• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

DC v. Heller

D

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
imported post

BobCav wrote:
DopaVash wrote:
Whats gonna be bad is that as soon as they say it's an individual right, then our congress will impose the AWB. :(
Click to expand...

Like what Ron White says: "I had the RIGHT to remain silent......just not the ability!"

Here we have the RIGHT to bear arms.....just not the arms to bear!

Pathetic, really. Is there some strategic legal reason he dumped that in BEFORE the SCOTUS ruling perhaps?
Click to expand...
Good point, maybe so. Maybe the Neo-cons are working for a compromise.

"You can do it your own way, if its done just how I say"
 
H

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:
Glenn Beck said the decision will be released tomorrow. His "source" says the majority opinion is to be written by Justice Scalia. This sounds promising.
Click to expand...
Beck really doesn't need a source, Scalia is the only one lacking an opinion!

Will be interesting to see. I jus thope it isn't to narrow
 
U

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post






District of Columbia v. Heller




Docket:
07-290

Citation:
None

Petitioner:
District of Columbia, et al.

Respondent:
Dick Anthony Heller

Case Media






Abstract




Granted:
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Oral Argument:
Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Advocates




Walter Dellinger
(argued the cause for the Petitioners)

Paul D. Clement
(Solicitor General, for the United States as amicus curiae)

Alan Gura
(argued the cause for the Respondent)
Facts of the Case

For the first time in seventy years, the Court will hear a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. After the District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The federal trial court in Washington D.C. refused to grant the plaintiffs relief, holding that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, such as the National Guard, and not to private gun ownership.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, voting two to one that the Second Amendment does in fact protect private gun owners such as plaintiffs. Petitioners agree with the trial court's decision that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, and further argue that (a) the Second Amendment should not apply to D.C. because it is a federal enclave rather than a state, and (b) that the D.C. legislation merely regulates, rather than prohibits, gun ownership. Respondents, although disagreeing on the merits, have also urged the Court to review the case in order to clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment.

Question

Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Conclusion

None




Cite this page

The Oyez Project, District of Columbia v. Heller, (No. 07-290),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/>
(last visited

Wednesday, June 25, 2008).
 
Freeflight

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
imported post

This is driving me nutz... I can't work, keep waiting and pacing the floor...going to thescottus blogs over and over... waiting.... ARRRRRGHHHH!!:banghead:
 
D

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
imported post

WWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO It's affirmed! Score one for the good guys!
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

10:12 Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed. 10:13 Ben Winograd - The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller[/i][/b] (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed[/b].

Justice Scalia[/b] wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer[/b] dissented, joined by Justices Stevens[/b], Souter[/b] and Ginsburg[/b]. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13 Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
 
H

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

This is possibly the best thing i have ever read on the internet

10:13 Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
 
H

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

10:14 Tom Goldstein - It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.

Now, once they read through it and tell us common folk what it means :D
 
D

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
imported post

Picture
scotus.JPG
 
MetalChris

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

Tom Goldstein said:
- Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Click to expand...

Nice.
 
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

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.
Click to expand...



From the Syllabus:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top