Merged - SCOTUS decision on Heller

[Manedwolf]

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

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:

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.

Yeah. I know. I just don't like how he worded it. He could have worded that section a bit differently, such as "where people expect that police forces will be immediately available to protect them", which is a bit more thought-provoking, because it's simply not true. Also, "gun violence" is the leftist made-up term. Guns do not go out and commit violence. That's like saying "baseball bat violence" or "brick violence". We have a problem with violent criminals. Guns are just one tool they use.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

The court specifically denied this line of thinking:

"That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Acts restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Millers ordinary military equipment language must be read in tandem with what comes after: 

• rdinarily  when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were

expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. 307""

"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."

So M4's are flat out, because they are not commonly possessed by citizens.

[The Annoyed Man]

Anyone catch this on page ten?

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?

One could, and should make that argument.

[K Frame]

Gotta love this leap of logic...

"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."

Crime rates in DC were FAR FAR FAR below what they are today when the DC gun ban was first instituted.

But, not surprising logic from a man who voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech act some years ago.

[Mabs2]

Also this...

the militia is assumed by 
 Article I already to be  in existence.  Congress is given the 
 power to provide for calling forth the militia, §8, cl. 15; 
 and the power not to create, but to organiz[e] itand not 
 to organize a militia, which is what one would expect if 
 the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize 
 the militia, connoting a body already in existence

Finally, the adjective well-regulated implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. 

[Antibubba]

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?

It could also help eliminate a lot of silly knife laws.



Yes, the decision is narrow in some ways.  But it specifically affirms an individual right.  I'll be celebrating this for some time.  And this is my regularly scheduled range weekend, so I'll fire a few for freedom.

[HankB]

DC's law allowed possession of handguns that were owned and registered prior to the city's 1976 registration law, but prohibited registration of handguns after that date.

This de-facto prohibition was thrown out as unconstititional.

Mayor Daley, are you listening up there in Chicago?

[LAK]

Nick1911

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?

I doubt it is true now, but a few years back there were more automatic (NFA class III) weapons in private hands than police agencies. Either way, given the numbers in private hands and police agencies, they are very much in common use.

------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

[The Annoyed Man]

We've got to keep this in mind...this decision is Step I in what will likely be a long legal process.  Now that this ruling is in place, we will have cases, mainly from cities like Chicago and San Francisco trying to keep their bans in place trying to justofy their restrictions as being reasonable, parallel to the felon and mentally ill restrictions Scalia cited to as being okay.  At the same time, the other end will try and use this decision as a way of challenging CCW permits as being unreasonable restrictions.  It's where the lines get drawn in the end that will really matter.

But, for now, I'm a happy camper.  

[Manedwolf]

Gotta love this leap of logic...

"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."

Because the criminals, people who by definition ignore laws, were not:

- keeping guns in their homes illegally
- using the guns illegally

Okay, then... 

[Nick1911]

Nick1911

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?

I doubt it is true now, but a few years back there were more automatic (NFA class III) weapons in private hands than police agencies. Either way, given the numbers in private hands and police agencies, they are very much in common use.

I suppose that is arguably true.  There are what, 200,000 privately held MG's in the US?  Of which, nearly all are used for lawful purpose?

[wmenorr67]

Is it too much of a leap to bring the 14th into play and now if you posess a CCW from one state you can carry in any state?

[The Annoyed Man]

Hey, I was just over at teh Brady cite, and they are hailing the decision as a victory for their side, as they see the  Heller decision as allowing them to continue to push for common sense gun control laws.  I guess they see the rain as liquid sunshine through their rose tinted glasses...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992

[K Frame]

Of course they're touting it as a victory.

Their head hump, in interviews several days ago, conceded the fact that they were going to lose.

They also lost on their biggest closet issue -- the individual right aspect.

They know they're grasping, though, and they know they have to keep a rosy face on things.

What would you expect them to do, come out with "We've lost it all!"

Their contributions would dry up in a heartbeat.

[Mabs2]

Hey, I was just over at teh Brady cite, and they are hailing the decision as a victory for their side, as they see the  Heller decision as allowing them to continue to push for common sense gun control laws.  I guess they see the rain as liquid sunshine through their rose tinted glasses...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992

That's funny.

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?

It could also help eliminate a lot of silly knife laws.



Yes, the decision is narrow in some ways.  But it specifically affirms an individual right.  I'll be celebrating this for some time.  And this is my regularly scheduled range weekend, so I'll fire a few for freedom.

Oh man I hope so.
I'd LOVE to carry a nice big knife under my jacket like Crocodile Dundee.

[Manedwolf]

Oh man I hope so.
I'd LOVE to carry a nice big knife under my jacket like Crocodile Dundee.

Well, you can carry a machete. The MS-13 sorts in Boston sure do.

There was a machete fight in city hall plaza right across from Faneuil Hall a couple months ago.

Personally, I'm fine with machetes being their weapon of choice. My solution is the same one Indy had.

[MechAg94]

I am happy about the decision, but it appears they intended to not overturn most existing laws.  I have some reading to do. 


Mods:  Shouldn't this be moved to the Round Table where all the other court decisions were moved?   

[wmenorr67]

They may not have overturned them but they have now opened the flood gates for other laws to be challenged and overturned.

[MicroBalrog]

 "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmentâ¬even the Third Branch of Governmentâ¬the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon."

[K Frame]

"Mods, shouldn't this be moved....?"


From the sticky topic, "What's a Political topic?"

"Political topics can also include current "hot button" topics, such as immigration, firearms rights, etc., when discussed in a political context."

[wmenorr67]

Can we make this a sticky?

[K Frame]

I doubt that it's going to drop off any time soon.

[Manedwolf]

So what is Obama going to do?

Pose with a brand-new barn jacket and borrowed duck gun? Or pout because he can't throw the Supreme Court under the bus?

Can he throw himself under the bus? He would need to, since he refused to sign the amicus.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, your honor:  duh, "they're not commonly possessed."  Certain guns are illegal or heavily regulated. I'd bet more people would possess full autos or short barreled shotguns if it weren't such a pain in the *** to obtain them.

[agricola]

So what is Obama going to do?

Pose with a brand-new barn jacket and borrowed duck gun? Or pout because he can't throw the Supreme Court under the bus?

Can he throw himself under the bus?

Either that or become embittered at the decision, move to a struggling small town and embrace guns and religion.