Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Heller case

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    For what it's worth, the Heller case is decided and written and will be released tomorrow morning...probably by 10:30 AM eastern. I'm sure it'll hit the major news outlets very quickly.

    I am encouraged by the fact that Justice Scalia is writing the (majority?) opinion. (I don't know if it's unanimous / split)


    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    For what it's worth, the Heller case is decided and written and will be released tomorrow morning...probably by 10:30 AM eastern. I'm sure it'll hit the major news outlets very quickly.

    I am encouraged by the fact that Justice Scalia is writing the (majority?) opinion. (I don't know if it's unanimous / split)




    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/







    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).

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I predicted somewhere on this forum a 5-4 decision (with a possibility of 6-3 if some justice came to his senses).

    Although they got the individual thing right, it should make people very nervous when almost all SC decisions are made by one swing vote, in this case on a open and shut constitutional issue!

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    The decision is riddled full of the word HOME. They also said REASONABLE RESTRICTION.



    There is a distinct possibility that the libs could use this to try and revoke/overturn current carry laws. We can possess/carry in the home but it doesn’t say anything about the right extending outside the home.


    If I’m wrong, please correct me.

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    There is a distinct possibility that the libs could use this to try and revoke/overturn current carry laws. We can possess/carry in the home but it doesn’t say anything about the right extending outside the home.
    I'm not a legal scholar, and I haven't had time to read the entire decision, but I think we shouldn't be reading too much into the facts of the case that were not at issue in the case.

    I believe the original suit was filed by a group of people and the reason it because DC v Heller was because of the original 6 who filed the suit, only heller had applied for a permit and was denied. The permit he applied for was not a concealled carry permit but a permit to have the gun in his home.

    I don't think the courts decision has any standing per se on concealled carry (or any kind of carry) outside the home. I believe the courts generally deal with the issue at hand (not making legislation form the bench) which is why if you want an answer on a particualr question of the court you ask THAT question and the court offers its opinion on THAT question only.

    I don't believe concealled carry outside the home was at issue here, and as such to avoid legislating from the bench the court offered its opinion on the issue at hand which was the bearing a firearm in the home.

    It is my non-legal-expert opinion that finally having the clarification of the right to bear arms as an individual right (which we and anyone who has ever looked past the text of the second amendment in exclusivityto the logic and context of the rest of the bill of rights, the rest of the constitution, and other documentation of the era, already knew) But it think the clarification of the individual right aspect is huge and does provide a foundation for future legal avenues to restore our ability to exercise a right which is inalienable.

    I also believe that the courts have recognized that because these rights are inalienable but not absolute, we citizens must have a practical ability to exercise them. And with a permit system, we have a methodwhich affords usthe capacity toexercise these rights.

    I believe the courts have found that permit systems provide an avenue for us to enjoy our right while tempering that with public safety.

    Of course I completely disagree with the concept of a permit system because its not efficacious. (no criminal applies for a permit) So while I understand that the court finds permits are not unconstitutional, I find them pointless and therefore would ask why we burden law abiding people with even the slightest obstacle to exercising their rights.

    But the court did say "Must" issue for the permit in the Heller case. I believe the fact that these "must" issue and "shall" issue provisions are key. The government cannot deny you a permit so long as you pass standard criteria. The government doesn't get to decide who's worthy and who's not worthy. I think thats key. (and I think any criteria are generally ********) but I understand why the courts allow those to be put in place by the states/municipalities at the discretion of the states/municipalities as they choose.

    I've also heard some non-sense liberals in Chicago media talking about how they are just going to make the cost of a permit so high that people won't be able to afford it. If they do, that will certainly be challenged and defeated in court because a huge permit fee becomes a de-facto prohibition and doesn't allow people to exercise their inalienable rights.

    On local political boards here in WI I've heard some liberals GRASPING at some form of declareable victory from DC v Heller, but I don't think its there.

    The issue at hand was the establishment that the second amendment is and individual right. I think because that was the issue at hand, the opinion of the court that it IS is the only concrete conclusion that people should draw from this case. The rest of the facts of the case I don't think mark any iconic statement by the court. But I'm no legal scholar.



  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet, but since the RKBA under the Wisconsin Constitution is already recognized as an individual right, I'm not sure the Heller opinion will have any immediate impact within Wisconsin. Overall, it sounds like pretty much the decision I was expecting. Not everything one might dream of getting, but not bad. And if it helps fight the battle in oppressive places such as New York and Chicago, then that's a big plus for everyone.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  7. #7
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    We must make this totally redundant. We should not depend solely on the federal level to secure our rights. It must be codified at state and local levels so their can be no question.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •