• 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)

Beansie_Time said:
Does it bother anyone else that we were one Justice changing his/her mind away from states considering secession and possible civil war?
Click to expand...

It bothers me that we were any less than 9 votes from throwing a constitutional amendment out the window. It bothers me that any of the people appointed to protect us from unconstitutional laws couldn't see that this was just that!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL
 
ChrisFromMA said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just sent this to the ACLU ... just for fun:

In view of today's Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller: Will the ACLU now modify its position as stated under Policy #47 regarding the Second Amendment, and extend its umbrella of civil liberties protection to include representation of those persons denied their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

Obama says he has always recognized the Second Amendment to refer to an individual right, and calls us to "come together" on this issue:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/120253.html

What better way to start than for the ACLU to review and reverse its long standing Policy#47?
 
Beansie_Time said:
Does it bother anyone else that we were one Justice changing his/her mind away from states considering secession and possible civil war?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is why I don't actually feel "good" about this. I have a sick feeling like you get when you narrowly avoid getting sideswiped by a bus going at 80 mph.
 
Beansie_Time said:
Does it bother anyone else that we were one Justice changing his/her mind away from states considering secession and possible civil war?
Click to expand...

A few things...

It does bother me that it was like 5-4, then again some of the stuff the supremes have been doing has not been all that wonderful. (EG, Eminent Domain) etc. So in that regard a narrow win is not that much of a surprise, although one would think in a perfect world the supremes would ALL be strict constitutionals.

The whole notional of secession and civil war is "scary" but frankly it's something I'd be willing to accept if I had to- this nation is long overdue for a reboot. I don't think those in power would let it get that far, though. If we look at this a different way the more time goes by the worse things get WRT a reboot- because more people get wussified and pacified by the system. "Fight the government? Why??? My beer is still inexpensive and I still get to keep 50% of my income, somehow.... " It's too easy for people to be complacent. I think in that regard we've kind of lost our way, as a nation... Remember that the guys who got pissed the first time got all bent out of shape over a tax on some tea and now as a society we don't even seem to get irritated at things that are orders of magnitude more egregious violations of rights by the "state". By the original revolutionaries' standards we're probably a few civil wars/coups/revolutions behind schedule. [laugh]

-Mike
 
In view of today's Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller: Will the ACLU now modify its position as stated under Policy #47 regarding the Second Amendment, and extend its umbrella of civil liberties protection to include representation of those persons denied their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

What better way to start than for the ACLU to review and reverse its long standing Policy#47?[/QUOTE]

I was a 10 year ACLU member trying to fight from the inside. I'll join again tomorrow if they recognize this decision. Words mean things, the Constitution is not a cafeteria line where you can pick and choose what you want.
 
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
Click to expand...
.

I am heartened by the reference to the first amendment. While there are restrictions on our right to free speech, these restrictions usually don't involve prior restraint. In other words, there is no law prohibiting you from speaking in a movie theater (no prior restraint). A classic example: if you needlessly yell "Fire! Fire!" when there is no fire, you have crossed the line and will be dealt with legally. The same standard should be applied to the ownership of firearms.

Most gun control laws involve prior restraint; that is, you cannot own/use a firearm. I believe these types of laws will surely fall.

There were also some intriguing references in the Court's decision regarding the use of firearms for defensive purposes.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified
in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion
that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary
interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at
36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely
upon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefense
had little to do with the right’s codification; it was
the central component of the right itself.
Click to expand...

The court did not rule on general carrying of arms for self-defense. It's decision was narrowly confined to the DC ban on handguns for defense in the home. The language used in the decision seems to indicate that they would look favorably on carrying for self-defense...at least 5 of them probably would.

How does the licensing law in Massachusetts look in light of Heller? Read on:

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
Click to expand...
.

So, because I live in a green town I get one type of license. If I lived literally across the street (in my case), I would get a lesser license or no license at all. Sounds suspiciously arbitrary to me!!! [laugh]

I also got a chuckle out of the majority's comments about the reasoning of the four dissenters. Basically, it called them asshats. [smile]

Is the decision everything I hoped it could be? No, but on the whole I am pleased. I am sure other cases will follow. Even more important now to keep "the changeling" out of the white house. I find McCain a little too liberal for my liking, but he beats the hell out of the alternative.
 
theGringo said:
Just sent this to the ACLU ... just for fun:

In view of today's Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller: Will the ACLU now modify its position as stated under Policy #47 regarding the Second Amendment, and extend its umbrella of civil liberties protection to include representation of those persons denied their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

Obama says he has always recognized the Second Amendment to refer to an individual right, and calls us to "come together" on this issue:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/120253.html

What better way to start than for the ACLU to review and reverse its long standing Policy#47?
Click to expand...

