Supreme Court Ruling Due Thursday 10am

[October1971]

The last case of the year, and to most of the BIGGEST one ever to reach the high court, the ruling is due at 10 a.m. 6-26-08.

 

To all those taking odds and wagering big bets, I make my predictions, as I have all along:

 

1. The court will rule that it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, but...

2. The court will say that is still okay for states and other jurisdictions (Federal included) to put ...reasonable controls..... on firearms.

3. The court will say that DC residents can again legally own handguns, and keep FUNCTIONING long guns in their homes.

 

I don't see this ruling, no matter how pro-gun, as opening up the repealing of hardly any gun laws already on the books, at least not for a long long time and many more additional test cases that may take a decade or more to ever reach the high court.

 

My .02 ( And NO, I dont feel comfortable enough in my prediction to put ANY money on it...!)

[philasteen]

The Supreme Court will in this kind of case always make the narrowest decision possible. It will certainly decide it is an individual right, but it will not articulate a standard of review or bright line test. It will then kick it to the various state courts and Federal circuits to come up with varying and conflicting interpretations until in about 4 years another case makes its way to the high court.

[PhilOhio]

Bill,

 

I largely agree with you. And I'm uncomfortable about how they may waffle on this one. But we are still going to see good news. The D.C. ban is DOA.

 

Justice Roberts' line of questions during oral arguments strongly suggested he will try to interpret this one narrowly. Of course he is just one guy, but influential. And I think his rationale may be popular there.

 

They are going to try to retain the federal authority to control the right, but may be cagey about wording it. I am not so sure they will want to use that word "reasonable". It's just too broad. On the other hand, they could work it in for the very purpose of being vague and arbitrary. It's a matter of what the individual justices want to accomplish.

 

On one point I have to differ with you a bit, and be more positive...regarding the nationwide effect of all this. They must rule that the Second Amendment addresses an individual right, and means what it says. This issue cannot possibly be isolated from the D.C. Heller case in such a way that it does not affect the basic interpretation of the Second Amendment as it applies across the land.

 

This will have great impact, because the core of a great body of gun control legislation across the U.S. flatly rejects this interpretation. If that status quo falls tomorrow, so does the foundation of all this law. It would, and will, still take a long time to chisel it apart, one jurisdiction at a time, but a powerful new tool will be solidly in place.

 

On the other hand, existing gun laws which are not in direct conflict with a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment may not be affected at all, or they may be somehow influenced by other parts of the court's ruling, depending upon the wording.

 

I think the Second Amendment will unequivocally be found to be an individual right, just as it says. And I think laws in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, other states, and many cities will be prime targets for overturn. None of this will come easily, all of it will cost money, and the antis will fight bitterly. There's no way to know how it will come out. But for sure, big changes are coming after tomorrow.

 

I will say this. In the last 20 years, there has been a nationwide sea change in our favor, and I think that will continue; especially in these days of terrorist threats and uncertainty of all sorts. I think the antis are going to have very tough sledding, trying to hold onto all the anti-firearms laws they have gotten onto the books in the last 50 years. I want to see what happens in places like Osama Obama's Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia. I'm fairly sure that things are not going to stay the same.

 

Personal protection, across the land, is becoming more real and serious to everybody. People have had enough meaningless propaganda from left wing political hacks. The sweep of new CCW laws proves that, slam dunk. Tomorrow's decision is going to be an important new brick in the wall. I'm betting, and hoping, that I don't have to eat crow by tomorrow evening. But with a court, any court, you never know. Good guys do lose; all the time. Justice is not so blind anymore. She's become very political. And sneaky. Not somebody you'd want to marry.

 

I want to see who opens the first gun store in D.C. I'm still betting on the Snyder brothers' Atlantic Guns.

[October1971]

Excellent points, PhilOhio.

 

I have been wrestling in my mind with the trend we are seeing in CCW and personal protection, vs Homeland Security.

 

In other words, while we may be gaining ground with every new CCW holder who comes on board, I don't for a minute question that the antis ( especially Dems) will use every trick in the book to gradually make it almost impossible for dealers, collectors etc to purchase and own guns without huge amounts of red tape, all under the guise of Homeland Security.

 

Even though a positive ruling for us tomorrow will begin a concentrated review by pro-gun people of every law on the books in every state, I bet you that our individual rights ( not just for guns ) will be chiseled away at whenever they can pass something.

 

You are probably exactly right on about the personal protection and CCW issues being stonger now. But I expect things like them trying to close the so called gunshow "loophole" and requiring background checks on people buying guns from non-dealers.

 

What WILL be most interesting is whether the anti-gunners will be as bold about trying to pass things like "permanent assault weapon bans" "high capacity mag bans" etc. My fear is that using the cloak of "homeland security" they might still try to argue that "even though the 2nd amend is an INDIVIDUAL right, they can still try to imply that assault weapons need to be controlled. (Even though you and I know that true Assault Weapons are select fire, not semi-auto only.)

 

I've often wondered if the antis would ever try to force the assault weapons into a Class 3 category like they did Streetsweepers as DDs.

 

The wonderful thing about a positive 2nd amend ruling is that you can finally, hopefully, get away from the Bull S.... talk about "sporting weapons."

The founding fathers had "working weapons" both for military use and personal defense, and they sometimes might have had sporting EVENTS with them. But the bottom line is our side should try to stear them away from ANY laws that ONLY allow sporting firearms.

 

How about NO restrictions on imported military firearms ( other than what they already do with NFA weapons.) ?

 

I think as we chip away at their attempts to allow only sporting type guns, we will be more successful at opening up the restrictions on things like semi-auto assault type guns and maybe some day, NFA....

 

But I also believe you are right on when it comes to some of the big city boys like Philly, Chicago, NY, etc. I hope to hell the anti-gun crowd lays awake all night stressed out about tomorrow...

[bug]

HELLER AFFIRMED!!

 

 

[PhilOhio]

Well, D.C. eats dirt. Their gun ban is overturned. The bad news is that it was a close 5 to 4 decision. That means the Second Amendment is still on shakey ground. And it means that one or two left wing democratic political hack justice appointments during the next 4 to 8 years could turn everything around again.

 

We'll still have to see the details in the wording of this decision.

 

But now the changes begin. Sweat, Chicago and New York Marxists.

 

And the left wing screeching and moaning begins. They will say this is one more example of the "damage" caused by letting a guy like Bush get any court appointments past their blocking program. Yep.

[PhilOhio]

For your reading enjoyment, settle into the recliner with a bag of chips, a cool one, and prepare to smile.

 

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

I'm just getting ready to read it.

[October1971]

Did you see the DC Mayor at the press conference saying the DC police would have 21 days to come up with a procedure for registering handguns.

 

But...he stated that semi-auto and AUTO handguns would still not be allowed.......

 

And the owners of all the allowed firearms must REGISTER them with the DC police.

 

Going to get interesting as the pro-gun people look at things like REGISTRATION of firearms.

 

Also, Wayne L. of NRA is getting ready to file suits in Illinois, and other big cities.

 

LET THE GAMES BEGIN..............................

[PhilOhio]

Read the actual decision guys.

 

It's a .pdf on the Supreme Court website (above url). You can download it and read a little piece at a time. It's far too much to digest at one sitting. But it is worth reading all the way through, I think. Let me give a couple quick reasons, to motivate you. I had to stop on Page 17, when I began to have a happy attack. I've got to get out in the air and sunlight and ride a motorcycle for awhile, to decompress.

 

I promise, you may not read anything else like this in your lifetime. One of us could have written it (if I were bright enough and had the legal education of Tony Scalia, my hero who wrote it).

 

All the anti-Second Amendment arguments of the entire anti-gun movement, built up over the last 100 years, are systematically and articularly destroyed, one by one, in a scholarly way, in terms of irrefutable logic. What more could you want? But you get much more. This goes wa-a-a-a-ay beyond Heller's issues with D.C.

 

The majority (Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Kennedy, my hero Thomas, and Alito) goes on to systematically disect and destroy all the sophistic dissenting arguments of lefty Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, who wrote it. A lot of strong emotional language is used...reasoning "worthy of the mad hatter", goofy definitions described in terms of "No dictionary has ever adopted that definition.", and "absurdity". Some of these people are going to hate each other forever, after some of the language exchanged in this opinion and the dissent.

