Supreme Court

[Steve J]

Unfortunately, the SC left wide open the legal banning of guns by only permitting licensed owners to possess them. If a local or state government allows for licenses but refuses to issue them, they win and they're not violating the Heller decision it would seem.

ETA: But here is the real meat and potatoes

IV

We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have

said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home.

It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be

disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering

it inoperable.

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,

the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the

Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a

prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly

chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the

need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied

to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from

the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to

‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”

478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster. [...]

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible

to ban the possession of handguns so long as the

possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It

is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American

people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential

self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a

citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier

to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;

it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by

an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody

strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed

at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the

police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu-

lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the

home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

We must also address the District’s requirement (as

applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the

home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This

makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core

lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Steve J

[davidwiz]

I have not read many decisions, but in the footnote on page 9, is:

And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.

Is that kind of language common? I mean, they disagree, but do they put it QUITE that way?

No. I've never seen anything like it. Scalia must have been mighty PO'ed at Stevens.

[vluc]

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible

to ban the possession of handguns so long as the

possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It

is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American

people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential

self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a

citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier

to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;

it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by

an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody

strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed

at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the

police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu

lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the

home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

[JThompson]

"It is so ordered." Damn that raised the hair on my neck.

"Make it so."

[maineshootah]

Wow!

42 users watching this topic.. that is the most I have ever seen.

[JThompson]

Unfortunately, the SC left wide open the legal banning of guns by only permitting licensed owners to possess them. If a local or state government allows for licenses but refuses to issue them, they win and they're not violating the Heller decision it would seem.

Nope. That would be a defacto ban and would be struck down.

[CMV]

AWESOME!

[davidwiz]

I'm going to hazard a guess here, and I might be waaaay off, but I don't think the Brady Bunch are too happy today.

[chp5]

sure happy now about the ability to have appointed the last several justices. can't imagine this outcome otherwise.

What's scary is that it's a 5-4 decision. 4 of the 9 Justices apparently believe that the government has the right to disarm the populous!

That is a warning that we cannot become complacent. The Anti's will try to find the ability to regulate under Heller. Consider giving to your favorite 2d Amendment organization (e.g. the NRA).

[davidwiz]

On the incorporation issue (i.e. whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th Amendment and therefore binding upon the states) the opinion doesn't reach that issue, but reading between the lines, it strongly suggests that the 2nd Amendment is binding upon every US state.

Edited June 26, 2008 by davidwiz

[walangkatapat]

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible

to ban the possession of handguns so long as the

possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It

is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American

people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential

self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a

citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier

to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;

it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by

an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody

strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed

at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the

police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu

lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the

home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Looks like someone did their homework.

[North]

[larry cazes]

[Cactustactical]

sure happy now about the ability to have appointed the last several justices. can't imagine this outcome otherwise.

What's scary is that it's a 5-4 decision. 4 of the 9 Justices apparently believe that the government has the right to disarm the populous!

That is a warning that we cannot become complacent. The Anti's will try to find the ability to regulate under Heller. Consider giving to your favorite 2d Amendment organization (e.g. the NRA).

Thing to keep in mind here is the importance of choosing life term judges for the court. If George Bush had not been able to appoint 2 judges during his term, who knows how this vote would have turned out? I have a pretty good idea how Reinquest)sp?) would have voted, but O'Connor, who knows? She was hard to predict.

Based on this ruling, there will will probably be lawsuits in the near future that challenge other local bans and those suits might make it up the court process. A few more judges will probably die or retire during the next 4 years, I believe I know which possible president I do not want appointing judges.

[murkish]

It is a damn good day!

I hear a lot of talk about how great the SC is, but let us not forget Mr. Heller.

Thank you, Mr. Heller, for standing up and being courageous!

[JThompson]

Based on this ruling, there will will probably be lawsuits in the near future that challenge other local bans and those suits might make it up the court process. A few more judges will probably die or retire during the next 4 years, I believe I know which possible president I do not want appointing judges.

CHICAGO!

I'd like to thank the Justices who had the balls to stand up and do what the framers intended. I never had a warm fuzzy feeling for a judge before, but I think Mr. Scalia has made it to my Christmas list.

Thanks Pal

Edited June 26, 2008 by JThompson

[el pres]

Great News !!!

I was going to say something about what we should do next, what could have been better,

but let's just enjoy a win!!

Edited June 26, 2008 by DIRTY CHAMBER

[Jim Norman]

Remember, When you vote for your representatives, senators and governors or President, you are effectively electing your judges! Long after Gov X or Prez Y are retired the judges they appoint will still be there and the rulings they make will be the rules we have to live under.

I am happy today, even in the PRof NJ, we may see a light. It should make some of the proposals on the table less likely to pass.

I hope.

Well Done to the 5 on our side. and I have to admit that while I only scanned the first 40 or so pages so far, i like the style! Some really serious face slaps were handed out.

Jim

[ChrisStock]

It is a damn good day!

I hear a lot of talk about how great the SC is, but let us not forget Mr. Heller.

Thank you, Mr. Heller, for standing up and being courageous!

Indeed...one man rose up and voiced his displeasure which led to today. You have to appreciate the courage to take on D.C.

[Barrettone]

"It is so ordered." Damn that raised the hair on my neck.

"Make it so."

+1

POWERFUL STUFF!!!

[Jack Suber]

Remember, When you vote for your representatives, senators and governors or President, you are effectively electing your judges! Long after Gov X or Prez Y are retired the judges they appoint will still be there and the rulings they make will be the rules we have to live under.

I am happy today, even in the PRof NJ, we may see a light. It should make some of the proposals on the table less likely to pass.

I hope.

Well Done to the 5 on our side. and I have to admit that while I only scanned the first 40 or so pages so far, i like the style! Some really serious face slaps were handed out.

Jim

Jim,

You are absolutely correct. The next Potus will nominate 2 (maybe 3) Supreme Court Justices. What happens if the 9th court of Apeals brings this issue up again with new judges on the bench? 5-4 is good, but it is too close for me....

[JThompson]

It is a damn good day!

I hear a lot of talk about how great the SC is, but let us not forget Mr. Heller.

Thank you, Mr. Heller, for standing up and being courageous!

Indeed...one man rose up and voiced his displeasure which led to today. You have to appreciate the courage to take on D.C.

Actually several did, but I'll drink a toast to Mr. Heller today too. Sorry boys... won't be making the club match tonight, but if you want to join me for cocktails..... I'm doing some billing and then taking the afternoon off!

[MikeFoley]

Sorry to take so long to post, but 7 minutes after the AP wire, my beautiful girlfriend called and told me. Chuck and I discussed, then I went out and fired two shots into the air. Now I am back to my desk, more of a free man than an hour ago!

[benny hill]

DAMN, I'm going to build myself another gun to celebrate. As we say in texas YEE-HAWWWWWW.

[ysued]

WOO-Hoo!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: