Victory!

[PatriotG]

Victory!

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818098,00.html


Interestingly, why doesnt Justice John Paul Stevens understand this?

Quote from article: In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Read the CONSTITUITION Mr. Stevens!

[Mesogen]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

huh?

[Mesogen]

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

Victory?

“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.”

huh? muskets?

“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.”

Victory?

[Mesogen]

The opinion from scotusblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[Mesogen]

Dude, read the opinion.

It's ALL ABOUT whether you have the right to register your handgun.

"O yeah, you have the right to register your handgun."

"And the government has the power to revoke your license."

They just turned gun rights into gun privileges.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Hmmmm....Not the decision I thought. One would think the right was fairly self-evident. Well, at least it wasn't a total loss/restriction on gun rights.

[PatriotG]

Yeah I guess I got overly excited

I would really like to read the whole decision especially the dissent. I think that is the part I shopuld probably focus on.

[ARealConservative]

Yeah I guess I got overly excited

I would really like to read the whole decision especially the dissent. I think that is the part I shopuld probably focus on.

I do see this as a small vicotry, but I'm also a skeptic.

a part of me strongly feels this is a neo-con agenda to get people to side with that damn lesser of two evils BS.

Hey, look at the conservatives protecting the rights we care about..... :rolleyes:

[Primbs]

It could have been much worse. This could be the most conservative court we ever get. So I am happy.

http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Fireworks/Fireworks-01-june.gif

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

huh?

Just reading the quotes from the opinion on that page... it looks pretty bad for the 2nd ammendement.


“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.”


"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, instead of interpreting the constitution, it looks like we got a statement that 5 out of 9 justices think it's ok for you to register your musket or handgun for use in your own home.

[Cowlesy]

Just reading the quotes from the opinion on that page... it looks pretty bad for the 2nd ammendement.





So, instead of interpreting the constitution, it looks like we got a statement that 5 out of 9 justices think it's ok for you to register your musket or handgun for use in your own home.

Yeah I don't have the time to go through all 157 pages of the opinion and dissents right now, but I have a feeling that it's going to open up the "assault weapons" ban again in saying that "These aren't "weapons" that people need to "protect their home".

[Mesogen]

The whole thing was about Heller suing for permission to register his handgun. That was the question at hand.

Then the whole thing about "mentally unfit" people throws up a red flag. Who decides who is mentally unfit? Would someone with "ADHD" be considered unfit? How about PTSD? How about someone that is considered to be simply "depressed?"

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I haven't read the whole opinion yet either, but the quotes seem to say that it's perfectly fine for a government to restrict your handgund and muskets to your home. Everyone's running around calling this a victory, but this is likely a huge defeat.

This is only good if you live in DC. If you live anywhere else, it's possibly very bad.

[ARealConservative]

I haven't read the whole opinion yet either, but the quotes seem to say that it's perfectly fine for a government to restrict your handgund and muskets to your home. Everyone's running around calling this a victory, but this is likely a huge defeat.

This is only good if you live in DC. If you live anywhere else, it's possibly very bad.

it is a small victory. for 70 years the federal government has not reigned in activist courts and do gooder politicians.

I wish they would of really put the hammer on things and ruled against registration laws altogether, but it is a small step forward because up until now they have remained silent on entire bans.

[Mesogen]

Reuters call this a "new right."

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2631599720080626


Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

WTF?


President George W. Bush's two appointees on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both voted with the majority in finding an individual right to keep [after being granted permission to register] firearms.

[New York For Paul]

The whole thing was about Heller suing for permission to register his handgun. That was the question at hand.

Then the whole thing about "mentally unfit" people throws up a red flag. Who decides who is mentally unfit? Would someone with "ADHD" be considered unfit? How about PTSD? How about someone that is considered to be simply "depressed?"

A popular talk show host, Michael Savage says "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

[pcosmar]

I see it as a victory, though a small one.
Being that it is the first one since gun control started and it did affirm an individual right.
There is still a long way to go, but this is a positive step.

I really did not expect them to throw out all firearm laws from the 1930s on.
There is still work to be done.

[Dr.3D]

This is just another tangled web woven by our system. Those judges got themselves off the hook the best way they could think of. When forced to make a decision, they made one allowing a right rather than affirming one. While at the same time making it obvious they consider the rights of others in different states to be still under the control of and granted by the federal government as if they were a gift.

They did not interpret nor affirm the 2nd amendment rights as written in the United States Constitution, but rather chose the easy way out of their predicament. Giving the government the authority and even affirming the unconstitutional practice of gun registration, they have driven another nail in the coffin of the 2nd amendment.

[tonesforjonesbones]

well..it is a victory for people in places like san francisco and chicago where guns are banned period...I guess they do not have to keep their rifles dis assembled and trigger locked now. I consider that a success. TONES

[SWATH]

Hmmm, cautiously optimistic so far Pg. 55-56

"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. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

[nobody's_hero]

You folks do realize that, regardless of current events, the Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to legislate through its rulings.

"Judicial review" is a crock. Nothing more than, pardon my crudeness, 'bitch-slap' power was originally intended for the Judical branch.

I'm glad the decision turned out how it did, but I didn't, I don't, and I never will, need a 5-4 decision by life-appointed justices to tell me that I am a free man.

[ARealConservative]

I didn't, I don't, and I never will, need a 5-4 decision by life-appointed justices to tell me I am a free man.

Apparently I still need them to remind LEO that I'm a free man.....or I might lose my freedoms

[nobody's_hero]

Apparently I still need them to remind LEO that I'm a free man.....or I might lose my freedoms

That's a good point, admittably. I was just saying how everyone in America was holding their breath waiting for the outcome. How did we get to such a dismal point? The supreme court is nothing more than the oligarchy of unelected officials that the founders feared it would become.

[Dieseler]

I see this as a tactical diversion.
Watch the back and both sides of the camp closely.
They aren't done with us yet by a long shot.

[Mesogen]

You folks do realize that, regardless of current events, the Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to legislate through its rulings.

"Judicial review" is a crock. Nothing more than, pardon my crudeness, 'bitch-slap' power was originally intended for the Judical branch.

I'm glad the decision turned out how it did, but I didn't, I don't, and I never will, need a 5-4 decision by life-appointed justices to tell me that I am a free man.

+1000

Obama says that the DC gun ban was constitutional.

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/34/


But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/images/stories/2008-05-04_clinton_neg_mail_guns_bitter400.jpg

[Sarge]

Check out the uproar,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27React.html

[NaT805]

The ruling is "individuals must be allowed the privilege of self-defense in their home"

Heller tried to register his handgun in DC, but they did not allow him to register his handgun. Therefore it was not legal for him to possess it. The supreme court is forcing DC to grant him the privilege of registering a handgun to defend himself in his home. Now any city/state must allow the privilege of self-defense with a handgun in their home.

Last time I checked the Bill of Rights was what the governent CAN'T do. Why do we have to ask permission to be allowed to exercise a natural right? That's because they didn't say it was a natural right. It just reaffirmed the second amendment as a privilege.

"Like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited"

I don't want to read anymore. :(

[NaT805]

Check out the uproar,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27React.html

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,” - Barack Obama

Don't forget about the children!

[Acala]

The Supreme Court always rules in the most narrow way possible. When presented with a question like "can DC refuse to allow Heller to keep a gun in his home", they will limit their decision to that question. They will almost never go on to say "And they can't ban semi-auto rifles or concealed carry or full auto etc." They just answer the question presented. Anything else is not binding on lower courts anyway - it is just dicta.

They also didn't answer the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to the States. That will need to be raised in another case since the facts of this case did not present it.

I think it is interesting that the decision rested on guns for self defense when history makes it pretty clear that the main thrust of the 2nd Amendment was military weapons.