 

And all of it is exhaustively footnoted, with tons of tight logic protecting our right to self defense, including against corrupt government specifically, going back to the Middle Ages. You will love this.

 

All of the "sporting use" arguments are openly mocked and bitterly laid to rest, again with lots of footnoting and historical references.

 

All the arguments and laws requiring disassembly of stored firearms and installation of trigger locks are shattered, in strong terms, and laid to rest. For years, the prohibitionists have been pushing this wide distribution of free trigger locks, in preparation for legislation forcing their use. Now, all of that is dead. They have peed their money away. The court has bitterly and specifically attacked the whole trigger lock scam. It is DOA.

 

The decision went way beyond my most optimistic expectations. It spends much more time defending the Second Amendment and interpreting it, and setting it in concrete, and...well...broadening it, than it does in deciding Heller's narrow rights. It gives them to him, all or more than all that he asked. The decision goes on and on explaining why the Second Amendment has nothing to do with being dependent upon first part reference to militias. But it also goes on and on in broadly defining the militia concept, and indicating that the militia lives today, and that it is all of us. ...and that it is just as necessary as it ever was. ...and that typical militia arms, private ownership and keeping and bearing of them, is what we are guaranteed.

 

I thought it was a little unusual that the majority went to such lengths to tear to pieces the arguments of the dissenters. It may have been that, realizing this was going to be a 5 to 4 thing, and that the antis would smell blood, the majority may have wanted to pack all the logic power they could into their opinion, to make the other side look like idiots, and to make their own majority opinion more likely to survive future attacks. I think they did pretty well...extraordinarily so. This thing could have been written by the pre-LaPierre NRA, the real one, the one we all thought we joined. Guys. You - will - just - love - this!

 

Guys, for the next few evenings, do yourself a big favor. Set aside a little time to read your way through this .pdf opinion. Let yourself smile. Ask yourself, "But who says all this is true?" Answer: The Supreme Court of the United States. And this decision is going to stick for awhile. Its effect is going to slowly spread.

 

For most of my lifetime, gun owners have been on the receiving end of a lot of bad news, and occasionally a little positive shot in the arm. But this is the biggest and best one yet.

 

And I expected Roberts to go with a narrow decision, based on his earlier comments. He didn't. He went for the big hit, on our behalf. Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr. R.

 

My original prediction that the antis made a major strategic mistake in forcing this issue before the Supreme Court has not only come true, but the inevitable impact is going to be beyond my wildest optimism. We should throw a big party. The digestive tracts of Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Hillary, Obama, and the whole wreaking bunch are going to be in group convulsion. Their opinions and dedication have not changed, but their ability to diddle us has taken a major hit.

 

Of course, they won't stop trying. Commies are like that, in my experience.

 

Oh yes, the decision basically says government can't say your firearm must be registered to be legal, and then prevent you from being able to register it. So...let's wait and see...

 

Gotta get some country road air.

[Elbow]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/Topomast/dificensurebuttono.jpg

 

 

[Walter63a]

I am pleased; this will buy us time and room to maneuver, in the legal battles to come at the federal, state and municipal levels all over the nation. :hail:

 

Anti-gun nuts eat your hearts out!!! :woot:

Edited June 26, 2008 by Walter63a

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

A U.S. Supreme Court Ruling means precedence whether it be the 7-2 Rove V Wade or this 5-4. Obama's eventual court selections would swing the majority back to the libs, but even with the new compositioon fo the court, it is doubtful they would revisit this case as it would only give the opponents of Roe v Wade ammunition to overturn a precedent.

[October1971]

Among all the partying and jubilation ( which we have long deserved for around 100 years) I hope the NRA and other organizations will be VERY CAREFUL in choosing future battles.

 

For example, the talking heads on TV just now claim that although the ruling said that INDIVIDUALS can not be denied ownership of firearms, there CAN BE laws regulating HOW GUNS ARE SOLD and the TYPES OF GUNS owned.

 

As is Phil Ohio, I am as giddy with delight as a little kid in a candy store.

