Author Topic: Merged - SCOTUS decision on Heller (Read 59694 times)

Manedwolf · « **Reply #100 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:26:13 AM »

Quote from: Fly320s on June 26, 2008, 04:24:42 AM

Quote from: Charby on June 26, 2008, 04:18:31 AM

Looks like a few states like CA, MA, NY, and IL are going to have to remove some laws

Depends on how broad or narrow the ruling. Don't hold your breath.

Well, this, from the opinion...

Quote

Millers 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.

That KILLS a new AWB.

What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?

StopTheGrays · « **Reply #101 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:29:02 AM »

Quote

What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?

My worry, is "common use" going to be the new "sporting purpose"? undecided

charby · « **Reply #102 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:30:38 AM »

Quote from: StopTheGrays on June 26, 2008, 04:29:02 AM

Quote

What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?

My worry, is "common use" going to be the new "sporting purpose"? undecided

AR-15's comes in a multitude of sporting calibers now, so I think that point is moot.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #103 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:32:06 AM »

Quote from: StopTheGrays on June 26, 2008, 04:29:02 AM

Quote

What's more in common use than semiautomatic AR and Kalashnikov pattern rifles?

My worry, is "common use" going to be the new "sporting purpose"? undecided

That's not what it says. Scalia would have said sporting use if he means sporting use. The case means "common use".

It's a simple argument, I think. What rifle would and do most people reach for when they reach for a rifle to use for self-defense? What was seen most after Katrina?

Every picture I saw, people tended to have ARs or various AK derivatives on a sling. One is "America's Rifle", the other is simply the world's most reliable rifle in dirty and adverse conditions. And there's millions of them in the hands of the people. That's your "common use" right there.

And yes, both are widely used for sport, now, too. (Thank you, Saiga!)

Nick1911 · « **Reply #104 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:33:52 AM »

Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Machineguns aren't in common use, so they aren't protected; but if they were protected, they would likely be protected under "common use"; right?

Fly320s · « **Reply #105 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:36:37 AM »

157 pages of decision.

Guess I have something to read on the way to Seattle.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #106 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:36:53 AM »

Quote from: Nick1911 on June 26, 2008, 04:33:52 AM

Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Machineguns aren't in common use, so they aren't protected; but if they were protected, they would likely be protected under "common use"; right?

Maybe, but it it ensures that what's already commonly in the hands of the people, effective semiautomatic rifles, will stay in the hands of the people.

Machine guns have limited practicality. Semiauto rifles are the arguably the best tool for defense against armed intruders at short and long ranges.

taurusowner · « **Reply #107 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:42:17 AM »

So what about SBRs?

Manedwolf · « **Reply #108 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:44:38 AM »

Quote from: taurusowner on June 26, 2008, 04:42:17 AM

So what about SBRs?

Good question. There's an assumption that a rifle with a barrel under 16" is going to be used for a crime, and that makes no sense. That ought to be struck down, as it's all bureaucratic technicalities.

I can buy a .308 pistol with a 10" barrel, but I can't put a longer stock on it or it's breaking federal laws.
If I want to put a stock on it to aim it more accurately, I need to get one with a 16" barrel.

That is silly.

Same applies to "silencers". What is wrong with wishing to protect your own eardrums when defending your home? Why do they enforce a law that amounts to forcing people to accept permanent hearing loss for themselves and family members when they have to stop an intruder from attacking their family?

mtnbkr · « **Reply #109 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:49:13 AM »

Baby steps...

Let's give this time to sink in and take effect, then we can start working on things like machine guns, SBRs, Silencers, etc.

BTW, the "Nation's Gunshow is in Chantilly at the end of July, what better way to celebrate this than to buy a gun within smelling distance of DC... Cheesy

I haven't purchased a gun in over 2 years. It might be time to do so.

Chris

Josh Aston · « **Reply #110 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:50:28 AM »

Today is a good day! SCOTUS rules in our favor and I get promoted. Drinks on me!

