Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: HELLER AFFIRMED!

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    The Supreme Court has just affirmed the Circuit Court decision in DC v Heller! More information as it develops.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Scalia wrote the opinion (he had two released today, so that was part of the delay). Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented in two seperate opinions. The summary decision is that the 2A guarantees an individual right.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    5-4 2A protects an individual right to possess a firearm!!! According to SCOTUS BLOG
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Scalia wrote the opinion (he had two released today, so that was part of the delay). Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented. The summary decision is that the 2A guarantees an individual right.
    Washington, D.C............NOW WHAT?!?

    2nd Amendment............Use it.............Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Praise the Lord!!!

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    NBC has requested that viewers who wish to ask gun related questions of DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, email him at: Fenty@NBC4.com.

  7. #7
    Regular Member UtahRSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Wonderful! Waiting to see the full opinion... see how far they went in affirming RKBA.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Approximately 14% of current blog viewers are Bradys. A poll question regarding viewer's satisfaction with the ruling is 86% YES, 14% NO.

    The decision stresses that the Court is not casting doubt on laws establishing prohibited persons or gun-free zones.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uTAH-life member: NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, ,
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    AWESOME.



    Now we just need someone on the board that understands legalese to translate the opinions written by the court into 12th grade english.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Nelson_Muntz wrote:
    NBC has requested that viewers who wish to ask gun related questions of DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, email him at: Fenty@NBC4.com.
    Please keep it civil. "BOO-YAH" is not a question, nor is it something you generally say to a man who's been told by the highest court in the land that he's wrong.

  11. #11
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post


  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Syllabus of the opinion:
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
    to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
    handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
    handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
    and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
    unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
    Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
    handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
    filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
    city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
    insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
    the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
    use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
    the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
    that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
    firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
    self-defense, violated that right.
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    Pp. 2–53.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
    does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
    clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
    connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
    of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
    capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
    feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
    order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
    army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
    power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
    arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
    Pp. 22–28.
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
    rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
    followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
    interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
    that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
    Pp. 30–32.
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
    and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
    late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
    Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
    Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
    interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
    limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
    limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
    the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
    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.
    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
    self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
    on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
    entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
    lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
    the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
    prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
    of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
    muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
    home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
    for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
    is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
    that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
    and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
    his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
    Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
    rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
    must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
    Sounds like this strikes down "may-issue" licensing as well. However, the decision appears to be specifically crafted to keep the majority of gun control in place; the Court specifically states that prohibited persons laws, concealed-carry regulation, gun-free zones, and purchase conditions/qualifications are not to be questioned solely by this ruling.

    Full text of the opinion is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    -taken care of-

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Sort of limited in the scope, but none the less, a great leap forward. Looks like they could still have another AWB under this ruling.

    But Scalia's explaination of the 2nd amendment makes NO DOUBT that it is an individual right. That issue is put to rest FOREVER.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    Sort of limited in the scope, but none the less, a great leap forward. Looks like they could still have another AWB under this ruling.

    But Scalia's explaination of the 2nd amendment makes NO DOUBT that it is an individual right. That issue is put to rest FOREVER.
    I don't think so. AW are an entire class of arms such as handguns which brought this opinion to bear in the first place.

    However, it does appear that licensing and even registration schemes will be constitutional under this ruling.. That is a concern..




    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    I don't think so. AW are an entire class of arms such as handguns which brought this opinion to bear in the first place.

    However, it does appear that licensing and even registration schemes will be constitutional under this ruling.. That is a concern..



    Yes, they may be, but they won't be able to deny you a license from what this reads...

    I think...

    Then again I am not a lawyer

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    But Scalia's explaination of the 2nd amendment makes NO DOUBT that it is an individual right. That issue is put to rest FOREVER.
    Never say never. Remember Plessy v Ferguson. The Court can and has reversed itself. However, this decision seems likely to stand for a VERY long time.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    First we walk.........Next, we jog (IL - Chicago, WI, N. J., MD, etc.)!!

    2nd Amendment..........Use it...........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    But Scalia's explaination of the 2nd amendment makes NO DOUBT that it is an individual right. That issue is put to rest FOREVER.
    Never say never. Remember Plessy v Ferguson. The Court can and has reversed itself. However, this decision seems likely to stand for a VERY long time.
    As often as they take gun cases, I think we are good for awhile


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    I don't like how the opinion is written narrowly to only include the home. Looks like they can issue a permit for you to have a handgun at home, but cans till deny you one for carrying outside of the home. I haven't read the whole thing yet and when I do, I'll probably be confused with the legal jargon used so hopefully someone can summarize it for a common layman.



  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Well we are now in the sausage making phase but I think this section might be useful for open carriers


    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
    these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
    the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
    case of confrontation.
    This meaning is strongly confirmed
    by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
    We look to this because it has always been widely understood
    that the Second Amendment, like the First and
    Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
    very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
    the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
    “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
    Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
    granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
    dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
    Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
    . . . .”16

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    I don't think so. AW are an entire class of arms such as handguns which brought this opinion to bear in the first place.

    However, it does appear that licensing and even registration schemes will be constitutional under this ruling.. That is a concern..
    Yes, they may be, but they won't be able to deny you a license from what this reads...

    I think...

    Then again I am not a lawyer
    That's tricky; D.C.'s ban was pretty clear-cut; no handguns, no functional long arms, pretty much period (the only two exceptions were LEOs past and present, and handguns registered before 1976). An assault weapons ban, like the '86 ban, grandfathers weapons that are still available.

    Now, some states forbid assault weapons and MGs that are legal under Federal law, no grandfathering. THOSE bans could be struck down given this ruling. When arguing for the bans, those states will say that the weapons are of a type not in common use, according to Miller. Miller however states that the weapons should be of a type applicable to military service. Gee, that's AWs and MGs all day. However, many interpretations including those givenduring oral arguments say that it must also be of a type in common use. Well, where? Israel? Switzerland? Places where there isn't a cap on automatic weapons?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Very exciting.

    It does seem to read that DC has the ability to restrict citizens from carrying outside the home?

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    No NAU wrote:
    Very exciting.

    It does seem to read that DC has the ability to restrict citizens from carrying outside the home?
    It does. However, the opinion states in interpreting the various clauses of the 2A:
    we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
    Confrontation can happen anywhere, and in fact is more likely to occur outside the homethan inside.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    I don't think so. AW are an entire class of arms such as handguns which brought this opinion to bear in the first place.

    However, it does appear that licensing and even registration schemes will be constitutional under this ruling.. That is a concern..
    Yes, they may be, but they won't be able to deny you a license from what this reads...

    I think...

    Then again I am not a lawyer
    That's tricky; D.C.'s ban was pretty clear-cut; no handguns, no functional long arms, pretty much period (the only two exceptions were LEOs past and present, and handguns registered before 1976). An assault weapons ban, like the '86 ban, grandfathers weapons that are still available.

    Now, some states forbid assault weapons and MGs that are legal under Federal law, no grandfathering. THOSE bans could be struck down given this ruling. When arguing for the bans, those states will say that the weapons are of a type not in common use, according to Miller. Miller however states that the weapons should be of a type applicable to military service. Gee, that's AWs and MGs all day. However, many interpretations including those givenduring oral arguments say that it must also be of a type in common use. Well, where? Israel? Switzerland? Places where there isn't a cap on automatic weapons?
    While Heller wasn't everything I wanted in the outcome, I still think we are better off today than we were yesterday with this ruling.

    Sure, I'd like them to say another AWB is unconstiutitonal, but it didn't happen. The fact our fellow countrymen in DC can now protect their lives is a big deal. The fact we now have an opinion saying we have an individual right to the 2nd amendment is a massive deal.

    Not the best ruling we could have wanted, but it isn't a bad one at all.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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