Supreme Court

[Duane Thomas]

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.

Y'know, I don't really think this is a concern. Considering how often the Supreme Court considers Second Amendment cases (70 years since the last one) and that any new decision would have to pass muster to even make it to the SC, and that it would then be up against this decision of today....honestly, I think this is it for our lifetimes.

[Duane Thomas]

And I happen to believe that Second Amendment does relate to the keeping of a militia.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the land disagrees with you.

And I happen to believe that this is now going to open the doors to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed – assault weapons bans, trigger locks, and all the rest of it.

Oh, you are so right.

[rubberneck]

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.

Y'know, I don't really think this is a concern. Considering how often the Supreme Court considers Second Amendment cases (70 years since the last one) and that any new decision would have to pass muster to even make it to the SC, and that it would then be up against this decision of today....honestly, I think this is it for our lifetimes.

With respect, today's decision was very limited in scope. There will be a boat load of cases in the next few years that will have to codify what is and isn't permissible based on the Heller finding. A shift in the majority for instance may find a court unwilling to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th. A new majority may find that it is reasonable to restrict all semi-auto handguns as long as revolvers are permitted.

In his decision Scalia said explicitly that there is too much ground to cover in one single decision and that additional suits will be needed to flesh out the entire meaning of the second amendment. We need a favorable court during that process or this ruling is next to useless.

[Genghis]

Exceptions to the Heller Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

Here is a quick summary of what the Heller opinion does, and what it does not do. You can read the full opinion here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf

What it does cover: P. 64: '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. '

Note that most or all of the items below are dicta. That means that since they are not an essential part of the Heller ruling, they are not part of the official holding.

Machine guns/NFA Weapons: Scalia's discussion on p. 52 indicates that the NFA is probably valid. Heller's holding is limited to 'weapons ordinarily possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.' On p. 55 he also says, 'We also recognize another important limitation on theright 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.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”'

Can the States violate 2A? Probably not, at least if Scalia writes the opinion. On p. 53 he says, 'For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States.' This implies that we now know that the Bill of Rights (including 2A) does apply to the states. Indeed, some of Scalia's opinion provides examples of where individuals and non-governmental groups were bound by 2A.

Felons, Mentally Ill: On p. 54 he says, 'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill . . .'

Prohibited places, Brady Bill, FFL's: [P. 54, same sentence continues] ' . . . 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.'

Pistols: P. 57: 'Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation [handguns] to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.'

Safe Storage laws: P. 60: 'Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.' But this portion will have to be read in conjunction with the Court's overturning of that portion of the DC law that required guns to be inoperable or to have a trigger lock attached.

Licenses: 'P. 59: 'We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a licensewill satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.'

Other Loose Ends: P. 63: '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.'

Edited June 26, 2008 by Genghis

[Duane Thomas]

With respect, today's decision was very limited in scope. There will be a boat load of cases in the next few years that will have to codify what is and isn't permissible based on the Heller finding. A shift in the majority for instance may find a court unwilling to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th. A new majority may find that it is reasonable to restrict all semi-auto handguns as long as revolvers are permitted.

In his decision Scalia said explicitly that there is too much ground to cover in one single decision and that additional suits will be needed to flesh out the entire meaning of the second amendment. We need a favorable court during that process or this ruling is next to useless.

Thanks for educating me.

[Jasonub]

dont know if this was posted already

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_...DYEUl9sdHADMQ--

WASHINGTON - John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.

ADVERTISEMENT

The hotly contentious issue surfaced in the presidential campaign Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns and struck down the 32-year-old D.C. ban.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.

Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.

Both presidential candidates endorse an individual's right to bear arms. But they strongly differ beyond that. McCain has had a mostly conservative record on the issue; Obama, a mostly liberal record.

Other than a few departures, McCain is largely in line with the National Rifle Association's hardline support for gun rights. He voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil damage suits. But he broke with the NRA to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and has taken heat for pushing through campaign finance legislation that gun-rights advocates say muzzled their free speech.

Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business Network that he's been consistent.

The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.

"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke, nodding and saying, "Right, right."

"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.

Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.

The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."

In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.

The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.

[Flexmoney]

We are getting into politics. This thread was only open here as a news outlet.

CLOSED.

[ima45dv8]

The moderating team has agreed to reopen this thread (a not-too-common occurence) because we recognize how important this issue to *all* of us. I cleaned out a sizable load of political carp that doesn't belong here. All along, the intent of having this open at all was for sharing information related to this landmark case. It is not meant as a place to engage in all the political rhetoric that comes (naturally) to mind.

Exercise some restraint, check the political rants at the door, and let's keep it on track. I wouldn't want to bet on it getting reopened again.

Thanks...

[SA Friday]

With respect, today's decision was very limited in scope. There will be a boat load of cases in the next few years that will have to codify what is and isn't permissible based on the Heller finding. A shift in the majority for instance may find a court unwilling to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th. A new majority may find that it is reasonable to restrict all semi-auto handguns as long as revolvers are permitted.