 

However, if you were an anti-gun, liberal, democrat, and you had prepared for and expected this ruling, would you just give up and say: OKAY THEY WON we won't try any more gun control. OR.... if you were tasked with the strategy of probing and testing every sentence in the ruling, would you hone in on such things as:

 

1. Let's see, we CAN regulate how the guns are SOLD ( can you say background checks on ALL gun show sales, even by non-dealers...?)

 

2. Let's see, we CAN regulate the TYPES of guns ( can you say permanent assault weapon ban, maybe even NFA ban, maybe high capacity mags...? )

 

Hopefully, this will set the anti-gun back by years and years. And points number 1 and 2 above could still have been attempted even if we had gotten an unfavorable ruling by SCOTUS.

 

So we are VERY fortunate that they ruled the way they did.

 

Now for a wake-up call: If the DEMS and antis are determined to push us even harder, they will:

 

1. Try everything in their power to get Obama elected.

2. Try to eliminate (or control all gun shows.)

3. Try to pack the Supremen Court with more liberal judges ( and wait with baited breath for another chance to overturn today's ruling, or modify it.)

4. Try to get the regulatory agencies ( BATFE etc) to start taking a much more aggressive approach with the dealers and industry which they REGULATE...

5. I wouldn't put it past them to launch a huge campaign to REGISTER gun owners and/or all guns. (While I haven't read the entire opinion, 157 pages, I am

assuming that if they allow every qualifed, non-felon etc, the right to own a firearm, they may not prohibit the authorities from REQUIRING REGISTRATION.)

 

If you are a big city ( Chicago, Philly, NY, etc.) that had just had the crap slapped out of you by SCOTUS, you'd probably start probing and testing everything that SCOTUS DIDN'T prohibit with this ruling.

 

Bottom line, we won the battle today, but the WAR is still on, and ALWAYS WILL BE.

 

Yes, there will hopefully be hundreds if not thousands of laws eventually undone.

 

But have you read anything in the courts opinion today that would prohibit items #1 through 5 above? If so, pease quote the page number from the opinion.

 

If this ruling had been in effect for the last 20 years, would it have stopped the California Dept of Justice from requiring prior approval from Federally-licensed dealers OUTSIDE of California BEFORE they can ship a gun to a dealer in California?

 

Would it have prevented Brady background checks?

Would it have prevented waiting periods.

Would it ( and WILL it prevent Federal, State, and local govts. from requiring/computerizing health records and any other info they want to compile on

U.S. citizens? )

 

Lastly, If you have a Presidential candidate who is Libertarian or other independent who more closely espouses your beliefs and principles RIGHT NOW, will you still vote for them if it is a guaranteed fact that 1) they don't have the votes to get elected and 2) it means Obama and a lot of other Dems in the Congress, State offices, etc. WILL GET ELECTED and will change/affect the entire court system in this country for 10-20years, including judges on the Supreme Court?

 

We all may have that RIGHT to vote that way, but given the current turning point in this country's history, will it be SMART to vote that way...?

 

McCain filed a FRIEND OF THE COURT to the DC case. You know where Obama stands on gun ownership.

 

I'm just saying.........

 

 

 

 

[Norm]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/Topomast/dificensurebuttono.jpg

 

NANNY-GOAT!!

 

[Walter63a]

I hope these liberals are right!!!

 

...It drew fire from gun control groups, which warned of new legal attacks on existing gun laws, and some Democrats in Congress like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said the decision "opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety."

 

The four liberal dissenting justices warned of the ruling's consequences. "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States," Justice Stephen Breyer said...

 

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

[rjb1]

I hate to be a pessimist when something fundamentally good happens, but in the few quotes that I have read it from the ruling it seems like they went to some pains to exclude military weapons and machine guns from Second Amendment protection.

 

Examples:

 

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.†(50)

 

“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.†(52)

 

“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.†(53)

 

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.†(55)

 

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.†(55)

 

I'm not a constutional lawyer (even though I used to sneak into the constitutional law classes down at the law school just to listen in on the discussions), but it doesn't sound as encouraging for us as it could be.

I worry that the gun control types will leap on the exception that may be there and enact a real "assault weapons" ban.

 

Joel

[LIONHART]

 

We won! Mostly.

