# Heller Affirmed



## KenpoTex (Jun 26, 2008)

The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  

The opinion was released about 5 minutes ago...details to follow as they become available.

Here's a link to the live SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 26, 2008)

Woo hoo!!!!

Drinks are on me, if any of y'all are in my area!  :drinkbeer


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 26, 2008)

As I suspected, a 5-4 vote, with Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy voting correctly, to uphold the Bill of Rights.  

Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, voted against the Bill of Rights.  

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

Rumors Tuesday, were that Scalia was to deliver the court's majority decision, and when that happened, I started having that feeling of the warm fuzzies.

Had this decision been taken up a few years ago, I suspect that the decision would have been 4-5, instead, with Day-O'Connor voting against the Bill of Rights.


----------



## jkembry (Jun 26, 2008)

See...the system does work...sometimes!

They did the right thing.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 26, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> to uphold the Bill of Rights.


 
Wasn't the whole case about the part were it says "a well regulated militia". My understanding was the debate was not "whether or not to keep the Second Ammendment" but "does the Second Ammendment apply to individuals or a militia only".


----------



## allenjp (Jun 26, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
> 
> The opinion was released about 5 minutes ago...details to follow as they become available.
> 
> Here's a link to the live SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/


 
YAY!!!!! Should I re-apply for a ccw now???


----------



## Kreth (Jun 26, 2008)

I was surprised not to find a thread about this yet...


> The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control 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 restrictions intact.


Full article


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 26, 2008)

Beat me to it. (glad I checked first  ) 
This is good news of course for us gun lovers and gun-rights supporters. This snippet I think helps say it all.


> The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
> 
> Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."



Still how long before THIS is over-turned? How long before some idjit shoots someone and lawmakers go up in arms saying we need stricter enforcement and less ownership. How long before a legit gun-owner uses his firearm in defense of his home causes lawmakers and anti-gun advocates to go nuts and demand changes which would shred the Constitution even further? 

Still a red-letter day none the less. Lets hope/pray that it'll last.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 26, 2008)

Can I get a WOO-HOO?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2008)

Can anyone but the SC overturn a SC decision?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 26, 2008)

> Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."


 
Criminey, people can't even shoot a gun without talking on a cell phone.


----------



## tellner (Jun 26, 2008)

MA-Caver, there will always be people who want more restrictive gun laws. They aren't any more likely to be idjits than gunnies are. 

The decision went the right way, but it's not nearly as expansive as it might have been. The Court still said that "common sense" gun laws are acceptable. Common sense can cover just about anything less than complete prohibition. 

You will note that the last two times Scalia and Clarence "Uncle" Thomas were in the minority they railed and ranted and called the majority everything but traitors for daring to defy them. The minority in this case was civil and professional. Scalia and his hand puppet are still thugs, but they're thugs who happened to rule the right way for a change.

Restrictive States will continue to restrict, but the language they'll use will be more guarded. I'm thinking that there will be challenges to things like fees and sole law enforcement discretion for gun ownership. The argument will be similar to the ones against poll taxes and licensing journalists. 

Congress won't do anything, not now and not under a Democratic Legislature with a Democratic President. They understand that it's national political suicide. If they can't even raise their hands in a querulous voice to ask if maybe it would be OK to not go along with the Republicans even once there's no chance they'll take a risk like thing for at least ten or twenty years.

This won't mean much to anyone outside of DC and maybe Chicago for a while. It may not even make a difference to them for years. There will have to be studies and impact statements and plans for how the proles will be allowed to exercise their rights. Look for fees, very restrictive background checks, no licenses for gun dealers and so on.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 26, 2008)

tellner said:


> Clarence "Uncle" Thomas



That was ugly and unnecessary.  There are better ways to express disdain than trafficking in repulsive racial images.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 26, 2008)

I do believe that this was the correct ruling.  However, the number of high profile cases in the last few years decided by 5-4 votes along political lines is troubling.  It makes more clear the fact that what drives the Supreme Court is political beliefs as much if not more than an academic understanding of the law.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 26, 2008)

*Moderator Note:*

Two threads, Heller Affirmed and Supreme Court overturns DC gun ban, have been merged into a single thread because they both dealt with the same topic.  Because "Heller Affirmed" was posted first, they have been merged under that title.

Karen Cohn
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## tellner (Jun 26, 2008)

Ugly and unnecessary? Possibly, even probably. But Thomas is the sorriest excuse for a Supreme Court Justice in at least the last half century. He is, by his own admission, unfit to sit on the bench. I have nothing but contempt for him. It has nothing to do with his conservatism and everything to do with his stated disrespect for the Law in general and the Consitution in particular.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 26, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Can anyone but the SC overturn a SC decision?


 
Sorta. The Supreme Court is only branch that can _officialy_ overrule a Supreme Court decision (for example, Brown v Board overturned an earlier ruling that said 'seperate but equal' is ok). However, there is no law saying that D.C.s ban cann't simply be resent. Infact, the Districs Legislature could keep passing it, and keep having it denied, until the Supreme Court simply gives up, and overturns it's earlier ruling. I cannot sight an incident of that happening, but I do know that Congress/Senate does it every know and then, so it wouldn't surprise me if D.C. could too. 

And here is where things get anonnying. Only Congress/Senate can write the Law (by actually passing it), only the Court can interpirt it, and only the Executive can inforce it. Meaning, as long as the decision is simply ignored, DC could get away with that law even if the Supreme Court says they cann't. An example was during the Civil War Lincoln was taken to the Supreme Court because someone decied that his war time powers did not include taking Habeous Corpous (which Lincoln had suspended in order to allow him to inprison people for speaking out against him/the War). The Court ruled against Lincoln, but he simply ignored the decision, and kept on doing what he was doing. 

Again, I cannot sight Case Law of a non-federal branch doing this, but I imagine that the principle holds. Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the federal level Executive Branch)


----------



## cdunn (Jun 26, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Can anyone but the SC overturn a SC decision?



Yes - The Constitution is amendable - Witness the 16th Amendment. It is generally easier to wait until the court has been packed in the other direction and go for a reversal.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2008)

Actual decision:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


More on this:

* Your Rights Online: Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals *



*Posted by 	 	timothy  	on Thursday June 26, @01:37PM*
*from the founders'-rolling-speed-reduced-slightly dept.*
Now.Imperfect writes _"In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns."_ This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle. 



 *Read More...*


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 26, 2008)

Thanks to everyone for posting the updates...I had to get to sleep this morning but I knew I had to wait until the decision had been made 

From what I've heard, Wayne LaPierre (NRA) stated that the NRA will be filing lawsuits in Chicago and SF very soon.

While the decision wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination (there is plenty of room for the liberals to keep meddling), it definately beats what would have happened if it had gone the other way.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 26, 2008)

This is pretty much how I figured the ruling would come out and yes I am happy!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 26, 2008)

While I would have prefered it was 7-2 or 6-3, well 5-4 is still a win. On the bright side, the 5 judges who affirmed all signed the opinion (which means they all concurred, totaly, with the reasoning.)

Pretty weird the desenting opinion, Stevens I think, said the 'people' ment differnt things in different articles of the Bill of Rights. Talk about trying to re-write the constitution!

Now the fight has just begun. The next step will be feeling out just where ones rights end. Carry out side the house? Can simi-autos be banned? Can magazine capacity be restricted? Limit on how many you may own? Registration?

Those will be the next steps. It's going to be a long hard road. And some poor soul is going to have to be the guina pig who goes to court.

Join the NRA. We have just begun to fight!

Deaf.. NRA Endowed Member, Texas State Rifle Association Life Member.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 26, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Sorta. The Supreme Court is only branch that can _officialy_ overrule a Supreme Court decision (for example, Brown v Board overturned an earlier ruling that said 'seperate but equal' is ok). However, there is no law saying that D.C.s ban cann't simply be resent. Infact, the Districs Legislature could keep passing it, and keep having it denied, until the Supreme Court simply gives up, and overturns it's earlier ruling. I cannot sight an incident of that happening, but I do know that Congress/Senate does it every know and then, so it wouldn't surprise me if D.C. could too.


Not exactly. 





> And here is where things get anonnying. Only Congress/Senate can write the Law (by actually passing it), only the Court can interpirt it, and only the Executive can inforce it. Meaning, as long as the decision is simply ignored, DC could get away with that law even if the Supreme Court says they cann't. An example was during the Civil War Lincoln was taken to the Supreme Court because someone decied that his war time powers did not include taking Habeous Corpous (which Lincoln had suspended in order to allow him to inprison people for speaking out against him/the War). The Court ruled against Lincoln, but he simply ignored the decision, and kept on doing what he was doing.


There's a difference between a ruling and actions taken.  _Miranda_ could not stop coerced interrogations, only define the consequences at trial should a confession be found to be coerced.





> Again, I cannot sight Case Law of a non-federal branch doing this, but I imagine that the principle holds. Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the federal level Executive Branch)


There is no "higher federal authority" than the US Supreme Court in the interpretation of law.  There is no "higher federal authority" in the making of law than the Congress of the United States.  There is no "higher federal authority" in the implementation and execution of law than the Office of the President and his executive officers.  When all the branches do their job properly, this is the great strength of the United States Constitution.  There are checks and balances on what each branch can do, and in what arenas they can act.  When (as is very arguably currently the case vis a vis the Congress and the Presidency) the various branches allow another to usurp their powers... things can get messy.  I refer you to Schoolhouse Rock for a great summary of the idea... 


cdunn said:


> Yes - The Constitution is amendable - Witness the 16th Amendment. It is generally easier to wait until the court has been packed in the other direction and go for a reversal.


