Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Why are you happy with the Heller vs DC ruling?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    For those of you who by now have had time to read the ruling...

    Exactly what are you so happy about?

    Ruling that the 2A is an Individual Right is indeed long over due, but the rest of the decision is utter insanity.

    To say they are talking out of the sides of their mouth is putting it mildly.

    Lets rehash what the USSC said:

    Pros-
    1- Individual Right to RKBA.
    2- Struck down trigger locks, BUT only because the wording was too vague, could also list as a con

    Cons-
    Government can-
    1- Register firearms
    2- License gun owners
    3- Regulate and/or ban certain types of weapons and abilities:
    3a- hi capacity magazines
    3b- assault weapons
    3c- full auto
    3d- other features such as barrel length and action types (such as semi auto)
    4- regulate the carry of firearms outside of the house
    5- regulate mere possession (unloaded) outside of home
    6- only said the 2A was for hunting and self defense ONLY, contradictory the wording of the 2A
    and the biggest yet, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE WORDING OF THE 2A "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    Look closer and you'll find more, but these are the most glaring.

    So please, explain to me how the USSC didn't just slap gun owners in the face paying nothing but mere lip service to the Constitution and BOR?

    For those who've forgotten registration leads to confiscation, ALWAYS!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure the ruling paved the way for many new laws.

    It was the absence of a ruling that was leaving a paved way for many new laws.

    Local, state, and federal law-makers always knew they had a good chance of a gun law being enforceable as long as they played the steady take-an-inch game and didn't violate the popular will too much, or got some sort of popular agreement; so they just went ahead andmade all sorts of gun laws that wouldn't have stood a chance 100 yrs ago.

    Don't forget, the anti-s have never needed an excuse to make gun laws.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    It was a narrow question in front of the court. And we had a 5-4 split. Like it or not, there are certain politics involved with the court. I still strongly suspect that the 4 constitutionalists went as far as they could without alienating Kennedy. I think the groundwork is laid for future victories. I further think that if we can get one more constitutionalist judge on SCOTUS we will have the makings for a preservation of our rights for numerous generations to come.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    I think that some are reading to much into the opinion.

    While the Majority Opinion did state that regulations may be imposed on who and where firearms my be carried, it did not rule on any specific ones that are in place at the moment.

    Also, they did not rule on licensing, as Heller did not ask for relief in that aspect.

    I think that now that the right to bear arms is affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL right, we are going to see parallel arguments made in the lower courts.

    For example, free speech in public parks and open carry in public parks... If one has the right to speak in public, a fundamental individual right protected by the 1st Amendment, then one has a fundamental right to open carry in the park, protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    Or, the government can require permits to have demonstartions in a public location, but it must impose the requirements equally on all who see the permit, and the requirements can not be overly burdensome. So, the parellel arguement is that if government wants to have licensing requirements on carry, then it must establish equal and clear requirements, and the requirements may not be beyond what the average, common citizen could meet.


  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Well, it sets a precedent for challenging other laws on the basis of the second amendment. I agree that it also had a lot of ugly and contradictory remarks (like saying you can't ban a whole class of weapons, but banning all machineguns is okay.)

    The courtin this case did allow for a wide variety of regulation to still exist, but these were already recognized. Over time we will be able to show I think, that restrictions such as on the carry of arms is also unconstitutional per the second amendment.

    The hope at least, is to start at the top and work are way down.




  6. #6
    Regular Member Snoopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Salt Lake, Utah, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    I am happy with the decision because it took ammunition (pun intended) out of the hands of the antis. Namely, that only a militia could bear arms. How many times over just the last few years have we heard over and over again that arguement. And how many laws were crafted with that as the foundation.

    I am not so sure that the ruling limits it only to the home. Heller wanted the right to secure his home, thus the basis of the decision. I think that SCOTUS is almost begging at some points for others to bring other cases before them that would allow them to further define the issue. We can only wait and see on this point.

