PDA

View Full Version : District of Columbia v. Heller



biccat
06-26-2008, 10:13 AM
The opinion was written by Scalia.

The decision was split 5-4.

The DC gun ban has been rejected.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the individual right to bear arms. Thanks for giving us a scare Scalia (opinions are issued in order of seniority, Alito had the first, Scalia had the second, leaving Scalia, Roberts, or Stevens to author Heller).

... in other news the Millionaire's Amendment (Davis v. FEC), which required certain reporting of spending if an individual desired to spend more than $350,000 of his own money in a political campaign, was struck down as unconstitutional. The ruling was 5-4 along ideological grounds (Kennedy joined Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts in supporting free speech).

Teetop
06-26-2008, 10:16 AM
Sanity prevails in the Heller case.

:D

ReaganForRus
06-26-2008, 10:16 AM
Great ruling on the Heller case.:D....... now off to DU to watch some heads explode!

biccat
06-26-2008, 10:24 AM
Opinion available here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf) if anyone is interested.

157 pages, hah!

biccat
06-26-2008, 10:29 AM
Some further details from the opinion.

- Restriction on ownership by felons or mentally ill are allowable.
- Schools, Government buildings, and 'sensative zones' can remain gun-free.
- Conditions on the sale of guns can be Constitutional (background checks, etc.)

- A total handgun ban is unacceptable.
- Trigger lock provisions or "disassemble & store" provisions are likewise unconstitutional.

- Licensing of weapons was not challenged by Heller, and therefore not addressed.

Gingersnap
06-26-2008, 10:48 AM
- Trigger lock provisions or "disassemble & store" provisions are likewise unconstitutional.

Yay! I still recall the Merced Pitchfork murders. Those kids would be alive today if California didn't have that ridiculous safe storage law. :mad:

jinxmchue
06-26-2008, 10:52 AM
The Constitution wins!

gator
06-26-2008, 10:57 AM
This ruling is not anywhere as good as it could be. At the end of the day all this rulling says is that we are only guaranteed to be able to keep weapons the politicians don't claim are unusually dangerous and only then if we keep them at home.

rjas77
06-26-2008, 12:40 PM
The Constitution wins!


By one vote :mad:

What part of the Second Amendment do those who dessented not understand?

TexasFred
06-26-2008, 01:10 PM
Link to the opinion is here. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf) courtesy of my friend American Citizen at Traction Control (http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/)

We now have a right to own guns, isn’t that special?!?!

It seems to me that right has been in effect ever since the 2nd amendment was written. Many anti-gun lobbies have tried their best to interpret it otherwise, and constitutional scholars have been trying to tell them that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution was exactly what is read, word for word, because when you get right down to it, we ARE a militia if this nation comes under attack.

In 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. Naval forces at Pearl Harbor, there was a major reason they attacked where they did and not on the west coast of this nation. They didn’t fear our military, they feared the ARMED U.S. citizen and the insurgency that they were certain they would face.

We, The People are the very reason that no foreign power has even tried to invade this nation, always have been, always will be, by God, lets keep it that way.

All I can tell you fine folks is this, if you have em, secure em, if you don’t have em, you’d be well advised to buy a few, become highly proficient in their use and invest in precious metals, brass, copper, lead, things of that nature.

You never know when they might change their minds..

Troll
06-26-2008, 01:22 PM
What part of the Second Amendment do those who dessented not understand?

I know the Constitution uses a lot of big words and can be a bit hard to read in places. However,


...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I mean was this ever really open for debate? :confused:

marinejcksn
06-26-2008, 02:07 PM
So does this FINALLY mean that the good, law abiding people of D.C. can legally have a firearm in their possession?

marinejcksn
06-26-2008, 02:11 PM
I know the Constitution uses a lot of big words and can be a bit hard to read in places. However,


I mean was this ever really open for debate? :confused:

Troll, what I think is just as confusing.....ever notice how so many leftists love to advocate how they're "fighting" for 1st Ammendment Rights, yet when the 2nd Ammendment comes into question they dismiss us it as Non-Essential and us who fight for the 2nd Ammendment as intolerant rednecks who're "Bitter, clinging to Guns and Religion"?:D

Aklover
06-26-2008, 02:13 PM
The NRA said Shitcago is next, not sure where the folks affiliated with the CATO institute are going next.

megimoo
06-26-2008, 03:15 PM
The opinion was written by Scalia.