 
Exactly.  There are two ways that a US Supreme Court ruling may be changed.  The Court may revisit it's opinion in another case (like _Brown v The Board of Education _did), or the Constitution may be amended.  Despite today's ruling, were either the People or the Congress able to muster the political will and capital to draft an amendment reading something like "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is expressly limited to the duly constituted military and law enforcement bodies operating under the supervision of and with the authorization from the States or Federal Government respectively, and no person shall be permitted to keep or bear any firearm privately" -- today's ruling would be moot, and there'd be no private gun ownership.  (I realize that's an extreme point; I made it so intentionally.)  Or, were the amendment to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms privately shall not be infringed by the government in any way" -- then anything would go.


----------



## tellner (Jun 26, 2008)

Now that I've read through the decision I find it remarkably, hmm, uninformative. It says there's an individual right. It overturns complete bans. It overturns the particular trigger lock law. But the language about reasonable gun control gives no guidance at all. It doesn't even say "local option". It just says "this and that and the other thing are obviously the sorts of things that are alright".

It's impossible to tell what the majority meant except that they were eager to send a message. It is, however, in line with other recent decisions by the Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas lock-step block - Affirm a right in general but allow pretty much any sort of restriction in particular. It's a first step, but it's a first step that doesn't really go very far. Chicago's effective prohibition will almost certainly pass muster for instance.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 26, 2008)

tellner said:


> Now that I've read through the decision I find it remarkably, hmm, uninformative. It says there's an individual right. It overturns complete bans. It overturns the particular trigger lock law. But the language about reasonable gun control gives no guidance at all. It doesn't even say "local option". It just says "this and that and the other thing are obviously the sorts of things that are alright".
> 
> It's impossible to tell what the majority meant except that they were eager to send a message. It is, however, in line with other recent decisions by the Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas lock-step block - Affirm a right in general but allow pretty much any sort of restriction in particular. It's a first step, but it's a first step that doesn't really go very far. Chicago's effective prohibition will almost certainly pass muster for instance.


 
And that is why I say, join the NRA. We have a long long road ahead of us, but unlike the British, we do have a good road to follow.

Deaf


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 26, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> There is no "higher federal authority" than the US Supreme Court in the interpretation of law.


 
When I said "Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the Federal Level Executive Branch)" I did not mean interpriting the ruling, I mean inforcing it. And in this case (because it is a Federal District) the only ones who can _force_ DC to follow this ruling is a federal officer. Which, you may note, is what I said.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 27, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> And that is why I say, join the NRA. We have a long long road ahead of us, but unlike the British, we do have a good road to follow.
> 
> Deaf


 Yes, unlike the Brits we DO have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms......now the fight is to define that right in the most liberty loving way possible!

I've seen much pessimistic handwringing about this decision not going far enough on the part of 2nd Amendment supporters.....but the reality is that this BATTLE was an utter DEFEAT for the gun-grabbers, and they know it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 27, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> When I said "Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the Federal Level Executive Branch)" I did not mean interpriting the ruling, I mean inforcing it. And in this case (because it is a Federal District) the only ones who can _force_ DC to follow this ruling is a federal officer. Which, you may note, is what I said.


 Which basically consists of prosecuting any state or local entity who enforces an unconstitutional law criminally and/or suing them civily in federal court.  DC can't just 'ignore' this......anymore than they could ignore Miranda or Tennessee v. Garner. 

Specifically it opens the city coffers WIDE OPEN to federal lawsuit, and large sums of moneying being carried away.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 27, 2008)

Hmm.

Very happy.

Not perfect, and not finished by any means, but....


Hooah.


----------



## tellner (Jun 27, 2008)

Sanford Levinson has a well-written piece in the Huffington Post. He takes a look at the legal and internal political divisions in the Court and finds both sides badly wanting.



> the Court should remand the case back to the court below for reconsideration under a proper, somewhat looser, standard that would still have easily supported invalidating the ordinance.   Unanimous acceptance of his sensible view might have helped to diminish at least some of the culture war that has been waged now for at least four decades



and 



> If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens were a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions are what is sometimes called "law-office history," in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions.



Oh, and just in case you want your head to spin around like that girl in The Exorcist take a look at James Jacob's column.


> Proponents of gun owners' rights were called paranoid when they purported to see a gun control movement that aimed to make the U.S. gun free. However, the so-called paranoia started to look like political realism



and



> [Heller] establishes what was for so long denied, that the Bill of Rights guarantees individual Americans a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is now recognized as protecting Americans from ever being disarmed by their (federal) government.


----------