 

The Supreme Court concluded today that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual right to arms and that the DC handgun ban and requirement that all guns be rendered inoperable within the home, were violations of that protection and must be changed. Specifically, the Court ordered that the District of Columbia must allow Richard Heller to register a handgun and be issued a permit to carry it about within the confines of his home in a functional condition for purposes of self-defense.

 

The Court did not delve deeply into what restrictions would or would not be acceptable under the Second Amendment though their order that Heller be allowed to register a handgun and be issued a permit clearly suggest that they consider such registration and permitting acceptable limitations.

 

In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia also stated that prohibiting felons and mental incompetents from firearms was clearly constitutional and repeated the thoroughly specious argument that he expressed during aural arguments to the effect that weapons which are not, “in common use,” are not included within the Second Amendment’s guarantees. He specifically gave the example of M-16 rifles being common to military use, but uncommon to civilian possession – completely ignoring the fact that the only reason M-16’s are not commonly possessed is that their sale to private citizens was extremely complicated and cost prohibitive for the first twenty years of that arm’s existence and has been completely banned for the past twenty two years.

 

No doubt Scalia and his co-signers included this information – which has absolutely no bearing on the case at hand – to assuage the fears of the Solicitor General and others who have suggested that an “individual right” decision would open a floodgate of assaults on existing federal laws restricting machineguns and “destructive devices.” Regardless of the motive for the position, it is as totally nonsensical as the ridiculous suggestions put forward in the two minority opinions.

 

The length to which the dissenting Justices are willing to twist history and contort language in attempts to justify their outrageous positions is nothing less than staggering. The intellectual gymnastics engaged in by the Justices in their efforts to support their idiotic, fore drawn conclusions should seriously shake the faith of the most trusting citizen. It is simply outrageous that men and women of intellect and learning would take up a position and then selectively sort through history for tiny threads of support for that position while completely ignoring the full, rich tapestry which displays a clear picture of an absolutely opposite position.

 

The intellectual dishonesty displayed by the dissenting Justices – and to a much lesser degree by the majority – should be deeply disturbing to every thinking American. These are not trivial matters that are being dealt with by the Court. These are issues that reach down to the basic founding principles of our republic. How can we entrust matters of such great import to people who demonstrate a willingness to contort history to their own personal beliefs and philosophies rather than examining evidence and drawing rational conclusions based on that evidence.

 

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court makes two things abundantly clear:

 

* Defenders of liberty and our Constitutional Republic face a long and tedious battle to secure and defend our rights.

 

* It is absolutely critical that the next President, and every President thereafter, is committed to appointing judges and justices who will interpret law and the Constitution based on history and facts, not their own agendas.

 

 

 

The courts have the potential to undermine and ultimately destroy our nation and our way of life. It is incumbent upon all of us to diligently work against the erosion that is eating away at the very foundations of our society.

 

 

 

Below is the official syllabus (summary) from the Court “Reporter of Decisions.”

 

It pretty well sums up the majority opinion.

 

 

 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

 

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

 

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime

 

to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of

 

handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed

 

handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;

 

and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms

 

unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

 

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a

 

handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He

 

filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the

 

city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement

 

insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in

 

the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the

 

use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed

 

the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second

 

Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and

 

that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that

 

firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for

 

self-defense, violated that right.

 

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.

 

(b The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

 

of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically

 

capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists

 

feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

 

order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing

 

army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress

 

power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear

 

arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

 

Pp. 22–28.

 

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing

 

rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

 

followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

 

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious

 

interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

 

that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

 

Pp. 30–32.

 

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

 

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the

 

late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

 

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

 

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

 

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights

 

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

 

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

 

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

 

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

 

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any

 

manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed

 

weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment

 

or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast

 

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

 

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms

 

in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

 

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

 

arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those

 

“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition

 

of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

Pp. 54–56.

 

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. Pp. 56–64.

 

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

 

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

 

C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a

 

dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,

 

joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,

 

SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

 

================================================================================

This is a message from The Firearms Coalition Alerts list.

[Z3BigDaddy]

WELL ALLRIGHT!!!!!