In his decision Scalia said explicitly that there is too much ground to cover in one single decision and that additional suits will be needed to flesh out the entire meaning of the second amendment. We need a favorable court during that process or this ruling is next to useless.

Thanks for educating me.

I would also add to this that SCOTUS taking on a 2nd Amendment case is a huge shift in previous decisions to not get involved. Historically, after SCOTUS has taken on a subject, they continue to hear on the issue, for example Roe vs Wade. Considering the comment about the 1st Amendment's scrutiny being determined by court cases "baggage" being sorted out along the way, I would suspect many more gun cases will be heard to sort out the overall scrutiny of what is and what is not acceptible in future laws.

The most excellent part of all of this is that the emphasis for all cases that hit the courts now will have to be on NOT infringing on the individual rights. Before it was never established that the individual citizen had any position in the matter. So essentially, the level of scrutiny on gun laws from the individual citizen's perspective has already gone higher than we have ever had before.

Edited June 27, 2008 by SA Friday

[markcic]

THanks for reopending the thread.

This Wikipedia article has a good summary of the entire case and excellent footnotes with all the details.

[JFlowers]

Some of the more interesting articles about the Heller Decision have been the negative ones. Not just the anti-gunner ones (some of which are well written bu must are just rants... the Bloomburg article though is scary), but negative ones from pro-gun sources. Some have just been whining that the decision was not the huge "get it all at once" win, but some have expressed well thought out concerns. One of the biggest concerns is the ability of the pro-gun establishment to pick and chose the next case. Yes, the SAF have filed a lawsuit against Chicago and I am sure that if the SAF, the NRA, the Cato Institute and all can work together they can present a brillant case. But what the authors of some articles have been worried about is a defense lawyer with an unsavory client using this decision as a lynchpin of their defense and the next case getting attention from the higher courts and the media being one that ends up hurting us.

[raz-0]

Ohh goody, hopefully this takes us on our way to incorporation.

[warpspeed]

Thanks to Mod team. I think that we will being using it to update the news from all over on how this landmark decision will be applied.

I will do my part to behave

[ysued]

Thanks Mods, we need to keep informed of this and many other related items to the Heller Decision.

Y

[JKSNIPER]

Thanks to the moderators for re-opening the discussion.

Guys it was a 5-4 decision.

Not exactly 100%.....4 of these black robed "judges" were going to vote to strip us of our individual rights without batting an eye.

If you doubt this read the quote below from Justice Stevens:

"The majority would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a

choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate

civilian uses of weapons."

The struggle to keep and bear arms (Or is it keep and arm bears....I get so confused) goes on.

Join the NRA and encourage all you know to do the same.

Life member here and my son is also a member.

JK

[chp5]

My source for this is an email newsletter from http://www.topglock.com/

Action Alert: Washington DC Already Planning To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights

The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:

From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM

Subject: Supreme Court Update

Residents,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:

a. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.

b. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. [WTF?]

c. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

Edited June 28, 2008 by chp5

[warpspeed]

b. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. [WTF?]

DC has another law that says you cannot have a machinegun. I believe that their definition of a machinegun includes semi-auto pistols including 1911 pattern guns. I'll see if I can find the reference.

From the SCOTUS Blog -

"D.C. outlaws any self-loading rifle or handgun for which there exists a magazine holding more than 12 rounds."

Edited June 28, 2008 by warpspeed

[davidwiz]

For me, one overlooked aspect of the Heller decision is that the Supreme Court did not address, at all, the issue of whether Heller had standing to challenge DC's gun ban, not even in dicta. (It could be that Washington D.C. did not challenge Heller's standing in its appeal to the Supreme Court) The DC Court of Appeals' opinion dealt with it extensively (as did the lower circuit court), ultimately finding that Heller did in fact have standing, under Article III of the Constitution. The DC Appellate Court found that the other five plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge DC's gun ban. It will be interesting to see if subsequent courts deal with a plaintiff's standing to challenge a gun control law.

Also interesting is that the Supreme Court did not address why it had the authority to hear the case, i.e., how the 2nd Amendment was applicable to Washington D.C. (which is neither a state nor part of the US Gov't.)

[davidwiz]

b. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. [WTF?]

DC has another law that says you cannot have a machinegun. I believe that their definition of a machinegun includes semi-auto pistols including 1911 pattern guns. I'll see if I can find the reference.

From the SCOTUS Blog -

"D.C. outlaws any self-loading rifle or handgun for which there exists a magazine holding more than 12 rounds."

As discussed above, I doubt that DC's ban on semi-auto pistols will survive court challenge, based on the holding in Heller.

[itento]

Action Alert: Washington DC Already Planning To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens 2nd Amendment Rights

The following is a memo sent to Washington, DC residents by Cathy Lanier, Washington, DC Chief of Police:

From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM

Subject: Supreme Court Update

Residents,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:

a. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.

b. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. [WTF?]

c. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

I find it interesting that you can't possess a handgun in D.C. until its registered (can't bring it into the city) but once it's registered, you can't transport to the one place it would be legal to possess it (the home).