Manedwolf · « **Reply #111 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:54:43 AM »

Quote from: mtnbkr on June 26, 2008, 04:49:13 AM

BTW, the "Nation's Gunshow is in Chantilly at the end of July, what better way to celebrate this than to buy a gun within smelling distance of DC... Cheesy

Local gun shop mentioned that they have someone selling on consignment that might be selling a Daewoo K2 through them. They're going to let me know how much they want. If it's reasonable, I'll probably pick that up to celebrate.

charby · « **Reply #112 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:54:58 AM »

Quote from: Fly320s on June 26, 2008, 04:36:37 AM

157 pages of decision.

Guess I have something to read on the way to Seattle.

I was thumbing through it, the first three pages are the majority opinion and the rest are stuff from the lower courts, might be some more stuff but it will take me a few days to sort it out.

-Charby

RevDisk · « **Reply #113 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:57:17 AM »

Quote from: mtnbkr on June 26, 2008, 04:49:13 AM

Baby steps...

Dude, read this:

Quote

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. 253.
(a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
[snip]
d) The Second Amendments drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

woot!

Silver Bullet · « **Reply #114 on:** June 26, 2008, 05:59:15 AM »

From Fox News:

Quote

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas

Glad I voted for Bush.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #115 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:00:44 AM »

Going to have to wait a few months to celebrate.

RadioFreeSeaLab · « **Reply #116 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:01:21 AM »

Ah, what a nice way to start my morning.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #117 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:05:34 AM »

Quote

That KILLS a new AWB.

Yes.

But no select-fire rifles.

No short-barreled shotguns.

No silencers.

Why did they write it this way?

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #118 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:06:28 AM »

One small victory in a war we are losing. Incrementalism and patience have paid off for the fearmongers and the ignorance spreaders.

This is just a tiny step forward.

Nick1911 · « **Reply #119 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:09:41 AM »

Quote from: 40 caliber on June 26, 2008, 05:06:28 AM

One small victory in a war we are losing. Incrementalism and patience have paid off for the fearmongers and the ignorance spreaders.

This is just a tiny step forward.

But it's not a step backwards!

Manedwolf · « **Reply #120 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:11:07 AM »

I don't agree with one thing Scalia wrote, though.

Quote

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #121 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:12:23 AM »

Well, to borrow from baseball, this wasn't no grand slam home run... But it wasn't just a single either.

I call this a solid double, maybe even a triple. Why? It strikes down outright gun bans as unconstitutional. It affirms an individual right to the posession of firearms "in common use." There goes an AWB out the window too... Furthermore, I believe it opens the door for future progress. We're definitely in scoring position...

Mabs2 · « **Reply #122 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:15:10 AM »

Anyone catch this on page ten?

Quote

b. Keep and bear Arms. We move now from the
holder of the rightthe peopleto the substance of the
right: to keep and bear Arms.
Before addressing the verbs keep and bear, we inter-
pret their object: Arms. The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.

Could this be used to get rid of those LEO only restrictions on body armor?

charby · « **Reply #123 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:15:31 AM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 26, 2008, 05:11:07 AM

I don't agree with one thing Scalia wrote, though.

Quote

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

No, Scalia. I cannot carry a cop with me. And we do not have a gun violence problem. We have a problem with violent criminals who use guns.

MW

He wrote:

Quote

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct

He didn't say he thought that, he said some people thought that, also he mentioned it wasn't the role of the court to remove the 2nd amendment either.

Firethorn · « **Reply #124 on:** June 26, 2008, 06:17:38 AM »

Quote from: Josh Aston on June 26, 2008, 04:50:28 AM

Today is a good day! SCOTUS rules in our favor and I get promoted. Drinks on me!

Congratulations on making MSgt!

Oh, and as far as the 'common use' thing goes, we might have a wedge in the form of the M4 for both SBRs and automatic weapons. After all, it's in common use by our very own military.