Heller Decision discussion thread

[IUGradStudent]

The decision didn't (unfortunately, but it wasn't part of the issue at hand) address what kind of regulations a state can place upon the ownership and carrying of weapons. Of course, originally the entire bill of rights was just about limiting what the federal government (not the state governments) can do. Like Episcopus said, though, most of those rights have been "incorporated" to apply not only to the feds, but also to the state. Scalia didn't say whether this right is protected against the states. The only thing the opinion said about it is footnote 23:

23 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.

That seems to say that the Cruikshank case (1875) said that the 2A was only about federal powers, a view which was reaffirmed in Presser (1886) and Miller (1894). Of course, none of that matters in 2008 since all the incorporation stuff happened in the 20th century.

I have a feeling there are gonna be suits against Chicago before the day is done

 

[bwframe]

All the more reason to be careful in our voting.. to make sure the next president will appoint conservative justices.. and the next congress will approve those appointments..

Absolutely true. One Judge different and we'd be deciding if we were gonna give up our guns, hide them, or be preparing to fight with them.

Hopefully this will be wake up call to any of us thinking of voting for anybody but McCain.

 

[Dogman]

for the good guys thats us by the way.

 

[IUGradStudent]

Here's another 2A law expert saying state and local laws are going to have to be tried in later cases: http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_22-2008_06_28.shtml#1214490319

 

[Cactus Jack]

G-d Bless America!!!!

 

[NateIU10]

Here's another 2A law expert saying state and local laws are going to have to be tried in later cases: The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Absolutely.

The NRA has/will file suits by the end of the day in Chicago, Chicago suburbs, San Francisco, etc. to get the ball rolling.

 

[Episcopus]

"The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codi-
fied in a written Constitution." Opinion page 26.

That really kills the main anti- argument, doesn't it? Sounds exactly like what most of us reasonable folk have been getting laughed at for saying.

 

[CarmelHP]

But since this case represents this
Court’s first examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us.

Scalia is inviting a swarm of cases to expand the scope. I love it. Get those briefs ready boys, we're going to battle.

 

[4sarge]

CNN's Take

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Watch different views on guns in America »

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

iReport.com: What's your reaction to the ruling?

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

See poll results »

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.
Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.
In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.

"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.
Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or disassembled.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Smoke em if you got em! (Lets out huge sigh of relief). I am going to commemorate this momentous occasion with an Avatar change soon!

 

[heartless]

take not just he words of the 2ND Amendment to mind but the words of the men who founded it. Every one should look at all these "QUOTES" every one else has... most of them are from our founding fathers the men who wrote our 2nd amendment. is there any doubt after reading there words and writings that they meant ALL PEOPLE have the rights to bare arms... ? the real fear is the true meaning.

the 2nd Amendment was put inplace so that we the people have the right and the power to change our goverment by force. if they fail to live up to the standards set by the constitution. basically to keep the goverment "honest". we have more armed citizens then we have soldiers in all of or millitary.... do you think that is by chance or posibly by design?

 

[nighthawk80]

cbs2chicago.com - Gun Rights Ruling May Change Chicago Law

More good news?

I mean about The NRA is already filing lawsuits agains Chicago and others.

 

[Episcopus]

is there any doubt after reading there words and writings that they meant ALL PEOPLE have the rights to bare arms... ?

If we are going to take everything they said at exactly face value then yes. Unless you define "all people" the way they did. White, male landowners. No women, no indians, no blacks, just white, male landowners.

But I do get your message. There never should have been this much debate about the meaning. It has always been clear to anyone that wanted it to be clear to them. It takes effort and determination to interpet the 2nd in a way other than the correct way.

 

[Hop]

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Hey Feinstein, 200+ years of precedence presides over 70!!!

 

[JetGirl]

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Hey Feinstein, 200+ years of precedence presides over 70!!!

Here's another peach:

"Daley said any effort to strike down Chicago's handgun ban would likely increase taxes because of the increased need for police presence. He also says violence sparked by the end of the ban would also increase hospitalizations. "It is frightening that America loves guns,..."

 

[Electronrider]

Well, I finished reading the ENTIRE writing, and all I can saw is WOW. They really did hit this one perfect. They affirmed that it is an individual right, affirmed that there should be reasonable restrictions ( insane, felons, etc.), and most importantly, affirmed that is our constitutional right to be able to defend ourselves and our property. They didn't try to say all guns were legal, but they made dam sure that everyone understands that there will be no removal of weapons from our citizens.

I believe that we should have some restrictions, and am very glad that they didn't try to say that everyone can have guns, go have fun! It also amased me as to the amount of pre-constitional documentation they used in arguing the individual right.

As hoosiers, we should be proud that we are mentioned on about page 34 of the descision, as one of the states that CLEARLY said we have an individual right to firearms. All of ya raise a toast to Indiana's founding fathers, they had it right from the beginning!

 

[Scutter01]

Well, I finished reading the ENTIRE writing, and all I can saw is WOW. They really did hit this one perfect.

I wouldn't say it was perfect. For example, they said "felons" and not "violent felons". There are a number of instances where a simple felony conviction should not disqualify you.

It also said that concealed carrying can be restricted or denied.

The circular logic of NFA guns is a little baffling, too.

The decision addressed specifically carrying inside the home.

All in all, a good day, but pretty far from "perfect", IMHO.

 

[Episcopus]

Here's another peach:

"Daley said any effort to strike down Chicago's handgun ban would likely increase taxes because of the increased need for police presence. He also says violence sparked by the end of the ban would also increase hospitalizations. "It is frightening that America loves guns,..."

Obviously, it will be like the wild west. Minor traffic altercations will turn into shootouts. Disagreements will turn into shootouts. The streets will run red with blood. :rolleyesedit:

It's the same thing antis say everytime the discussion of removing handgun restrictions from somewhere comes up. Those of us capable of looking at facts and evidence, and not just hyperbole, know that it is likely that there will be fewer hospitalizations and less necessity of police presence on every corner. But what do we know, we are just gun-toting nutjobs, right? :do2:

 

[JetGirl]

Obviously, it will be like the wild west. Minor traffic altercations will turn into shootouts. Disagreements will turn into shootouts. The streets will run red with blood. :rolleyesedit:

Yep. Just like in Kennesaw, Georgia!

 

[Benny]

One step at a time.

Dick Heller, you're my hero!