 

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/z3bigdaddy/Thompson%20Stuff/yippee062608.jpg

[PhilOhio]

I've had a chance to lightly digest the whole thing. I'm even more pleased. So a few more comments.

 

The page count depends upon what you count, but as the justices counted them, the majority opinion runs 64 pages and the dissent runs 44 pages. If you are impatient, you need only read the majority opinion. It is longer than it would be standing alone, because it spends a lot of time logically disemboweling the illogical dissenting opinion which follows it in the .pdf. No need to waste time reading the latter. All of this is part of the one .pdf I reference for downloading. So if you want to get your blood boiling, you can read the whole package anyway. There's nothing new in the dissenting arguments. Teddy Kennedy would be shaking his head "yes" all the way through it, if he were sober enough.

 

Bill's right. No way will the antis roll over and play dead. But the court has, I believe, anticipated some of their ploys and strongly suggested they won't fly. I'm betting that any follow-up obstructionist attempts on the part of the antis (as is coming in D.C., apparently), if brought to a lower court, can be on a fast track to being granted cert by this group of supreme court justices. They seem determined to meet this head on and make their interpretation stick. Roberts may be tougher than he looks. The D.C. attempt to limit handgun type would certainly be swept aside, probably at a lower court level and positively by this majority. The Supremes stick with the word "handgun" throughout, and...well, you just gotta read it.

 

At several points, the majority notes this is only "the first" case of its type in a long time, and expects to hear more. That's an open invitation to such things as getting the Hughes Amendment overturned as unconstitutional. I think they may well be willing to do that, once they see the incredible clean and positive record on large scale private Class III ownership preceding 1986 and continuing to this day! ...and once they understand how, why, and by whom the Hughes Amendment was slipped through. It was exactly the kind of thing they rail against in their current majority decision.

 

The majority does acknowledge vaguely knowing about current NFA limitations and suggests the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment is not a settled issue. They CLEARLY state that "...we will have to consider eventually what types of weapons..." are protected. Those itallics are theirs. Their comments are detailed enough to suggest they are ready to tackle this, and vague enough to indicated they have not researched the scale and record of private Class III ownership pre-1986 and at present. I'm very optimistic about this. What I know for certain is that I am not prepared to blindly let Wayne LaPierre and company speak for me in making this case to the Supreme Court at some point down the line.

 

In dissenting, Justice Breyer chews over the usual liberal activist situational ethics horseshit about how any interpretation of the law has to involve an "interest-balancing inquiry"; i.e., you twist the law and "interpret" it to yield whatever custom tailored lying sophistic meaning will give you the predetermined case outcome you want. The majority justices rip this concept, and the rest of Breyers "absurd" arguments, to pieces. Yes, they used the word "absurd", along with a few more you will like. Pussy-footing semantics were dispensed with; my kind of guys.

 

Toward the end of the majority opinion, on Page 63, with reference to the left wing "interest-balancing" baloney, the majority gives us a Supreme Court 2nd Amendment-related statement to be preserved for all time: "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all."

 

Those are the words of five Supreme Court justices who rock-solidly back the Second Amendment, taking 64 pages to say so. That one will be repeated again and again in history books. Enjoy.

 

I am favorably impressed by how effectively this gentlemanly Supreme Court majority ridicules the minority dissent, without actually using the word "bullshit" to characterize it. Sure, they come close. But I sense that they wanted to let us know they were thinking it.

 

Everybody enjoy a pleasantly historical Thursday evening. You all deserve it, as Madison Avenue tells us all the time. Bush got Chief Justice Roberts in there just at the right time. Hats off to all involved.

 

Walter63A, you've got even me using those big fonts and colors, for an exceptional occasion.

 

O.K., on 3, everybody, GLOAT!

[kruuth]

I'm hoping that someone goes into the class 3 ban now. Maybe that Akins case will do it. I don't know. I do think it's be cool to be able to make more class 3s for people.

[philasteen]

The Supreme Court will in this kind of case always make the narrowest decision possible. It will certainly decide it is an individual right, but it will not articulate a standard of review or bright line test. It will then kick it to the various state courts and Federal circuits to come up with varying and conflicting interpretations until in about 4 years another case makes its way to the high court.

