Supreme Court

[JThompson]

Heller is affirmed - meaning the SCOTUS upheld the lower court's decision tossing DC's gun ban.

YES!!!

"Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm."

Edited June 26, 2008 by JThompson

[XD Niner]

Yippee!! 5-4 as expected but a true win for all gun owners. I'm waiting on more detailed information now.

Edited June 26, 2008 by XD Niner

[vluc]

One majority, two dissenting opinions, no plurality and no concurrences.

[JThompson]

One majority, two dissenting opinions, no plurality and no concurrences.

HOT DAMN!!!!

Eat that you gun grabb'n biatches.

Edited June 26, 2008 by JThompson

[davidwiz]

No plurality opinions, which means the ruling should be fairly clear. There are 2 dissenting opinions.

[warpspeed]

Now, let's see what happens..........

[davidwiz]

I hope Brian's server doesn't crash from this post.

[vluc]

Not meant to be political - Should be interesting to hear what some have to say now!

Edited June 26, 2008 by vluc

[JThompson]

I hope Brian's server doesn't crash from this post.

I think the live blog crashed... right after the did a pop-poll. Not to smart to do that with the amount of traffic the must have..............

[Darianis]

one stupid law down several million more to go, But it is finally heading in the right direction again!

[davidwiz]

I hope Brian's server doesn't crash from this post.

I think the live blog crashed... right after the did a pop-poll. Not to smart to do that with the amount of traffic the must have..............

They turned off the comments to try to prevent the crashing of their server. An alternate way to view the live blog is at http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?optio...code=39aaa9e4d2

[davidwiz]

The Heller opinion is available here. %^&* me. It is 157 pages.

Edited June 26, 2008 by davidwiz

[outerlimits]

when i started this post last november, i just had this feeling...

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

gonna start drinking early.

[vluc]

Decision posted http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up...8/06/07-290.pdf

[vluc]

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

[JThompson]

Reading... it's too long to post here, but I dropped it on my server in case the site goes down. If it does I will post a link for anyone needs it.

JT

[Jman]

That was close! To close.

Just..... great news......finally!!!

Jim

[davidwiz]

On page 50 of the opinion, the majority slams those who were misreading the holding in the US v Miller case.

[vluc]

Part of the opinion (page 9)

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people”

in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble

(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people”

will choose members of the House), and the Tenth

Amendment (providing that those powers not given the

Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the

people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”

acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or

reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the

Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer

to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution

that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously

refers to all members of the political community, not an

unspecified subset.

[davidwiz]

Pg 54 of the opinion, "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."

[davidwiz]

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) submitted a brief in opposition, saying that handguns aren't good for self defense, are too dangerous, etc.. Pg. 57 of the opinion make mincemeat of all of VPC's arguments.

[Catfish]

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.

Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

b. The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically

capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists

feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing

army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress

power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear

arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Pp. 22–28.

c. The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing

rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious

interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the

late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any

manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed

weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment

or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those

“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition

of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban

on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an

entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the

lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny

the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense

of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional

muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument

that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily

and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy

his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment

rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and

must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64

edited to fix emoticons that popped up.....

Edited June 26, 2008 by Catfish

[ChuckS]

[lmccrock]

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?

Lee

[davidwiz]

Last paragraph of the majority opinion:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of

constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. 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. 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. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered."

So, a total ban on possession of a handgun in one's home is verboten. I think that there will be litigation challenging Chicago's and NYC's gun control laws, and I would expect there to be challenges to various AW bans.