Supreme Court

[SA Friday]

Carlos has not posted on this yet, and for good reason. I doubt he got a lot of sleep last night. I'll let him break the news to the BE consumers himself, but I will say CONGRATS Carlos.

With this ruling, begins a long road ahead.

As for me, I going to the range today and practicing some of my reaffirmed individual freedoms.

[JThompson]

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

Make it a 9 open Benny.

[38superman]

At long last we have a ruling from the highest court.

The 2nd amendment means what it says.

The right to bear arms is a right bestowed on individual citizens.

The court has restored my faith and hope for the future.

LET FREEDOM RING.

"It is so ordered".

Tls

Edited June 26, 2008 by 38superman

[Barrettone]

then I went out and fired two shots into the air.

Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Edited June 26, 2008 by Barrettone

[JThompson]

Carlos has not posted on this yet, and for good reason. I doubt he got a lot of sleep last night. I'll let him break the news to the BE consumers himself, but I will say CONGRATS Carlos.

With this ruling, begins a long road ahead.

As for me, I going to the range today and practicing some of my reaffirmed individual freedoms.

Congrats Carlos? I know he just had a baby, congrats on that btw, but what does he have to do with the ruling?

[racerba]

so on page 60:

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.

Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional?

[MikeFoley]

then I went out and fired two shots into the air.

Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

OK so I forgot to mention I used my airsoft. We do all of our live fire in the building.

[vluc]

so on page 60:

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.

Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional?

hehe...should make them think twice about trying to resurrect the AWB....

[Barrettone]

then I went out and fired two shots into the air.

Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

OK so I forgot to mention I used my airsoft. We do all of our live fire in the building.

Roger that buddy!!!

[davidwiz]

so on page 60:

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.

Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional?

Not necessarily. That issue wasn't before the court. There was dicta in the opinion that hinted that the 1934 National Firearms Act relating to machine guns is constitutional. There is also dicta in the opinion that clarifies US v Miller and that the 2nd Amendment applies to firearms that were in military use - but says that machine guns, tanks, etc. are outside the scope.

[j2fast]

so on page 60:

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.

Does this mean that any ban on any specific "type" of weapon such as the AR-15 would be unconstitutional?

To add to Racer's question does this pose any problems?

“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.”

**Could someone say the AR was specifically designed for Military use? I would think no, that the M16 and M4 were designed for MIL use and the AR is a civie specific version.

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.

**Sounds like this part would stop City's/State from not issuing licenses "just because".

[chuckbradley]

then I went out and fired two shots into the air.

Not to get off-topic, but c'mon formeister...we still need to be responsible when we celebrate...KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

I was afraid somebody may think he was serious.

What a great day!

I have to wonder how this will trickle down with other laws.

[racerba]

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.

**Sounds like this part would stop City's/State from not issuing licenses "just because".

No - because they say:

District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Edited June 26, 2008 by racerba

[shooterbenedetto]

Great news!! great news indeed!!

[9MX]

As we say here in the Philippines, Mabuhay (long live) to you guys, congratualtions on the victory!

Does this mean that the current state laws (e.g. CA laws on FA restrictions, etc) will be rendered invalid or challenged in court?

[Jack Suber]

On Fox news, the Mayor of DC just stated that Semi-auto handguns will remain illegal in DC.

[outerlimits]

perhaps the most telling line appears at page 64. "...but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the second amendment extinct".

here's to justices scalia, roberts, alito, thomas and kennedy

[j2fast]

On Fox news, the Mayor of DC just stated that Semi-auto handguns will remain illegal in DC.

So are we now going to need the SCOTUS to define "Handgun"????

[jimbob_texas]

I just got out of a meeting. Did I miss anything?

It's a great day.

Extra added bonus: trigger locks are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

jr

Edited June 26, 2008 by jimbob_texas

[EZ Bagger]

Good News. Hopefully it will lead to more good new for us down the line.

[Hank Ellis]

Dear Robert A. Levy and Dick Anthony Heller;

I owe you a sincere debt of gratitude for the work you've done for myself and other citizens of the United States. Although it's an individual choice whether to own a firearm or not, todays' ruling affirms that the right to firearm ownership and use is an individual right as I believe the framers intended.

Mr. Levy. Your untiring efforts and personal sacrifice lay the foundation for future work to restore the rights as the Framers intended. Please continue with the work from the Cato Institute.

Mr. Heller. It is a proud day when one man who believes a wrong by a government has been done, can stand in front of the highest court in the nation and plead his case. That the highest court found that indeed the government was wrong and that the wrong has been redressed is indeed a symbol of our democracy.

Gentlemen, thank you.

Till later

Hank Ellis

Edited June 26, 2008 by Hank Ellis

[mikey357]

ALRIGHT!!! GREAT NEWS!!!...coulda' been BETTER, coulda' been MUCH WORSE...TIME TO CELEBRATE....mikey357

[driver8M3]

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.

similar language is seen throughout scalia's opinion. i get the idea that scalia doesnt think much of the dissent...

“And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think…”

“In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners

and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes)

idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a

hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the

actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an

idiom)…”

“In any case, what JUSTICE STEVENS would

conclude from the deleted provision does not follow.”

“Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear

Arms” was some sort of term of art…There is nothing to this.”

“JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to the bizarre argument…”

“Contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS’ wholly unsupported assertion…”

“JUSTICE STEVENS provides no support whatever for his contrary view,”

“JUSTICE STEVENS says that the drafters of the Virginia Declaration

of Rights rejected this proposal and adopted “instead” a provision

written by George Mason stressing the importance of the militia. See

post, at 24, and n. 24. There is no evidence that the drafters regarded

the Mason proposal as a substitute for the Jefferson proposal.”

“JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the

Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state

conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to

rely on such history to interpret…”

“JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record.”

“Other than that erroneous point,

JUSTICE STEVENS has brought forward absolutely no

evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to

carry arms in a militia.”

“JUSTICE STEVENS’ view thus relies on the proposition,

unsupported by any evidence, that different people of

the founding period had vastly different conceptions of the

right to keep and bear arms. That simply does not comport

with our longstanding view that the Bill of Rights

codified venerable, widely understood liberties.”

“…STEVENS’ equating of these

sources with postenactment legislative history, a comparison

that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of a

court’s interpretive task.”

“JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper”

in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that

favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is

wrong.”

“JUSTICE STEVENS’ accusation that this is “not accurate,” post, at 39, is wrong.”

“Unfortunately for JUSTICE STEVENS’ argument, that later portion

deals with the Fourteenth Amendment; it was the

Fourteenth Amendment to which the plaintiff’s nonmembership

in the militia was relevant. Thus, JUSTICE

STEVENS’ statement that Presser “suggested that. . . nothing

in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside

the context of a militia,” post, at 40, is simply wrong.”

“Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of

JUSTICE STEVENS’ case.”

“It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more

than what it said, because the case did not even purport to

be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 42, that the opinion

reached its conclusion “[a]fter reviewing many of the same

sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court

today.” Not many, which was not entirely the Court’s fault.”

“It is demonstrably not true that, as JUSTICE STEVENS

claims, post, at 41–42, “for most of our history, the invalidity

of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms

regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.””

[ysued]

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

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Fox News!!

[dirty whiteboy]

On Fox news, the Mayor of DC just stated that Semi-auto handguns will remain illegal in DC.

They will go broke being sued!