5-4

UNTflyer · June 26, 2008

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District's firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

The gist of the ruling: Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Edited June 26, 2008 by UNTflyer

untbowler · June 26, 2008

maybe there is some sense with the idiots at the Supreme Court after their last 2 ATTACKS against the US Society. <_<

Green P1 · June 26, 2008

Gotta love Texas. A couple of weeks ago I tagged along with my dad to the Ft. Worth Gun Show. My dad's a trapshooter on Texas' national champion team and was looking to find a trader for one of his shotguns. I went basically as a favor, so my dad wouldn't have to go alone, and ended up buying a little Walther PPK (James Bond's gun.) Pops and I are going to get our CCL's in July. I really have no desire to carry a handgun, but I like the idea of knowing I could.

Cerebus · June 26, 2008

maybe there is some sense with the idiots at the Supreme Court after their last 2 ATTACKS against the US Society.

Wait, I thought you were AGAINST activist judges? Or just the judges that where active against your causes?

The opinion can be found here.

Some Excerpts:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“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.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “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.”

The good (IMHO): Second Amendment is an individual right.

The bad (IMHO): Opinion left open whether it applies to the states.

The ugly (IMHO): 5-4, there is going to be A LOT of litigation to come.

UNTflyer · June 26, 2008

Wait, I thought you were AGAINST activist judges? Or just the judges that where active against your causes?

Activist judges are those who create law magically where none existed before. This ruling struck down a law that violated the 2nd amendment. I think there is a bit of a difference. But I agree that if you don't like activist judges, you have to oppose them no matter which way on the political spectrum they rule.

What I do find interesting is that today's ruling stated the right to keep arms was for self-defense and hunting, but ignored what the Founders argued as a very important reason - to allow the People to exercise their right to revolution.

Cerebus · June 26, 2008

Activist judges are those who create law magically where none existed before. This ruling struck down a law that violated the 2nd amendment. I think there is a bit of a difference. But I agree that if you don't like activist judges, you have to oppose them no matter which way on the political spectrum they rule.

It's not that clear cut. There was already a supreme court decision that stated that the second amendment was in fact quite militia related. US vs. Miller (1939). It's what the majority of gun law advocates use a the base of their arguments.

What this court has done is cut the legs out from precedent.

If you read the dissenting opinion, you can see that Judge Stevens go so far as to flat out state that the majority was engaging in judicial activism. And if you go by the standards most people who rail against judicial activism use, then yes, it is pretty easy to paint this as judicial activism.

untbowler · June 26, 2008

Wait, I thought you were AGAINST activist judges? Or just the judges that where active against your causes?
The opinion can be found here.
Some Excerpts:
The good (IMHO): Second Amendment is an individual right.
The bad (IMHO): Opinion left open whether it applies to the states.
The ugly (IMHO): 5-4, there is going to be A LOT of litigation to come.

What a great country we live in that allows everyone to express their opinions. I have mine and you have yours. America is great.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 26, 2008

What a great country we live in that allows everyone to express their opinions. I have mine and you have yours. America is great.

Amen to that!

Still yearning for FB to start, though

Cerebus · June 26, 2008

Still yearning for FB to start, though

We're waiting for a Supreme Court ruling. Darrell Dickey has challenged the constitutionality of the forward pass.

Scalia thinks he has a case.

Quoner · June 26, 2008

Amen to that!
Still yearning for FB to start, though

Dude, Facebook has been up for years now.

You should get an account and we can superpoke and play scrabulous all night.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 26, 2008

Dude, Facebook has been up for years now.
You should get an account and we can superpoke and play scrabulous all night.

Tell me more about this "superpoke".

Texas Stranger · July 3, 2008

We're waiting for a Supreme Court ruling. Darrell Dickey has challenged the constitutionality of the forward pass.
Scalia thinks he has a case.

You must realize by now that Scalia is insignificant, as is Stevens, Ginsburg, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Souter, and even the Chief himself. Kennedy's opinion is the only one that matters. If Obama wins and selects Stevens' and Ginsburg's eventual replacements, it will remain this way for many years to come.