Heller Affirmed! (Discuss Supreme Court Decision here)

[Vintovka]

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

And of course, to get DC to allow concealed carry will require another lawsuit (but hopefully it won't have to be appealed all the way to SCOTUS)

And the "near schools" comment clearly translates to "We won't stop using every underhanded trick we can think of in order to disarm you".

(note to self: don't consider buying property near a school)

 

[matt1956]

I can do that with an AR-15.

+1, actually very easy to do once the perp already has 1/2 a dozen holes in him

 

[gene]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

The most dangerous person in America today.

This guy should never have passed the bar with an opinion like that!

 

[Blitz1]

Is there anywhere on the Brady site were we could go and post our "condolences"?

I tried to check their site but I just couldn't take the liberal crap they were spewing.

 

[MetalgodZ]

I HIGHLY look forward to seeing how the ACLU will react.

 

[gene]

There is no reason to believe from here on out the gun grabbers will be blaming this "awful court decision" for every single crime with a gun going forward.

Thats the spin to expect!

 

[Nickle]

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.

DING! DING! DING!

Folks, we have a winner, here.

I was wondering when one of you was going to get it.

Licenses are acceptable, as long as they are "SHALL ISSUE", it just didn't use the SAME laguage as I did. Read the decision, you'll find it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

That doesn't apply to CCW, but, there's enough wiggle room to argue it.

All depends on the definition of "bear". And, per Scalia's language, I think "bear" can be debated to mean "carry". Of course, they didn't SAY open or concealed.

 

[MassMark]

OMG - on a side note: I just returned to my office where the most liberal person I have ever met works. He is bristling at this decision....It's wonderful...

 

[Vintovka]

I HIGHLY look forward to seeing how the ACLU will react.

Yes, I'm patiently waiting for them to reverse their Policy#47 which interprets the 2nd amendment as a collective state right, rather than an individual one, based on Miller. I'm sure they'll back us now, because they're not a politically biased group, right?

...Still waiting. But I'm sure they'll change it soon.

...waiting...




Edit: I went back and re-read the ACLU page above. What a crock:

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Blitz1]

OMG - on a side note: I just returned to my office where the most liberal person I have ever met works. He is bristling at this decision....It's wonderful...

It's the little things in life!!

 

[Vintovka]

OMG - on a side note: I just returned to my office where the most liberal person I have ever met works. He is bristling at this decision....It's wonderful...

My boss printed out all 157 pages (double-sided, at least), bound it, and waved it in people's faces up and down executive row. It now has a place of honor on my desk - where it shall remain

 

[Transporter]

OMG - on a side note: I just returned to my office where the most liberal person I have ever met works. He is bristling at this decision....It's wonderful...

Starting right at 10am, I kept checking my Blackberry. When I finally found the news I was beyond ecstatic. I was standing next to my engineer at the time, who is a card-carrying tree huggin hippy liberal. You'd have thought someone died. He's as bummed as a lib can be. So for me, today's double good!

 

[M1911]

Licenses are acceptable, as long as they are "SHALL ISSUE", it just didn't use the SAME laguage as I did. Read the decision, you'll find it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

I don't see anything in the decision that supports that. It says that a flat out ban is unconstitutional. It doesn't say that discretionary licenses that are issued in accordance with some "reasonable policy" is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the decision affirms that some "reasonable restrictions" are acceptable:

That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment.

Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia.

I see no reason to think that this decision makes discretionary licensing unconstitutional. Furthermore, this decision does not address the issue of incorporation. We simply do not know if it applies to the states:

But as emphatic as Justice Scalia’s opinion is, however, it leaves open the question of whether the Second Amendment is selectively incorporated so as to apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a particularly important question for my clients - 47 state rifle associations - on whose behalf I filed an amicus brief. But while the opinion itself is clear in confirming an individual right, it conspicuously leaves the question of selective incorporation dangling. To be sure, this is attributable to the fact that the question was not before the Court.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller...nd-the-need-for-further-litigation/#more-7567

Suggesting that this ruling strikes down discretionary licensing is simply wishful thinking.

 

[jcr]

DC has been anti-gun for so long, including the unconstitutional ban [it feels good to type that], and with all the talk of "concealed weapons"...

I wonder if DC has a ban on Open Carry? Wouldn't that be hoot if such a loophole was exposed today?

 

[The Village Idiot]

Calsdad - I don't totally disagree with you regarding ground troops. I still feel that technology other than atomic bombs can be used. With regards to rules of engagement, look at Vietnam. We couldn't go into the North (we did for a wile), we couldn't bomb the North, we couldn't chase their aircraft into the North. Today, our snipers have to get freaken permission to fire on someone. I could go on forever. War is heck as we all know. If we are at war then do whatever we can to save AMERICAN lives and to hell with the enemy.

 

[Brunosr]

So I am not sure I understand.

The court ruled this unconstitutional and yet the mayor of DC said that they are working on new wording which will take 21 days. But in the mean time, the original law is still in effect.

How does that work??

 

[MassMark]

It's the little things in life!!

I mean, he's off the hook! Just began ranting about how the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias and that it's a murderous piece of our Constitution...He's really disconnected. My supervisor had to come in to calm him down....

 

[M1911]

Folks, incorporation is still a really big deal. We don't know if the 2nd amendment applies to the states, or only to DC and the Federal government:

First among the open questions, and perhaps one of the most important of them, is whether this ruling applies beyond the federal government and the District of Columbia government (assuming that it is settled that those two entities at least are now covered).

It is absolutely clear that the Bill of Rights’ specific guarantees of individual rights do not apply to any level below the federal government – that is, to state, county and city governments — unless the Court has ruled explicitly that they are to apply at those levels by a process that is called “incorporation.” The Court has read into the Fourteenth Amendment — an amendment written to restrict state and local government powers — many of the rights in the first ten amendments. That process began in the late 19th Century, and continued up through the first three quarters of the 20th Century.

But the process has not meant a total absorption of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment right to be charged by a grand jury has not been applied to the states; neither has the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case. And neither has the Second Amendment.

But conservative jurists, like those who made the majority in the Heller case, usually are not fond of lifting parts of the Bill of Rights out for inclusion under the Fourteenth Amendment. Given the glowing rhetoric applied to the virtues of an individual right to have a gun, perhaps that reluctance might be overcome.

If, as expected, the NRA or some other litigant goes after a state or local gun law, relying on the Second Amendment, the Court may well have to answer explicitly whether it applies at all to such laws. Some already are reading the Heller decision to signal a willingness say “yes” to that question; the evidence of that is of an uncertain nature, though.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-so-whats-next-on-guns/

 

[PEMS2324]

Auto and Semi-Auto Hand guns are still illegal in DC.

Mayor Adrian Fenty says Washington D.C. is re-working its handgun policy.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

 

[THUNDERCHIEF]

Breathing a BIG sigh of relief over here.



/JOHN

 

[Pilgrim]

I just read a few pages of the dissent.

It's amazing how someone supposedly so smart can have such an ignorant view of law and history.

It's obvious he wasn't writing based on an impartial judgment, but writing and quoting arguments based on his liberal beliefs.

It pizzes me off that the law of the land can be determined not by fair interpretation but by fuzzy feelings and personal agenda.

 

[Blitz1]

I mean, he's off the hook! Just began ranting about how the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias and that it's a murderous piece of our Constitution...He's really disconnected. My supervisor had to come in to calm him down....

HA!! I love it!!!

Do you want an RKBA sticker for your office?

 

[Dressed to Kill]

This screams for a motivational poster with his ugly mug and that drivel leaking out of his pie hole.

B

I agree

 

[Nickle]

I don't see anything in the decision that supports that. It says that a flat out ban is unconstitutional. It doesn't say that discretionary licenses that are issued in accordance with some "reasonable policy" is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the decision affirms that some "reasonable restrictions" are acceptable:

Suggesting that this ruling strikes down discretionary licensing is simply wishful thinking.

Ah, but there's your answer, REASONABLE restriction. So, did they allude to what "reasonable" is and isn't?

I think they consider denial of a license for specific reason is reasonable, but denial just because "the chief doesn't like permits" or "they don't like you" or other things such as your race, gender or ethnicity is going to be unreasonable.

Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the
handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a
handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not
otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if
he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners
58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.”

And here's where they said it in PLAIN language:

Opinion of the Court​

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.

So what do you suppose the 2nd Ammendment disqualifiers are?

That you can own a rifle, but not a handgun? Nope, unless you're 18 to 20.

That your rights are dependent on your color, creed, race, religion, ethnicity or gender? Nope, not that either.

Because the Chief LEO for your town/city/county/state doesn't personally like you? Nope, not that either.

 

[Fixxah]

Congrats folks, at least for now. The fact that one vote would have turned it all to shit really should have us all concerned for days and years to come. This will only become major campaign issue. Hopefully EVERY gun owner actually gets out and votes, or I'm afraid that the antis will do an end around while we celebrate and feel all goody goody. I look forward to reading what Scriv. (wait, did I type that?) and other lawyers etc. have to say. God bless us all. -John Landry

 

[calsdad]

In this case, not necessarily the NYTimes, but their posted
"comments" section for the Heller report floored me.

Annoying that registration is probably required, but a sampling...

-- The Court sided with irresponsible gun owners. Expect to see more workplace and school shootings.

-- Guns have no place in a civil society except in the hands of a professional military. One day, too, that will become obsolete. What a sad decision.

-- As far as I am concerned this is the beginning of the end for our Constitution, no, maybe that was when the Supremes ruled that George W. Bush was president!!

-- How do we determine who is "honest" before giving them a handgun?

-- Well done, Supreme Court. The definition of a "well regulated militia" now includes street gangs

-- If we want a strict originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" then, yes, every American should be permitted to carry a breech-loading musket.
[n.b. poster doesn't know a muzzle from a breech]

---

Just, wow.

While the rest of the response is completely moronic, it is that second line that really shows up the mentality of these dimwits. They think that if only we can get rid of firearms somehow nirvana will be reached and everybody will sing kumbaya and live happily ever after.

These people are idiots pure and simple. Last time I checked there hasn't been some great revolution in breeding or genetics that has miraculously turned human beings into saints on earth. Try as they might the Nazis, the Commies and all the other assorted "world would be better if we were in charge" types just couldn't get around the simple reality of human nature no matter how hard they tried and how many people they killed who didn't fit into their plans.

One day a military will also become unneccesary? In what freakin pipe dream? When in history has this ever happened? Like I said above - what revolution in human behavior has occurred to make us all live happily ever after? People like this are the true threat. It is just this attitude that is behind some of the worst political and historical events in the last century or so. It was just this kind of mentality that turned the French Revolution into a orgy of murder. These are the exact kind of people who will turn this world into a living hell if given half a chance.

 

[Admin]

While the rest of the response is completely moronic, it is that second line that really shows up the mentality of these dimwits. They think that if only we can get rid of firearms somehow nirvana will be reached and everybody will sing kumbaya and live happily ever after.

These people are idiots pure and simple. Last time I checked there hasn't been some great revolution in breeding or genetics that has miraculously turned human beings into saints on earth. Try as they might the Nazis, the Commies and all the other assorted "world would be better if we were in charge" types just couldn't get around the simple reality of human nature no matter how hard they tried and how many people they killed who didn't fit into their plans.

One day a military will also become unneccesary? In what freakin pipe dream? When in history has this ever happened? Like I said above - what revolution in human behavior has occurred to make us all live happily ever after? People like this are the true threat. It is just this attitude that is behind some of the worst political and historical events in the last century or so. It was just this kind of mentality that turned the French Revolution into a orgy of murder. These are the exact kind of people who will turn this world into a living hell if given half a chance.

+1 Bingo!

 

[strangenh]

They think that if only we can get rid of firearms somehow nirvana will be reached and everybody will sing kumbaya and live happily ever after.

Oh, how we long for the good old days before firearms! The Vandals! The Viking raids! The Crusades! The Tartar raids! The Mongol invasions!

Ah, yes, THOSE WERE THE DAYS!

 

[Beansie_Time]

Does it bother anyone else that we were one Justice changing his/her mind away from states considering secession and possible civil war?

 

[Admin]

Does it bother anyone else that we were one Justice changing his/her mind away from states considering secession and possible civil war?

I think that bothers everyone here. It's a scary reality.