HELLER AFFIRMED!

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

Click to expand...

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..

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Very exciting.

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

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Confrontation can happen anywhere, and in fact is more likely to occur outside the homethan inside.

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..

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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..

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Yes, but there arethree determining factors to look at. One, they are common use weapons of the time, which Miller discussed and was brought upby this court, and two, this ruling will be construed to determine that prohibitions on classes that consist of millions of armsare deemed unconstitutional.

The third thing is that although this is an individual right and not "tied" to militia duty, the militia exists and we are part of it nonetheless for the prevention of standing armies according to this court. Weapons used by soldiers would appear to be held as constitutionally possessed by individual citizens by the way I read this opinion. Machine guns are not mentioned, but they would appear to be a soldiers weapon and a class of firearms...

imported post

It's clear that DC residents rights have been affirmed, but how about those of us who work in DC?

I don't think DC would ever grant reciprocity to any state as far as concealed weapons, but if they have no law on the books prohibiting OC.....?

imported post

One other thing that hasn't been brought up yetis that a trigger lock requirement has been deemed unconstitutional. Gotta love that...

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

One other thing that hasn't been brought up yetis that a trigger lock requirement has been deemed unconstitutional. Gotta love that...

Click to expand...

As well as having long guns disassembled both deemed unconstitutional.

imported post

The D.C. Circuit Court applied strict scrutiny. The Supreme court affirmed and I did not see a different standard applied- 150 pages, not done reading yet, but I do not see any change to the strict scrutiny standard. :celebrate

Am I reading this correctly?

imported post

This is probably the most worrying part of the decision. Though it was not at issue, the courtmade a footnote resulting instare decisis from its decision inCruikshank and related cases:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

:what::banghead:So it is the Court's opinion, freely given, that this decision is only going to apply to D.C. and the Federal Government because the 2A does not apply to the States, even though all others except the 3rd Amendment have been incorporated since.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You go, Longwatch!! First we walk, then we jog........where are my New Balance (smile).

2nd Amendment.........Use it..........Or, lose it!!:X

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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..

Click to expand...

It appears that this issue is left open. One might be able to construe that an assault rifle must be allowed based on the common use concept.

"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."

The understanding of this would be as long as the firearm is used for lawful purposes then there should be no limit to ownership other than those stated.

Again as you stated the licensing is a concern.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

If MG's were not $30k a pop I would have one for each hand and one under the mantle for when the zombies attack. Common today is where it is because of regulations and cost, not because of desire.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

This is probably the most worrying part of the decision. Though it was not at issue, the courtmade a footnote resulting instare decisis from its decision inCruikshank and related cases:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

:what::banghead:So it is the Court's opinion, freely given, that this decision is only going to apply to D.C. and the Federal Government because the 2A does not apply to the States, even though all others except the 3rd Amendment have been incorporated since.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I don't know what to make of it.

On a good side, at least it prevents the federal government from bans.

imported post

The 5-4 decision is proof that judges matter and the matter alot! One reason that Obama is a big nasty boil on the backside of Americans.



That is why a vote for Obama is a foolish endeavor.



NOBama 08!

imported post

As I see it the only thing for sure is that DC residents will be able to keep a handgun in their house without having a trigger lock on it. From there is anyone's guess.

I think the AWB will still be in effect.

It may cover may issue states for permits.

Don't think it allows nukes.

Applies directly to DC right now but will apply everywhere soon

I suspect more lawsuits to follow.

imported post

For those of you who may not like the scope or how far reaching this opinion may be, remember that it was a 5-4 split with Kennedy as a swing vote. I believe that the 4 other Justices voting for affirmation went as far as they could without losing Kennedy to the other side. If Kennedy were another Thomas orRoberts then the far reaching scope we would have hoped for would have been met.

I find it interesting while flipping through the cable news networks what one CNN anchor said; he stated that he lost the bet in regards to the decision. I assumed that he thought that the opinion would overturn the lower court but he lost because he thought the vote would be near unanimous. Theoretically in my mind i find it hard to believe that this vote was so close but i understand in reality how liberal the court is made up.

One last bit of food for though, I know many of you don't like McCain all that much but think of this: I would much rather have 2 more Kennedy-like justices on the Supreme court than I would 2 more Stevens-like justices that Obama is sure to nominate. Better to take the lesser evil you can at least have some commonground with. Just a thought.

imported post

Is it safe to dig up the guns in my back yard yet?:lol:

imported post

One last bit of food for though, I know many of you don't like McCain all that much but think of this: I would much rather have 2 more Kennedy-like justices on the Supreme court than I would 2 more Stevens-like justices that Obama is sure to nominate. Better to take the lesser evil you can at least have some commonground with. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

This is a very important point that people need to think about before election day. It wasa 5-4 decision, only one justice needed to vote the other way.