The decision was split 5-4.

The DC gun ban has been rejected.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the individual right to bear arms. Thanks for giving us a scare Scalia (opinions are issued in order of seniority, Alito had the first, Scalia had the second, leaving Scalia, Roberts, or Stevens to author Heller).

... in other news the Millionaire's Amendment (Davis v. FEC), which required certain reporting of spending if an individual desired to spend more than $350,000 of his own money in a political campaign, was struck down as unconstitutional. The ruling was 5-4 along ideological grounds (Kennedy joined Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts in supporting free speech).Who voted against the second ammendment as written ?Let me guess ,Ginsberg,Souter,Stevens,Kennedy ?

biccat
06-26-2008, 03:21 PM
Who voted against the second ammendment as written ?Let me guess ,Ginsberg,Souter,Stevens,Kennedy ?

Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer.

Odysseus
06-26-2008, 03:29 PM
Who voted against the second ammendment as written ?Let me guess ,Ginsberg,Souter,Stevens,Kennedy ?

Apparently, Kennedy voted with the majority. The coin must've come up heads.

This leads to an interesting series of decisions. On the one hand, the states cannot execute child rapists, on the other hand, individuals can own firearms. Obviously, if you read between the lines, there's an implied right for individuals to shoot child rapists. :D

marinejcksn
06-26-2008, 03:34 PM
Apparently, Kennedy voted with the majority. The coin must've come up heads.

This leads to an interesting series of decisions. On the one hand, the states cannot execute child rapists, on the other hand, individuals can own firearms. Obviously, if you read between the lines, there's an implied right for individuals to shoot child rapists. :D

I like your logic, Sir. Be more then happy to supply the ammunition.;) Federal Premiums should do the trick.:D

megimoo
06-26-2008, 03:42 PM
Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer.Whada you know I expected Kennedy .

Sonnabend
06-26-2008, 05:08 PM
So does this FINALLY mean that the good, law abiding people of D.C. can legally have a firearm in their possession?

From this, the answer is yes. This strengthens the case here as well, now that this question has been well and truly answered.I and a lot of others were never happy with the gun laws here, and maybe this will help us overturn them eventually.

I am happy for you all..and wish we had the same rights.

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 06:12 PM
Great ruling on the Heller case.:D....... now off to DU to watch some heads explode!

:D

This is awesome news!!! I may actually join you.

Silverhair
06-26-2008, 07:30 PM
Awesome. This is a pivotal decision as it establishes the 2nd as an individual, not a collective, right. Fiften minutes after the ruling was announced a suit was filed against Chicago.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-26-2008, 09:35 PM
This is great news, but it also points out how lucky we were to have had Bush appointing Supreme Court Justices the last 8 years instead of Gore and Kerry.

It also points out how tenuous our Constitutional rights are and just how much damage could be done if Obama gets to appoint Justices.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-26-2008, 09:37 PM
This ruling is not anywhere as good as it could be. At the end of the day all this rulling says is that we are only guaranteed to be able to keep weapons the politicians don't claim are unusually dangerous and only then if we keep them at home.

Those were not covered by this lawsuit. Those issue CAN now be brought before the court. Thank GOD we had Bush instead of Gore or Kerry the last few years.

AlmostThere
06-27-2008, 03:32 AM
Some of the things coming out of Washington just leave me dumbfounded. The following dissent by Breyer is a real jewel.
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."

So you have no constitutional right to protect yourself, your family or home even though you may live in a crime ridden neighborhood. And to think, we pay him almost 200K/yr for those words of wisdom.

John
06-27-2008, 05:03 AM
We aren't out of the woods net....not for many generations... Notice how Scalia & Co. respected the wishes of the DoJ and left the door wide open for "resonable" regulation. Basically, the whole ruling is summed up by: Banning weapons that are 'in common use' (i.e. weapons that aren't banned) is a big no-no. Banning weapons that are believed to be 'military only' (a.k.a 'assault rilfles') is peachy keen.

So sure, you can own a handgun, a bolt action sporting rifle, a shotgun, but not an AR-15? What about an AK47 or an SKS?

Yeah, we a small battle, we haven't won the war.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-27-2008, 07:32 AM
We aren't out of the woods net....not for many generations... Notice how Scalia & Co. respected the wishes of the DoJ and left the door wide open for "resonable" regulation. Basically, the whole ruling is summed up by: Banning weapons that are 'in common use' (i.e. weapons that aren't banned) is a big no-no. Banning weapons that are believed to be 'military only' (a.k.a 'assault rilfles') is peachy keen.

So sure, you can own a handgun, a bolt action sporting rifle, a shotgun, but not an AR-15? What about an AK47 or an SKS?

Yeah, we a small battle, we haven't won the war.

You are quite right here John, but if we had lost this, it would have been devastating.

Full-Auto
06-27-2008, 08:23 AM
This ruling is not anywhere as good as it could be. At the end of the day all this rulling says is that we are only guaranteed to be able to keep weapons the politicians don't claim are unusually dangerous and only then if we keep them at home.

It's a little more than that really. It also affirms that the 2nd Amendment in fact protects an individual right and not a collective right. That debate has been raging my entire life, and now it's settled once and for all. That means outright bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns are unconstitutional.

What has yet to be decided is if "reasonable restrictions" can include banning of semi-auto rifles and handguns, magazine capacity limits, "sniper rifles", etc. In this respect the ruling does little to help us. The way I read it, a state could ban everything but single shot .22 LR handguns and rifles and still be within the limits of this ruling.

It will take DC, SF or Chicago passing some goofy law saying you can only own a single shot .22 handgun and someone getting pinched with a 9mm then taking it back to the SCOTUS to get a ruling. That means sometime by the time my son is 40 years old we might get another more meaningful ruling.

biccat
06-27-2008, 10:35 AM
It will take DC, SF or Chicago passing some goofy law saying you can only own a single shot .22 handgun and someone getting pinched with a 9mm then taking it back to the SCOTUS to get a ruling. That means sometime by the time my son is 40 years old we might get another more meaningful ruling.
According to this ruling, it would have to be DC. States do not have to abide by the 2nd amendment. It has not been read to apply to them. That is the issue that will be decided if the case in Chicago or San Francisco makes it up to the Supreme Court.

Although I think that's a poor strategy. The NRA should have asked a town to enact a gun ban exactly mirroring the DC gun ban, so that the only issue before the Supreme Court would be incorporation of the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, the Court might find some way to distinguish a San Francisco or Chicago case from Heller, leaving us back where we started.

Of course, that's legal strategy, and sometimes you don't always get what you want.

megimoo
06-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Gun ruling galvanizes groups -- NRA to target other city laws; foes vow to boost resistance

Within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling overturning the District's gun ban, leaders of the National Rifle Association began work on legal challenges against gun restrictions in Chicago and San Francisco, while gun-control groups said the decision would only strengthen their efforts.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which fought in support of the city's handgun ban, predicted that the decision would "embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws." "

With the help of the Brady Center's legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety," he said.

The NRA and Gun Owners of America both say they're planning to use the ruling as a springboard to challenge state and local laws across the country.

"Certainly things like the Chicago handgun ban, which is very similar to what Washington, D.C., had, those are the kind of things we would want to look at," said Erich Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America. "We're definitely going to be in the middle of all of that."