[driver8M3]

very cool/informative interview with robert levy:

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-a...?podcast_id=673

(it echos a lot of what our forum lawyers have already explained in this thread)

[Ron]

For me, one overlooked aspect of the Heller decision is that the Supreme Court did not address, at all, the issue of whether Heller had standing to challenge DC's gun ban, not even in dicta. (It could be that Washington D.C. did not challenge Heller's standing in its appeal to the Supreme Court) The DC Court of Appeals' opinion dealt with it extensively (as did the lower circuit court), ultimately finding that Heller did in fact have standing, under Article III of the Constitution. The DC Appellate Court found that the other five plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge DC's gun ban. It will be interesting to see if subsequent courts deal with a plaintiff's standing to challenge a gun control law.

Also interesting is that the Supreme Court did not address why it had the authority to hear the case, i.e., how the 2nd Amendment was applicable to Washington D.C. (which is neither a state nor part of the US Gov't.)

"Heller, 66 a one-time security officer, was one of six plaintiffs orginally recruited to challenge the law, and the only one whom lower court judges deemed to have the legal standing necessary to proceed." www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/42260.html

[Carlos]

In the wake of Heller, I want to thank all those who stepped up to provide what I see as excellent analysis and discussion of the court's decision, and I apologize for dropping the ball, but as many of you know, we have had our hands full with the birth of our first child on the 24th (2 days prior to Heller).

When the effects of sleep deprivation begin to wear off, I'll try to take a closer look at D.C.'s proposed "regulations" - including:

-their absurd definition of most semi-auto handguns as "machineguns" (I don't make this stuff up - the D.C. code really is that screwy) and,

-whether that portion of the code will withstand a challenge under Heller.

BTW - if anyone wants to question Chief Lanier by phone during a live TV show called "Ask the Chief", she is scheduled to go on D.C.'s "News Channel 8" at 10 AM Monday (tomorrow).

[JThompson]

DC residents start applying for gun permits

By BRIAN WESTLEY – 22 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban was the first to arrive Thursday as the city began registering firearms.

But security guard Dick Heller was turned away from police headquarters because he didn't bring his weapon as required.

Thursday marked the first day that District of Columbia residents could begin registering or applying for handguns since the Supreme Court struck down one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Heller complained, however, that city officials were still making it difficult to register his firearm and exercise his constitutional right to bear arms.

"I've been rejected again," said Heller, who sued the city after his application for a handgun license was rejected in 2003.

The Supreme Court ruled June 26 that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have guns for self-defense. Since then, city officials have moved quickly to abide by the decision. Under emergency legislation passed this week by the D.C. Council, residents may keep handguns only for self defense — at home unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks.

A weapon can be readied for use only if there's the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm." The law also bans weapons broadly defined as machine guns that can fire 12 rounds or more, which rules out most semiautomatic handguns.

Dane von Breichenruchardt, a gun advocate and adviser to Heller, said further legal challenges are likely because city officials continue to insist on such stringent regulations.

"They think they're above the Supreme Court," he said, echoing other gun rights advocates.

Von Breichenruchardt, the president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, said that as long as the city continues to outlaw most semiautomatic firearms, Heller likely will be prohibited from registering his weapon of choice — a .45-caliber Colt pistol. Heller said he'd return Friday to register a different weapon.

Residents who kept handguns in their home illegally while the ban was in place are being given six months of amnesty to legally register their weapons. They, and residents who stored handguns outside the city during the ban, must bring their weapons to police headquarters so officers can make sure the firearms meet city regulations, officials said.

Gun owners can only register one weapon in the first 90 days.

"We're trying to accommodate people," Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said. "This isn't a gotcha program."

Besides Heller, about 60 residents showed up at police headquarters Thursday — mostly to pick up applications for firearms.

They were directed to a counter just inside the building's entrance, where three officers handed out packets that included a questionnaire asking whether the applicant had been convicted of a crime or committed to a mental hospital.

Anthony Hamilton, who lives in southeast Washington, was among those who showed up. He said he wanted a gun to keep his wife and 12-year-old daughter safe. He said he was already considering his options, and hoped to spend about $300 on a handgun.

"I'm not going to pass up the opportunity to protect my family," he said.

Hamilton, who has lived in the city all of his 35 years, said he has not had any problems with violence, but added: "You never know when someone is going to kick the door in."

Jordan Schwartz, a 23-year-old law student, said he felt safe but wanted to register a gun to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

"It's an extremely momentous day," Schwartz said.

[Miranda]

I want this thread to stay open. So I will leave a lot out of my post

the District of Colunbia is expecting another 30 plus years to pass before

the SCOTUS rules against them again?

I find D.C.'s response puzzling in both new laws and attitude about the SC ruling.

miranda