 

 

My original prediction appears to have been accurate. The decision is not a clear cut victory for the rights of gun owners. Many years of litigation will ensure and most Federal statutes are going to be upheld. In addition, the opinion questions in a major way whether state laws are even covered by the second amendment. (See the footnote re: 14th amendment)

[Norm]

Why does the overturning of the DC gun ban NOT allow the DC residents to possess semi-auto guns of any kind. The DC mayor and police chief said many times that possession of semi-automatic handguns would still be illegal.

 

Does this mean that DC residents will only be able to own revolvers and derringers?

 

Norm

[PhilOhio]

Philasteen,

 

"My original prediction appears to have been accurate. The decision is not a clear cut victory for the rights of gun owners."

 

Your understanding could not be farther from the truth. The victory is clear cut and dramatic. It is more than what almost anybody expected to come out of the Heller case. It is the solid foundation, the basis for launching legal attacks to strike down unreasonable and prohibitionist gun laws across the entire country, but particularly in cities; and I mean legal attacks which can now succeed. Denial of the newly clarified meaning of the Second Amendment has been the cornerstone of most of them, and now that is in the dumper. Since the Second Amendment was added, there has never been a Supreme Court interpretation like this. This is truly a "landmark decision". I cannot imagine how any thinking person could understand it to be something else. Ignore journalists or others who try to convince you otherwise. I guess we have become so accustomed to not getting really good news that it is hard to believe it when it whacks us in the face.

 

Norm,

 

"Why does the overturning of the DC gun ban NOT allow the DC residents to possess semi-auto guns of any kind. The DC mayor and police chief said many times that possession of semi-automatic handguns would still be illegal."

 

It does allow all this. They are simply trying to confront the decision directly and see if they can get away with it; or see how long they can stall implementation of the change. Remember, D.C. and adjacent Montgomery County, MD, are the centers for most firearms prohibitionist activity in the United States. All the key activists and their lawyers live there. They are not going to just throw up their hands and give up because of the new decision. They will try to half-inch it to death. It will take time and money to beat this. They are hoping that, in the meantime, Democrats (lousy commies) can seize the Whitehouse, get a couple more leftist judges on the Supreme Court, and find a new case to give them the opportunity to trash yesterday's decision. It's all about buying time and gamesmanship.

 

And...

 

"Does this mean that DC residents will only be able to own revolvers and derringers?"

 

That's about the size of it, if pro-gun people would be so silly as to not confront the D.C. hacks. It's all a game. The new decision does not automatically mean that all contrary laws are automatically null and void effective today. It means that they have no basis in constitutional law; they can't be backed up. Now somebody, lawyers or legislators, have to go through the legal or legislative process to gut them, one by one. And the prohibitionists will still fight that tooth and nail. But their key defensive tool has been taken away from them.

 

This morning on Detroit's major mid-western radio station, WJR, their straight shooting talk guy Frank Beckman (also a sprortscaster many of you would know) interviewed Ted Nugent, regarding his take on the new court decision. Well, Ted can always be depended upon to deliver an ear full of good stuff on things like this. So he did. Very inspiring. And this broadcast covers a good part of the U.S.

 

Frank then began drawing Ted out on his love of Class III guns, including the occasional waving of a full auto at his shows on stage. Ted really warmed to that line of questioning, telling how he got started, suggesting anybody interested should seize or find the opportunity to shoot one and become hooked forever. It was quite a lengthy missionary presentation. And of course Frank Beckman knew that was exactly what he was getting started. Both Beckman and Nugent have millions of supporters here in the heartland, and WJR is the most powerful and widely heard station in the central part of the country; I remember picking it up all the way in Delaware when I lived there.

 

To all of you on the board,

 

Don't take my word for this, or that of some others here, or pre-digested and self serving interpretations from journalists with an agenda. Just read the decision yourself. Take your time. It is not incomprehensible. It is written in language all of you can understand. And it is spiced with some strong language, to make it clear that the justices were speaking with conviction, and mean for it to stick. These guys fully understood how important the case was, and how long overdue this decision was (historically), and they understood they were writing something to be read by "the People" named in the Second Amendment, not just a bunch of lawyers.

