Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: VICTORY!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kingston, Washington, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    This is big.



    Though the Devil is in the details, weapons are seen as a RIGHT. 5-4 decision (liberals decenting, of course).



    As soon as decision is published I am sure it will be posted!

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

    The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.






  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    It's kind of a victory, except for the whole ignoring the 'shall not be infringed' part and allowing 'reasonable regulation'...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North of Seattlle, South of Canada, Washington, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    While debate rages, don't be so quick to view this as a wholesale victory or a complete affirmation of your right.

    It does start a long chain of lawsuits that will wend their way though the state and federal courts on restrictive laws and so on.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Hello everyone-

    New poster, but long time diligent reader. Given today's Supreme Court decision, I had to put this out!

    I just read this in the WSJ.com,let's hear it forJustice Antonin Scalia:
    "We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority ruling. "This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214..._us_whats_news

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Urgh it's gonna take a while to get a handle on all of this.

    They failed to incorporate the 2nd with the 14th. They narrowly addressed self defense, they allowed "reasonable restrictions" although it seems that a license for a handgun (if a place requires that must be issued) etc... lots of good stuff, lots of not so good stuff.

    Chicago and New York's gun bans are so going down.

    In fact one may be able to make the argument this opens the door for national carry licensing, or at least national reciprocity. It may also open the door to compell shall issue CPL's in all states.

    Sometimes I feel real glad Washington State already has such strong protections of the RKBA.

    Oh yes and Libertas welcome aboard!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    It may also open the door to compell shall issue CPL's in all states.

    I have to disagree on this. The opinion states multiple times that DC must issue a license to carry a pistol in the home not outside of the home. But is does state that we have the right as individuals to protect ourselves in self defense in case of confrontation.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Yeah Libertas, welcome aboard! Its about time!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    One very scary aspect of this decision is, as Rush expressed this morning, that four members of the Supreme Court, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, voted essentially to delete the Second Amendment. The Constitution was upheld by only one vote. That is scary!

    Also, don't expect the same results in the future after a democrat controlled Senate confirmsPresident Obama's nomination ofHillary Clinton to the Supreme Court.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I'm in the middle of reading this opinion, in it's entirety, and half-way through it, ok 1/3rd, I find this gem:

    Miller did not hold that and
    cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment
    in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge
    two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregis-
    tered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in
    violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is
    entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the
    Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defen-
    dants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes”
    but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that
    the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second
    Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence
    tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-
    barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable rela-
    tionship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu-
    lated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
    guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instru-
    ment.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,”
    the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that
    this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equip-
    ment or that its use could contribute to the common de-
    fense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no expla-
    nation of the content of the right.
    I read this with great interest. US v. Miller was a case in which Miller was found to have been lawfully convicted of carrying a short barreled shotgun. It appears that Scalia believes the SBS was not protected under the 2nd, because it's military purpose could not be established.

    The way I read that opinion, then, is that any firearm which has a military purpose does fall under the 2nd. Being as M-4's and M-16's are the current standard issue firearm for our armed service, that would mean they fall under the 2nd and are thus an individually obtainable firearm.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Haven't read the dissent yet, but finished the affirmation reading...

    The Justices site (see below) that the arguement you are referring to could be made, but because those weapons are not common to the general public and would not be brought from home by a militia member, that they are no longer common weapons.

    I find it slightly suspect thatthe Justices would use that arguement in that the reason those firearms are uncommon is that many states specifically prohibit automatic weapons. I suppose they could site (probably) low ownership percentages where it is legal to have a automatic weapon with a Class 3 license, but even in that instance the extremely high cost of the Class 3 license itself is prohibitive...
    "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful

    in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be

    banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely

    detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,

    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second

    Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens

    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of

    lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia

    duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as

    effective as militias in the 18th century, would require

    sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at

    large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small

    arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and

    tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited

    the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the

    protected right cannot change our interpretation of the

    right."


  13. #13
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    It may also open the door to compell shall issue CPL's in all states.
    I have to disagree on this. The opinion states multiple times that DC must issue a license to carry a pistol in the home not outside of the home.
    It will certainly be a strong basis for attacking "May Issue" CPLs as they are pretty much only "enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner".

    What sucks is the decision apparently clearly rules out incorporation, so if your state constitution does not protect the right to bear arms, you might go from "may issue" to "no issue at all".

    As far as that is concerned, glad I'm in Washington.

    --



  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    arms_libertas wrote:
    Haven't read the dissent yet, but finished the affirmation reading...

    The Justices site (see below) that the arguement you are referring to could be made, but because those weapons are not common to the general public and would not be brought from home by a militia member, that they are no longer common weapons.

    I find it slightly suspect thatthe Justices would use that arguement in that the reason those firearms are uncommon is that many states specifically prohibit automatic weapons. I suppose they could site (probably) low ownership percentages where it is legal to have a automatic weapon with a Class 3 license, but even in that instance the extremely high cost of the Class 3 license itself is prohibitive...
    It's circular reasoning. There are only about 165,000 registered MGs in a nation in which there are approximately 2.1 million total guns. Therefore, they are uncommon. However, they are uncommon because of the Hughes Amendment, which capped NFA registry of machine guns. So, they're uncommon because they're banned, and they're banned because they're uncommon.

    As far as changing it though, the best we'll probably see is subcategorization of "machine gun" into"submachine guns", "automatic rifles", and "machine guns". The first two categories, if new ones were allowed, would become as popular as their neutered counterparts inthe "assault weapons" category; ARs, AK, MP5s, Uzis, etc etc. If owners of those weapons could have bought the full-auto version for a similar cost (it actually costs more in most cases to make the semi-auto version), I would bet money that 80% or more would have done exactly that. LMGs in the class of the M60 or M249, as well as heavier emplaced MGs, would be rare even if freely allowed. Evenin countries like Israel and Switzerland where the carry of automatic weapons is encouraged, you're not gonna see many guys with an M60 strapped to their back. As such, the last category of light/heavy machine guns would probably remain banned as they are "dangerous AND uncommon" as the opinion notes in describing regulations that would stand up to review.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    It may also open the door to compell shall issue CPL's in all states.
    I have to disagree on this. The opinion states multiple times that DC must issue a license to carry a pistol in the home not outside of the home.
    It will certainly be a strong basis for attacking "May Issue" CPLs as they are pretty much only "enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner".

    What sucks is the decision apparently clearly rules out incorporation, so if your state constitution does not protect the right to bear arms, you might go from "may issue" to "no issue at all".

    As far as that is concerned, glad I'm in Washington.
    That is exactly the way i am reading it and thinking some states might swing. They will have to allow for carry inside the home but certainly not outside the home. Unless that statement of carrying in case of confrontation could be construed as a confrontation anywhere.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    arms_libertas wrote:
    Haven't read the dissent yet, but finished the affirmation reading...

    The Justices site (see below) that the arguement you are referring to could be made, but because those weapons are not common to the general public and would not be brought from home by a militia member, that they are no longer common weapons.

    I find it slightly suspect thatthe Justices would use that arguement in that the reason those firearms are uncommon is that many states specifically prohibit automatic weapons. I suppose they could site (probably) low ownership percentages where it is legal to have a automatic weapon with a Class 3 license, but even in that instance the extremely high cost of the Class 3 license itself is prohibitive...
    "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful

    in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be

    banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely

    detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,

    the conception of the militia at the time of the Second

    Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens

    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of

    lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia

    duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as

    effective as militias in the 18th century, would require

    sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at

    large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small

    arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and

    tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited

    the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the

    protected right cannot change our interpretation of the

    right."

    I just read that part, and I would actually make the argument that between what you've quoted, and the part I've quoted, it could be used to make that argument.

    The ONLY part I see which does might counter that argument is this:

    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
    to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
    permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi-
    nary military equipment” could mean that only those
    weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
    startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
    the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
    (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
    machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
    that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
    be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
    when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
    expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
    and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
    179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
    men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
    purposes like self-defense. “
    Specifically, “[O]rdinarily
    when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
    expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
    and of the kind in common use at the time.”

    But I think the argument could be made that the sole reason these arms are not common anymore is because of the NFA itself, and subsequent bans based on the NFA. I mean a 10,000 dollar pre-86 M4...come on. The only reason we can't own them is because of the high cost of ownership, due to artificially inflated prices. That doesn't mean they're uncommon to the time, since they're standard issue for our military.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    They may not be uncommon at this time but unfortunately they are uncommon for normal citizens to possess them.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    Fenty responds(5:12), sounds like another challenge afoot, but I'm still reading the opinion.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    I'm in the middle of reading this opinion, in it's entirety, and half-way through it, ok 1/3rd, I find this gem:

    Miller did not hold that and
    cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment
    in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge
    two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregis-
    tered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in
    violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is
    entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the
    Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defen-
    dants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes”
    but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that
    the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second
    Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence
    tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-
    barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable rela-
    tionship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu-
    lated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
    guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instru-
    ment.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,”
    the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that
    this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equip-
    ment or that its use could contribute to the common de-
    fense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no expla-
    nation of the content of the right.
    I read this with great interest. US v. Miller was a case in which Miller was found to have been lawfully convicted of carrying a short barreled shotgun. It appears that Scalia believes the SBS was not protected under the 2nd, because it's military purpose could not be established.