    Am I happy, yes. Content and satisfied...no. I want more, but given the background of the case, I am amazed we got as much information as we did. As many others have said, this is only the opening salvo of a long battle to win back our unfairly taken right.

  7. #7
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    I'm only happy because of articles like this. I love watching the antis squirm.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I haven't made it through the entire ruling yet, however, my understanding is that it does affirm the appellate decision. That I have read in it's entirety. Doesn't the affirmation bring other broader protections set out in the appellate ruling into the SCOTUS decision making it broader than just the decision itself?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Most of the objections that many have are found in dicta, i.e., the parts of the opinion not directly addressing the specifics of the case, and thus, are not binding. Some may incorrectly attempt to argue otherwise. Hence, we must continue to be vigilant. No matter how positive theCourt's opinion would be, the antis were not going to just give up. As for us, our cause is just andis worth fighting for, if not for you, then foryour kids.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Prometheus wrote:
    For those of you who by now have had time to read the ruling...

    Exactly what are you so happy about?

    Ruling that the 2A is an Individual Right is indeed long over due, but the rest of the decision is utter insanity.

    To say they are talking out of the sides of their mouth is putting it mildly.

    Lets rehash what the USSC said:

    Pros-
    1- Individual Right to RKBA.
    2- Struck down trigger locks, BUT only because the wording was too vague, could also list as a con

    Cons-
    Government can-
    1- Register firearms
    2- License gun owners
    3- Regulate and/or ban certain types of weapons and abilities:
    3a- hi capacity magazines
    3b- assault weapons
    3c- full auto
    3d- other features such as barrel length and action types (such as semi auto)
    4- regulate the carry of firearms outside of the house
    5- regulate mere possession (unloaded) outside of home
    6- only said the 2A was for hunting and self defense ONLY, contradictory the wording of the 2A
    and the biggest yet, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE WORDING OF THE 2A "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    Look closer and you'll find more, but these are the most glaring.

    So please, explain to me how the USSC didn't just slap gun owners in the face paying nothing but mere lip service to the Constitution and BOR?

    For those who've forgotten registration leads to confiscation, ALWAYS!
    Barely any of that is true. The Court said nothing about carrying outside of the house (it wasn't an issue in the case). That will be decided in a future case. Also, magazine restrictions probably won't stand up to scrutiny either.

    We have way more than we had before. This is a huge victory.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    OK! We have the right to own firearms as "individuals". Nothing was Really gained or lost in the decision. Now the ? is.What kind of arms?Where can they be carried? This case has not really solved anything. OK, It's a "right".What else? Again we are at the whim of whoever is in control at the time. Anotherruling can undo what has been "done" at any time. But at least (for now) we can defend our homes. But I am not always at home! Chances are, I'd have to defend myself out and about, more than "my home". So we are back to square one!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    In addition to my last post. Heller agreed he needs a license/permit. Legally he has forfeited his "right". Excepting that the "government" of his jurisdiction can "regulate" his "right". It was a win win for the libs.Scalia would not have had Kennedy on his side if the decision was in favor of the 2nd in it's true meaning. Any lawyer would have a heyday with this in court. If we as Americans except we need a licence to exercise a "right" we have forfeited that right. Read up on the law and jurisprudent. It is all part of legal precedents. Why would you except a licence for a "right"? The cops and lawers will have a heyday with this. Mark my words!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    murphy2 wrote:
    Nothing was Really gained or lost in the decision.
    No, we gained a US Supreme Court precedent stating that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

    We have never had such a precedent before, so this is a huge gain, and it will be a great tool for leverage in future legal battles.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    It's going to work wonders in California and the 9th Circus' Jurisdiction!!! I see loaded open carry in less then 5 years and nullification of Ca's defacto Simi-auto AR/AK ban.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    murphy2 wrote:
    So we are back to square one!
    No. To have the highest court in the land rule that the 2A is an individual right is huge. As Justice Scalia said, writing for the majority, this case represents this Court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment and that one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.


    Importantly, future nominees to the Supreme Court should be carefully screened by the Senate to make sure that the nominee not only understands, but agreesthat the 2A is an indivdual right.





  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    I'm happy you all arehappy. But the decision could have been as simple as "shall not be infringed" Scalia and the rest could of said, well that pretty much sums it up. The government can't "infringe" no ifs, ands or buts. Supreme court decisions are not final (even though there suppose to be). If they where people wouldn'tfear " the next justice" over turning Roe V.Wade. I'm not changing the subject,just using a popular case to make a point. But youall are right! It is a step in the right direction. I'd say it's just a toe hold on a steep cliff. The post regarding senators choosing the right "next justice". I wouldn't lay any money down. There is nothing in the decision that says they can't tax, regulate. Some lawyer will even say, Yes they can have arms, but there isno rightof ammo. Weak, I know, but watch what will come of this in the future. It will be interesting to see the legal geniuses at work.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    I would like to add. Check out the DC. police chief memo post.What I have said is already started. Sorry folks!

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Yeah but you gotta realize that it's the best they could do with the judges that are on the panel now. 4 of the judges were AGAINST the Individual right, and sought to take it from us. Were there to be a provision about how all gun laws are unconstitutional (and I think they are) then they probably would not have won the case.

    Believe me, we mostly all feel like you do, but at this point in time, a win is a win. And a win on this level is nothing but good news. All of the other things will come in due time, they simply weren't in the scope of this particular trial.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    murphy2 wrote:
    I'm happy you all arehappy. But the decision could have been as simple as "shall not be infringed" Scalia and the rest could of said, well that pretty much sums it up. The government can't "infringe" no ifs, ands or buts. Supreme court decisions are not final (even though there suppose to be). If they where people wouldn'tfear " the next justice" over turning Roe V.Wade. I'm not changing the subject,just using a popular case to make a point. But youall are right! It is a step in the right direction. I'd say it's just a toe hold on a steep cliff. The post regarding senators choosing the right "next justice". I wouldn't lay any money down. There is nothing in the decision that says they can't tax, regulate. Some lawyer will even say, Yes they can have arms, but there isno rightof ammo. Weak, I know, but watch what will come of this in the future. It will be interesting to see the legal geniuses at work.
    Well, he could have, but Kennedy would probably have recanted his vote and it would have become a dissent.

    SC decisions are not irreversible, but the number of timesthe court has completely reversed an earlier decisioncan be counted on the fingers of one hand, for sure. The most famous would of course be Plessy v Ferguson (upholding Jim Crow segregation with the "seperate but equal" doctrine), overturned by Brown v Board of Education (which stated that "seperate is not and cannot be equal"). I would say the precedent stated here, that the 2A is in the same class of rights as the other 7 enumerated rights in the Bill, will stand until this country falls.

    Roe v Wade is a battleground because it stated in very broad terms that the State has no business in a woman's uterus, opening the floodgates for any abortion to be performed, any time, at any age, with or without any parent's or guardian's permission. They then said "wait a minute, let's clarify" and like any other right, they specified that some restrictions to that right were necessary to provide for the public welfare. Thus, restrictions on abortions for minors were held constitutional, as were late-term and other types of abortions that were risky, particularly gruesome, and unnecessary as the baby could survive on its own.

    The court has done nothing more or less than apply the same logic to the 2A. However, in trying to avoid another Roe v Wade that would be a virtual broadsword to large swaths of the U.S. Code and the laws of every State, they decided to rule narrowly. By doing so, they maximize the chances that a future Court will not overturn the basic tenets of the decision as being too broad in scope, make the fewest waves in the legal community (can you imagine the legal confusion over what would and would not be enforceable given a ruling of "'shall not be infringed' means exactly that"?) and still leave open other questions not addressed. The fact that we are debating whether Heller would or would not support further challenges to gun rights is EXACTLY what the decision was crafted to do. We're not debating what we can do now, we're debating what to do next.