 

These five justices just did something of inestimable value to all of us, expending a lot of time and brain power to do it, and they did it for every one of you on this board. Please, at least extend to them the courtesy of READING IT. It's more important than a technical discussion of some stencil markings on a piece of moldy 70-year-old canvas.

 

 

[LIONHART]

GOA Hits The Airwaves On Heller Decision

-- Now looks forward to challenging other gun control laws around the

country

 

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151

Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

http://www.gunowners.org/

 

Friday, June 27, 2008

 

 

Yesterday was a historic day for the gun rights movement.

 

For starters, Gun Owners of America is pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court,

in the DC v. Heller opinion, struck down the handgun ban and trigger lock

requirement in the nation's capital.

 

As a result, GOA experts have spent the last two days using radio, TV and

print media to explain the Court's decision and its impact upon the future

of the gun debate in America.

 

GOA's amicus brief urged the Court not to use the Heller case as a

springboard to resolve the constitutionality of all of the nation's firearms

laws. In fact, the GOA brief was the only one making the request not to

rule on automatic weapons and other issues, upholding judicial restraint.

 

GOA is pleased that the judges heeded our admonition to limit the Court's

holding to the case before it.

 

In so doing, the Court's decision -- in dissenting Justice Breyers words --

"threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws

throughout

the United States."

 

Notable gun banner, Dianne Feinstein, was equally upset, saying she was

"profoundly disappointed" in the Court decision.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court also followed GOA's urging and refused to do any

balancing of governmental powers and individual liberties -- it just ruled

the ban was prohibited by the text of the Second Amendment, saying that its

language elevates, above all other interests, the "right of law-abiding,

responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

 

However, the Court stated its opinion should "not be taken to cast

doubt" on

at least some prohibited persons' restrictions, gun free school zones bans

and dealer licensing requirements. This dicta implies that, in the future,

courts might go further than the Constitution permits in upholding some gun

restrictions.

 

Nevertheless, the Court's opinion directly conflicts with what anti-rights

advocates -- like those in the Brady Campaign -- have been saying for years.

So GOA welcomes the opportunity to continue our fight for the people's right

to keep and bear arms.

 

GOA is already preparing to wage constitutional challenges to a range of

laws -- federal, state and local -- that violate the Second Amendment

principles endorsed by the Court in yesterday’s majority opinion.

 

To contribute to these efforts, you can go to

http://www.gunowners.com/dogfund.htm and make a tax deductible contribution

to the Defend Our Guns (DOG) Fund. Contributing to this DOG Fund will allow

our committed and courageous legal team to make Justice Breyer's fears a

reality.

 

Gun Owners Foundation wants to lay the groundwork for the next battle in the

Second Amendment war between those of us who love liberty and those who

would allow the government to disarm us as the first step to our own

enslavement.

[Bruce V 21/28]

My febal thoughts:

 

Government should not place restrictions (infringements) on our RIGHTS.

The law should address the misuse of all of the “tools†necessary to exercise our RIGHTS, not our RIGHTS.

 

Just as the printing press & computer are the “tools†that allow us to exercise our First Amendment RIGHTS, Firearms are the “tools†that allow us the ability to exercise our Second Amendment RIGHTS.

 

It is said that we “regulate†the First Amendment i.e. you can’t print a pamphlet espousing the over through of the government or yell “fire†in a crowd…..true…but we DO NOT REGULATE the “tools†necessary to print that pamphlet or speak those words. We do not regulate what type of printing presses, voice amplification devices, TV sets, radios, computers etc. that the general public can “keep and bearâ€.

 

The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the computer, TV, or radio, should we restrict their type or availability to the general public because of their (The Founding Fathers) lack of vision?

 

There is no acceptable “regulation†of the “tools†that allow us to exercise our Second Amendment RIGHTS. Just as with the First Amendment, laws are in place to address any misuse of the “tools†of the Second Amendment i.e. just as it is against the law to yell fire in a crowd, it is against the law to commit a robbery or commit murder. The law should be addressing the misuse of the tools of our RIGHTS not the RIGHT itself.

 

Stronger penalties, swiftly placed, on the abusers of the tools of our RIGHTS are the solution to society’s ills.