigger locks were unconstitutional. I understood it as the law in DC that a registered firearm in the home had to be unloaded, disassembled or rendered harmless by the use of a trigger lock was now unconstitutional. So the need to have one applied unless using the firarm for it's intended purposes (by means of the license issued) is now not necessary.

I do not see the interpretation helping us in Mass anytime soon as Mass restricts the need for trigger locks to un attended (stored) firearms. At least mass allows for the carry of a loaded firearm in the home...unlike the DC law allowed.

Believe me I'd love to be able to legally store a loaded handgun in my nightable drawer when I go to sleep at night. But I don't see this decision helping that cause.

Once again. Bottom of pg3 top of pg4

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster.

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. 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.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

 

[EZEKIEL 25:17]

Don't you people have jobs?

Yes, but this was more important.

 

[matt1956]

the point i keep trying to make about this and no one seems to get is simple...

the SCOTUS has said that the DC gun ban is Un-Constitutional....

Well the US Constitution applies to EVERYONE in EVERY state IN THE US of A.

Now... that simply means that gives us the ability to fight and WIN against nearly ALL the gun laws in MA.

MA can not make a law that allows slavery, they can not make a law that takes away the freedom of speech or religion.

Well... actually, they can... but it is STILL UN CONSTITUTIONAL and WILL LOSE against the SCOTUS.

That doesn't mean we can just all violate the laws in MA.. it jsut means that when the cases that should be brought to the SCOTUS finally get there... it should be an easy slam dunk as they already ruled on it.

 

[drumenigma]

One thing's for certain. Whatever else, expect to see an increase in "back door legislation" such as microstamping and anything that causes ammunition or guns to be so expensive to own that few will. If they can't have their way through legitimate legislation, they'll do that.

That's what I am thinking too. Not long after the decision was handed down they had the head of the Brady Bunch on CNN. Their tactics sounded like they are going to start attacking the manufacturers more than owners. And they kept stressing that it still allows them to pass "reasonable restrictions". The funny thing is that they are the only ones that find these restrictions reasonable. Time to donate to GOAL and the NRA.

 

[M1911]

the point i keep trying to make about this and no one seems to get is simple...

the SCOTUS has said that the DC gun ban is Un-Constitutional....

Well the US Constitution applies to EVERYONE in EVERY state IN THE US of A.

Now... that simply means that gives us the ability to fight and WIN against nearly ALL the gun laws in MA.

The SCOTUS ruling is nowhere near that sweeping.

 

[lagrangian]

the SCOTUS has said that the DC gun ban is Un-Constitutional....

Correct.

Well the US Constitution applies to EVERYONE in EVERY state IN THE US of A.

Not correct.

In a number of post-Reconstruction cases the Supreme Court said the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Starting in the 1920s and continuing through the 20th century, the Supreme Court gradually undid those rulings and bit by bit ruled that various portions of the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" against the states. The Supreme Court has never said the Second Amendment was incorporated against the states and did not do so in Heller (for one thing, it wasn't asked to do so by Dick Heller), though a number of legal commentators said the decision hints that that SCOTUS would incorporate the Second Amendment against the states in future litigation on that question.

MA can not make a law that allows slavery, they can not make a law that takes away the freedom of speech or religion.

Well... actually, they can... but it is STILL UN CONSTITUTIONAL and WILL LOSE against the SCOTUS.

That's true, but that's because SCOTUS has incorporated the First Amendment against the states and because the 13th Amendment by its own terms applies against the states (no incorporation needed). In fact, before the 1920s, the First Amendment didn't apply to the states.

That doesn't mean we can just all violate the laws in MA.. it jsut means that when the cases that should be brought to the SCOTUS finally get there... it should be an easy slam dunk as they already ruled on it.

Not necessarily. You need to get five justices to rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. And don't count on Thomas. He's been a pretty fervent anti-incorporationist.

 

[peterpressure]

Does it bother anyone that but for one more liberal judge, the constitution could have been re-written today by 5 liberal judges?



I am still celebrating!! but...

 

[mark056]

Actually he's from Wakefield MA (from: yes he now resides in NH). How do I know he was from Wakefield? He lived a few houses down from my dad, who on several occasions kicked Souter's ass.

I also recall that Souter was appointed by a REPUBLICAN president: George H.W. Bush back in 1990.

I realize that you were paraphrasing and quoting your father, but the three letter f word might be found offensive by some forum members. I know many people in the Gay and Lesbian community who are stwalwart supporters of the SCOTUS affirmed 2A.

Be happy for the people living in the District of Columbia, but let's just see how this plays out here in the People's Republic....it probably won't be as far reaching as many are hoping that it will be.

Mark L.

 

[vcsniper556]

ok, sorry to change subject slightly, but i just saw on cnn about the ruling by the supreme court. They then showed Obama's view on guns, and it said he wanted to ban assault weapons. Does this include ar15? Reason I ask is because if he bans them, I want to get one this year. And if he does ban them, what happens to the ones people own? Do they get to keep them.

 

[sksguns]

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In a perfect world you would have two free hands to dial the police after you shot the BG and properly secured your firearm....But I'll buy his example.

 

[ztp]

That's what I am thinking too. Not long after the decision was handed down they had the head of the Brady Bunch on CNN. Their tactics sounded like they are going to start attacking the manufacturers more than owners. And they kept stressing that it still allows them to pass "reasonable restrictions". The funny thing is that they are the only ones that find these restrictions reasonable. Time to donate to GOAL and the NRA.

The manufacturers are the ones to really watch out for here. They will do anything for that competitive edge, including trying to make "safe" firearms that only they can sell. Brady can't get this kind of legislation passed right now, but big corporate lobbyist can.