    I think that's brilliant. Before you flame me for that statement, compare a broad Heller ruling to similar actions by top administration. The fed increases or decreases the Prime Rate by quarter-points; a half-point change has been documented, but that's considered drastic. If the Fed increased the rate by 5 points tomorrow to battle inflation, the currency market would be in complete chaos. No one knows what that would do, and it's likely to go badly as investors are skittish, so when something unexpected happens it generally triggers a dump.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    DopaVash wrote:
    Yeah but you gotta realize that it's the best they could do with the judges that are on the panel now. 4 of the judges were AGAINST the Individual right, and sought to take it from us. Were there to be a provision about how all gun laws are unconstitutional (and I think they are) then they probably would not have won the case.

    Believe me, we mostly all feel like you do, but at this point in time, a win is a win. And a win on this level is nothing but good news. All of the other things will come in due time, they simply weren't in the scope of this particular trial.
    That is the general reality, IMO.

    Like it or not, SCOTUS has several justices that are more about politics and policy than the constitution. If the 4 most constitutional justices had just gone with a "shall not be infringed" ruling, I expect they would have lost Kennedy to the other side and we would have had the 2A essentially invalidated and overturned. That would have been a horrid situation and could have created a great constitutional crisis.

    Most commentators, much more learned than I on the issue, expected generally what we got, that being an affirmation of the 2A as an individual right and a narrow ruling as to the DC gun ban. While we on this side of the table hoped for more, many of us did not expect more.

    I'm still waiting to hear a learned legal analysis of the final sentence of the majority opinion, "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals" and how that will effect things. The Appeals decision was pretty darn broad.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Your right.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrote:
    I'm only happy because of articles like this. I love watching the antis squirm.
    Arg! the ignorance in the readers comments is astounding and the hypocrisy sickening:

    '...before more rights and peoples safety are violated ' - and stripping people of the right to defend themselves is GOOD for their safety and protects their constituionally recognized rights?

    'the far right' - excuse me? Way to stereotype this gun owner and all others

    'handguns cause violence' - haha. will the gun hating hoplophobes ever realize that a gun is incapable of causing a damn thing? Humans are actors and moral agents with a will of their own and the rational ability to analyze and act accordingly... not piles of metal or plastic

    I really wanted to comment but apparntly commenting is closed :-/

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=07-290

    More Second Amendment cases Saturday, June 28th, 2008 8:20 am | Lyle Denniston The National Rifle Association on Friday began its courthouse campaign to extend the Second Amendment in order to restrict gun control laws in San Francisco, Chicago and three Chicago suburbs. As noted in a press release, the Association sought in all five lawsuits to have the Second Amendment incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, so that it would apply other than to the federal government. The lawsuits followed by one day the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), declaring an individual right to have a gun in a home for self-defense.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gauging Interest In The Guns Case Friday, June 27th, 2008 3:04 pm | Jason Harrow Yesterday spawned a level of intense online interest in a Supreme Court decision like we at SCOTUSblog have never seen before. We thought we’d let you know a few of our statistics just to give you an idea of how significant this decision was.
    Hits. In five and a half years, we’ve never had more than 100,000 hits on SCOTUSblog. Yesterday, though, we had our first 100,000 hit day. And then our first 200,000 hit and 300,000 hit day. By the end of the day, we had over 370,000 hits, and 240,000 nominally “unique” visitors (though, as Tom mentioned, that’s an imperfect count because it counts repeatedly the many people whose computers don’t accept cookies). We’re still amazed that our servers held up.

    The ENTIRE SCOTUS DECISION, verbatum, official transcript, is available here:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf

    157 pages. It's absorbing reading, complex, incisive. I would suggest READING the full opinion, the notes, citations, etc. and then move on to discussion forums such as this one.

    As noted above, Heller opens the doors to a flood of litigation. NRA has begun the process the day after the decision. Heller is the tipping point that establishes a legal foundation for further litigation.






Posting Permissions

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