And a big +1 to you, sir! Please let us know their reply! [smile]
 
How do you think this ruling will effect states like NY, that refuse to issue a non-res license to possess a handgun, in a dwelling on your property? [thinking]
 
Last edited:
69hdfl said:
How do you think this ruling will effect states like NY, that refuse to issue a non-res license to possess a handgun, in a dwelling on your property? [thinking]
Click to expand...

I hope for once Breyer is correct!!!!

Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. 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.
Click to expand...
 
I love this Judge

In reading Justice Scalia’s opinion, there is an overwhelming theme that to interpret the Second Amendment as not protecting an individual right would gut the amendment of meaning and defy logic. It is, after all, the Second Amendment, not the two hundredth. This is not an obscure line buried among thousands of pages of text. It is inconceivable that the framers would have given it the priority they did, placing it ahead of so many other critical rights, if they only meant it to apply to militias as the dissenting justices suggest.
 
Heller fallout???

We can all say what we think this means and we can speculate on what will happen in Mass because of Heller, but right now its all unsure. The only thing that is sure is that this is a good thing for gun owners.. Lets just hope come Monday morning, someone in Mass will challenge this. We cant waste any time. Now is the time to act. Its about time that Law Abiding "PEOPLE" take back control of our lawfull rights. The Mass courts need to be flooded with lawsuits and challenges of cities and towns policies on gun issuance. Cities and towns cannot afford to fight multiple lawsuits and challenges. The AG needs to be challenged by everyone, not just one person. That is how our voices will be heard. Its about time that we become the Commonwealth of Mass. again.. It all started in Mass. We have just won a giant battle, but the war is not over. We can all work together and find a solution to getting our
" Individual Right to bear Arms" back. I am a LEO and I can buy guns that non LEO's cant. Good for me, yes, good for non lEO's no. Good for all of us together ....NO!!! We are all equal regardless of our jobs. We should all be able to buy whatever gun we want. I could continue for ever on this but I think you all get my point..
 
Last edited:
Clearly, mayors and CoPs of LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Miami, etc., were all prepped for sound bites - Daley and his "Wild West" prediction was a hoot.

Less thana dozen words from a few pro-RKBA folks gave the media their "balanced" reporting.

But what did we expect? Bloomberg, Daley and their ilk accepting the SCOTUS ruling?
 
Reuters quoting Justice *spit* Stevens so:
In a dissent, parts of which he read from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court left for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible gun regulations.

"I fear that the district's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," Stevens said.
Click to expand...
I turly hope the a**h***s fear become reality as bullshit law after bullshit law goes down in flames countrywide.
 
Other than DC, there will be little short term effect to this decision. Long term is another matter and we'll know more after further litigation. There are some serious thoughts on the topic in this post at SCOTUSblog. The big question seems to be incorporation. Until that is settled the rest won't be.

It's a great start, but as several people said here back at the beginning of this, it's going to be one step at a time.
 
drgrant said:
A few things...

It does bother me that it was like 5-4, then again some of the stuff the supremes have been doing has not been all that wonderful. (EG, Eminent Domain) etc.
-Mike
Click to expand...

Funny thing about the Kelo decision... it was the liberal side of the bench (with Kennedy casting the deciding vote), that said we have no property rights.

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Conner all dissented.

Want to stymie/flabbergast a gun grabbing lib? Ask them to explain that one.
 
Assuming there is a fast change in DC, and a lot of people start getting and keeping guns in their homes, it seems like this will be the ultimate test of the core argument behind pro/anti gun.

It seems to me that the question taken to the extreme is: if EVERYONE were were required to carry a gun at all time, would crime go up, go down, or stay the same. Folks on the anti-gun side always allege (like the Chicago mayor's remarks today) that more lawful gun ownership, or even more gun ownership in general, will increase crime. I think people who are pro-gun are somewhere in the range of thinking that crime will stay roughly the same all the way to improving dramatically.

The thing that I'm more interested in hearing, over and above the legalese surrounding the second amendment, is what actually happens in practice without the handgun ban.
 
After reading some of the opinions I have two thoughts on this issue:

1) Today is a small baby step in the right direction.

or

2) With the coming election, it may drive the antis out in force to take over the Whitehouse, House and Senate. In that case, today was just a little K-Y in preparation for a prison gang rape.
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
192
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
648
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
293
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
186
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom