VICTORY!!

Gray Peterson · Jun 26, 2008

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.

BigDaddy5 · Jun 26, 2008

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

heresolong · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

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

SpokaneIrish · Jun 26, 2008

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.

bayfire66 · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

[align=left]"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."[/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left]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:[/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left]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! [/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left]At this point, this heady Constitutional victory for Gun Owners will be rendered moot. But, for now, we can rejoice at this vitory! [/align]

uncoolperson · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:

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

hehe... handguns bad, but this nice lady beside me a handgun... yeah that's okay.

XD45PlusP · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Those little weasels squirmed their way out of declaring thatthe second amendment requires a "Strict Scrutiny" standard.

Bunch of CHUMPS. I am dissappointed. This "Prevents" many future approaches to challenges.

SpokaneIrish · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Keep in mind that the "strict scrutiny" issue may have been a deal breaker for an majority. This is about as good a start as we could ask for.

SpokaneIrish · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

bayfire66 wrote

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:

What is this crap. I am not sure that your religious beliefs or whether aliens built the pyramids is on point here.

John Hardin · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

SpokaneIrish wrote:

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.

Quoth Scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “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.” (48, footnote 23)

It looks unlikely to me that they will vote favorably on Incorporation unless, perhaps, that they decide things have changed since the 1890s...

I sure hope someone brings an Incorporation case. Winning one would be outstanding.

--

bayfire66 · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

SpokaneIrish wrote:

bayfire66 wrote

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:

Click to expand...

What is this crap. I am not sure that your religious beliefs or whether aliens built the pyramids is on point here.

Its not crap if you think your gun rights are safe after this decision your wrong The UN does want us to give up our rights as a whole and obama has also said he is pro UN take guns away

SpokaneIrish · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

That footnote by Scalia was advertising the fact that incorporation precedent is unclear. This was essentially highlighting the fact that this area is ripe for litigation. It is not something that the court could have reached here, but Scalia seems to be inviting such a case. THe Chicago challenge would do.

Again the argument would be that the right (which has not be recognized as individual) is not fundamental. It would be hard to argue that an individual right in the Bill of Rights is anything but fundamental.

Wheelgunner · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Finally finished the opinion, had a glass of wine to let it settle.

It is an almost total victory.

Super condensed mode:

Opinion basically says, we have a right to"Keep and Bear"a weapon (Please note not just a firearm but Arms!) in our house or as we conduct our legal business. Licensing restricted to those item such as youth, insanity, felony convictions. Full auto weapons may be protected, court will not get into that today. Concealed carry not addressed but restrictions on concealed carry cannot destroy open carry. In other words, while you might regulate concealed carry with a restriction, you cannot restrict BOTH open carry and Concealed carry, thus making the "Bear" in "keep and bear unworkable." There are two rights here, Keeping and Bearing" of Arms. Trigger Lock restrictions, gone.

Based on this, the following are clearly targets for being struck down:

1. All restrictions based on overall length, butt stock, short barrels, destructive devices based on arbitrary caliberinvolving non-area weapons:

Examples: SBR and the rifles that are pistols such as Olympic Arms AR's without a butt; 20mm cannons, stocks on pistols.

2. Sporting Purpose Restrictions ('68 Gun Control Act based on NAZI weapons law)

Example: USAS-12 shotgun was classed as a Destructive device because it had a magazine (detachable) and therefore was not a sporting weapon but an "assault shotgun" because some bureaucrat said so..

3. Full Auto restrictions

4. Silencers

5. Trigger locks and other storage restrictions

6. Most restrictions on carry laws (open or concealed) not involving government buildings or schools, such as Forest land, parks, roads, etc.

7. Travel restrictions

8. Ban on Manufacture of new Full Auto weapons (Hughes Amendment).

:celebrate

joeroket · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

Opinion basically says, we have a right to"Keep and Bear"a weapon (Please note not just a firearm but Arms!) in our house or as we conduct our legal business.

I didn't see that at all. They only stated that the gun ban that prevented people from having functional firearm in thier house for self defense was unconstitutional. They said we have the right to wear an arm in case of confrontation but did not elaborate where the confrontation was.

uncoolperson · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Wheelgunner wrote:

Opinion basically says, we have a right to"Keep and Bear"a weapon (Please note not just a firearm but Arms!) in our house or as we conduct our legal business.

Click to expand...

I didn't see that at all. They only stated that the gun ban that prevented people from having functional firearm in thier house for self defense was unconstitutional. They said we have the right to wear an arm in case of confrontation but did not elaborate where the confrontation was.

but they did say keeping them out of certain sensitive areas was still okay, which could be interpreted to mean by assumption in public is okay because that's where these areas are... or public is sensitive.

Dave Workman · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Oh for pity sakes...

Bitch Bitch Bitch..

"My glass is only half full."

What a bunch of wasted bandwidth.. The Supes just pulled the cornerstone out from under the foundation of GUN CONTROL's house of cards, left them devastated in their long-standing B.S. contention that the 2A only protected some mythical "collective right" and all some of you can do is froth that it didn't include incorporation, didn't touch on Class III weapons...

Put it another way: The Brady Campaign just got bitch-slapped.

And if anyone heard today's COMMENTATORS on KVI, they heard Schrambo really nail the lady from Washington CeaseFire on whether, after stating she believed people can own guns....she would not acknowledge that they have a civil right to own them.. She wants it to be "their choice."

This is a time to celebrate a bit, but always keep in perspective, this is the first round of a fight, the top of the first inning in a baseball game. The fat lady ain't even in the building, yet, but she has called to say she is on the way and her voice is in good shape.

Get a GRIP!

This ruling was never going to be all-encompassing and I would have thought most people had that figured out long ago. Rather disappointing that the 4 lib/activist justices just couldn't bring themselves to admit there are ten amendments in the BOR, but what did you expect?

It's a "building block" ruling upon which other cases can be raised...and incidentally, 15 minutes after the ruling this morning the SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, joined by the ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION...filed a federal lawsuit against the Chicago handgun ban.

I have no idea why Drudge is reporting this as an NRA lawsuit because it's not.

I believe on Friday, NRA and several others -- I believe including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- are going to launch another lawsuit...in California. Keep your eyes peeled.

==============

NOW the real work begins to PROTECT and DEFEND this state's solid gun laws.
That means be ready to show up in Oly in January or whenever to prevent Greg Nickels from eroding state pre-emption
That means learning who your lawmakers are and making damn sure they know who YOU are, and why.

It means maybe helping get someone else elected to the legislature in November.

Because like it or not, Scalia's ruling sets the stage for a tremendous shift in the gun rights battle, from Congress to state legislatures and even city councils.

And above all, it means not doing anything really stupid. It means working with and educating lawmakers instead of trying to intimidate them.

compmanio365 · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Oh for pity sakes...

Bitch Bitch Bitch..

"My glass is only half full."

What a bunch of wasted bandwidth.. The Supes just pulled the cornerstone out from under the foundation of GUN CONTROL's house of cards, left them devastated in their long-standing B.S. contention that the 2A only protected some mythical "collective right" and all some of you can do is froth that it didn't include incorporation, didn't touch on Class III weapons...

Put it another way: The Brady Campaign just got bitch-slapped.

And if anyone heard today's COMMENTATORS on KVI, they heard Schrambo really nail the lady from Washington CeaseFire on whether, after stating she believed people can own guns....she would not acknowledge that they have a civil right to own them.. She wants it to be "their choice."

This is a time to celebrate a bit, but always keep in perspective, this is the first round of a fight, the top of the first inning in a baseball game. The fat lady ain't even in the building, yet, but she has called to say she is on the way and her voice is in good shape.

Get a GRIP!

This ruling was never going to be all-encompassing and I would have thought most people had that figured out long ago. Rather disappointing that the 4 lib/activist justices just couldn't bring themselves to admit there are ten amendments in the BOR, but what did you expect?

It's a "building block" ruling upon which other cases can be raised...and incidentally, 15 minutes after the ruling this morning the SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, joined by the ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION...filed a federal lawsuit against the Chicago handgun ban.

I have no idea why Drudge is reporting this as an NRA lawsuit because it's not.

I believe on Friday, NRA and several others -- I believe including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- are going to launch another lawsuit...in California. Keep your eyes peeled.

==============

NOW the real work begins to PROTECT and DEFEND this state's solid gun laws.
That means be ready to show up in Oly in January or whenever to prevent Greg Nickels from eroding state pre-emption
That means learning who your lawmakers are and making damn sure they know who YOU are, and why.

It means maybe helping get someone else elected to the legislature in November.

Because like it or not, Scalia's ruling sets the stage for a tremendous shift in the gun rights battle, from Congress to state legislatures and even city councils.

And above all, it means not doing anything really stupid. It means working with and educating lawmakers instead of trying to intimidate them.

+some crazy number.......I don't think it could have gotten any better than it did.....and the amount of positive press gun owners are getting recently (Nightline, LA Times article, both on OC BTW) makes me think we are finally on the offensive in the battle to retain and reaffirm our founding father's vision on what the Second Amendment truly should be.......

Sean · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Wheelgunner wrote:

Opinion basically says, we have a right to"Keep and Bear"a weapon (Please note not just a firearm but Arms!) in our house or as we conduct our legal business.

Click to expand...

I didn't see that at all. They only stated that the gun ban that prevented people from having functional firearm in thier house for self defense was unconstitutional. They said we have the right to wear an arm in case of confrontation but did not elaborate where the confrontation was.

Start reading the opinion of the court on page 19 ...you will see it before long. The courts final conclusions at the end address the specific case brought before it...but the opinion looks very strong for us. It also talks of the "pre-existing right" that cannot be infringed.

remember...I am just an old retired sailor...not a lawyer

Wheelgunner · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

No Question about it, their back is broken.

I agree that it is not OVER, but I have never seen a more sick bunch of liberals and gun grabbers in my life. This is a complete reversal of the Clinton years.

Between the successes of the CC laws, the truth about the conduct of Firearms owners, the ineffectiveness of Gun Control laws and the moral argument of the right of self defense, this SCOTUS brief is a nice addition to the arsenal.

I am going out to Celebrate tonight. The battle is not won, but their infantry is running away and we just silenced their cannon.

And after all, what is best in life?

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES! SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU! AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN!

To all who have given money, time, effort, argument and fuel to this fight, this is a good day.

kparker · Jun 26, 2008

imported post

I'd propose this as a shorter version of/supplement to Dave Workman's bit:

We didn't get to the sorry state we're in all it once; it was by incrementalism. We're going to get out of this hole the same way. What happened today isn't the end of the road, just an important step along the way.

VICTORY!!

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member