Mr. Pratt also noted comments by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that the decision "threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

"When Justice Breyer is sad, we're happy," Mr. Pratt said.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/ruling-galvanizes-pro-gun-groups-opposition/

Molon Labe
06-27-2008, 11:39 AM
It's a little more than that really. It also affirms that the 2nd Amendment in fact protects an individual right and not a collective right. That debate has been raging my entire life, and now it's settled once and for all. That means outright bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns are unconstitutional.

Bingo!...Getting rid of the collective mindset is absolutely paramount.

Full-Auto
06-27-2008, 03:23 PM
According to this ruling, it would have to be DC. States do not have to abide by the 2nd amendment. It has not been read to apply to them. That is the issue that will be decided if the case in Chicago or San Francisco makes it up to the Supreme Court.

That's the first time I've heard that, can you cite your source?

The states most certainly do have to abide by the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment.

Teetop
06-27-2008, 03:29 PM
Stevens' dissent--egad! (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/stevens_dissent.php)

Stevens' dissent--egad!
Posted by David Hardy 26 June 2008 02:20 PM
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.

I'd add that at 41 he refers to:

"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."

Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)

On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.

And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?

:mad:

What a bunch of morons!

biccat
06-27-2008, 03:39 PM
That's the first time I've heard that, can you cite your source?

The states most certainly do have to abide by the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

That is a good primer on incorporation, I can find something else if you're interested.

Odysseus
06-27-2008, 08:22 PM
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."

I love how this clown thinks. According to Breyer, the First Amendment doesn't protect political speech during an election year, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, the Eighth Amendment doesn't permit the states to execute child rapists, the Geneva and Hague Conventions give POW status to unlawful combatants, and they have the right of Habeas Corpus, even though no law says or implies that. What in the name of National Security do they teach in law schools? More importantly, what do the smoke in them?

Full-Auto
06-28-2008, 01:06 AM
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

That is a good primer on incorporation, I can find something else if you're interested.

That's not proof that States can ignore the Bill of Rights or the SCOTUS.

I would like to see something more substantial though, if you have it.

Full-Auto
06-28-2008, 01:08 AM
The house of cards begins to fall...


Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

http://www.nbc5.com/news/16729972/detail.html

John
06-28-2008, 05:00 AM
You are quite right here John, but if we had lost this, it would have been devastating.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Court and give the finger to the dissenters in this case. However, if you are a member of GOA or the NRA, you can't prop your feet up yet. That was all I was trying to say. This ruling is very, very narrow in scope. You can tell the Court respected the Amici Curiae presented by the DoJ , and gave it a 20 foot birth. Basically the machine gun ban of '34 stands as does Miller. So citizens can only currently challenge laws that ban a weapon that is 'in common use'. By definition, weapons that are currently banned are not 'in common use'. That means, even though a complete ban on 'handguns' is not acceptable, a ban on the .460 Smith & Weapon Magnum is perfectly acceptable, because this high powered handgun is hardly in common use.

When will these idiot gun controllers learn that a tool is a tool is a tool, but intent makes violence?

Oh, and to anyone who believes this decision doesn't apply to states proper, you are wrong. D.C. isn't a state, but SCOTUS case law applies to all SCOTUS cases, and to those cases in lesser courts. As a matter of fact, the soon-to-be-ex mayer of Chicago is going fetal around Chicago's handgun ban, which is soon to be challenged and overturned. This decision *does* apply to the states as equally as it applies to D.C. However, the scope of this decision is so narrow, that it does little to flesh out what exactly 'reasonable regulation' is. That is our next target while we have a worthy SCOTUS, to determine exactly what regulation is reasonable.

I have a simple idea. Any weapon of lesser power than a crew-served military weapon should be protected under the 2A. If one soldier can carry and operate it, then it a citizen has the right to carry that weapon. I doubt the Courts, States, and Brady Group will see it so simple.