Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: D.C. vs Heller

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to posess a handgun for personal protection in thier home. Wouldn't this allow any state that has a Castle Doctrine, to allow open carry in a vehicle with the firearm loaded. In Ohio the weapon not only has to be unloaded, the clip has to be unloaded. In effect this rendors the weapon useless for it's intended purpose of self defense, as the U.S.S.C. authorized. Sort of like you can have a burglary alarm system in your home, but it must be downpowered until you need it. Then you can power it up. Wouldn't a person be able to make a case for preemption of a U.S. court decision over the state law?.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Fehrmann69 wrote:
    It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to posess a handgun for personal protection in thier home.
    You are mistaken.

    The Heller Decision was very narrow and addressed only some of the DC regulations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_..._jurisdictions

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Fehrmann69 wrote:
    It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to posess a handgun for personal protection in thier home.
    You are mistaken.

    The Heller Decision was very narrow and addressed only some of the DC regulations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_..._jurisdictions
    This is true, however, there is no doubt, that the ruling centered around the right of the 'individual' to posess a handgun for personal protection in thier home. As you can see there are dissenting opinions to Justice Scalias' opinion, and while the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, the jury still maintains the right to nullify an unjust law, regardless of wheather put in place by the U.S.S.C. or not.
    Jeffrey M. Shaman, law professor at DePaul University, delivered a strong criticism of the majority opinion in Heller, stating that Scalia's “exposition of the Second Amendment in Heller is bad history – simplistic analysis that ignores the complexities of historical research.”[59][/suP]





    Justice Scalia's extreme version of originalism is based on the misguided belief that the original meaning of the Constitution is fixed in history and can be objectively determined by searching historical records. It is incorrect to believe that the Constitution can be interpreted simply by reference to the original understanding of the document. Blindly following the presumed meaning of constitutional provisions formulated in reaction to past conditions and attitudes that have long since changed does not, in the end, effectuate the original understanding. Nor is it very likely to be an effective means of dealing with contemporary problems. Justice Scalia's brand of originalism is dysfunctional, an instance of cultural lag whereby the meaning of the Constitution is left dormant while the world changes around it.[59][/suP]

Posting Permissions

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