    The way I read that opinion, then, is that any firearm which has a military purpose does fall under the 2nd. Being as M-4's and M-16's are the current standard issue firearm for our armed service, that would mean they fall under the 2nd and are thus an individually obtainable firearm.
    Your interpretation doesn't wash as they left the NFA in place so no auto weapons allowed.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    The incorporation issue could not have been addressed in this case. This was not a case involving a state thus had the court made a statement about incorporation, it would have been in dicta and would no be binding.

    What is interesting, is that the court did not announce what level of scrutiny would be used to evaluate their constitutionality. Even under this decision, "rational basis review" would lead to many restrictive gun laws being upheld. "Strict Scrutiny" would lead to many of them being struck down.

    Scalia mentions some of these things in a footnote and seems to be asking for more litigation.

    The NRA filed suit seeking to strike down the Chicago gun ban 15 minutes after the decision was announced.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Btw, a recent Washington State Supreme Court decision already identifies the Second Amendment as an individual right and incorporated a few years ago.

    The next cases will probably focus on two main issues:

    Incorporation and 18USC922(o).

    Incorporation against the Chicago and area villages handgun bans. Incorporation against the New York Sullivan Act, which charges outrageous fees for handgun ownership, and bans open carry and makes concealed carry a may-issue license, challenges against Maryland's license to carry statute since open carry is only allowed with may-issue licensing, same with NJ, MA etc etc etc.

    922(o) may be challengeable, and possibly our own state's machine gun ban could get tossed too on challenge.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    I'm in the middle of reading this opinion, in it's entirety, and half-way through it, ok 1/3rd, I find this gem:

    Miller did not hold that and
    cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment
    in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge
    two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregis-
    tered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in
    violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is
    entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the
    Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defen-
    dants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes”
    but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that
    the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second
    Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence
    tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-
    barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable rela-
    tionship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu-
    lated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
    guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instru-
    ment.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,”
    the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that
    this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equip-
    ment or that its use could contribute to the common de-
    fense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no expla-
    nation of the content of the right.
    I read this with great interest. US v. Miller was a case in which Miller was found to have been lawfully convicted of carrying a short barreled shotgun. It appears that Scalia believes the SBS was not protected under the 2nd, because it's military purpose could not be established.

    The way I read that opinion, then, is that any firearm which has a military purpose does fall under the 2nd. Being as M-4's and M-16's are the current standard issue firearm for our armed service, that would mean they fall under the 2nd and are thus an individually obtainable firearm.
    Your interpretation doesn't wash as they left the NFA in place so no auto weapons allowed.
    Since the NFA doesn't outlaw full auto, no, my interpretation does wash. It's the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act passed in 1986 that outlaws full auto.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    DC mayor Fenty is an idiot. "Semi automatic handguns continue to be banned in the District of Columbia".

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Lonnie,

    The incorporation issue is one that would have to be decided by the US Supreme Ct. At this point, it has yet to be incorporated. However, incorporation is extremely likely now. The 14th Amendment incorporates "fundamental rights". It was possible to argue that the right to keep and bear was not fundamental while no statement as to whether the right was individual or collective had been made. A collective right might not be fundamental. After Heller, the opponents of incorporation would have to argue that while the right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as an individual right and was included in the second amendment (before such fundamental things as search and seizure), but is not "fundamental". THis arguement is not likely to succeed.

    Another interesting question is what the ACLU will do. The ACLU has not advocated for gun owners because they held the positio that this was a collective right. Essentially not a civil right. Go to their site on gun rights. THis decision changes that. It will be interesting to see if the ACLU changes its tune or wiggles out of the issue.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Stevens, Washington, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact."

    Liberals had long argued that the language of the Second Amendment only allows individuals to own guns if they are part of a standing militia! Our equivalent to a militia would probably be the National Guard, even though that force has been Federalized.

    While this ruling is very gratifying, we should not think that our right to own guns is now forever safe from government intrusion, for two powerful reasons:

    1) The American Government will soon recognize that United Nations laws and treaties supercede the laws and treaties of individual nations -- including the United States. Therefore, the time will soon be upon us when our guns will be taken away by U.N. mandate.

    2) The next planned terrorist attack will be used as the excuse by which either the President or the FEMA chief will announce that our entire current government is immediately dissolved, including the Constitution!

    That is the Illuminati Plan for all nations whose citizens are now electing their leaders. Once the World War III designed to produce the Masonic Christ gets underway, planned terror attacks will occur all over the world. In each nation, the ruler will announce that, until the forces of terror are vanquished, the present government must be abolished.

    When Antichrist arises, there will be no freely elected government in existence; all free governments will have been overthrown and replaced by an absolute dictatorship. Our Founding Fathers recognized that no dictatorship could take hold as long as the individual citizens were guaranteed a right to own as many guns as he wanted.

    At this point, this heady Constitutional victory for Gun Owners will be rendered moot. But, for now, we can rejoice at this vitory!

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
  •