Supreme Court

[Flatland Shooter]

On a down market day like today (the S&P 500 is down 2.23% to 1293), Smith & Wesson common stock (SWHC) is up 9% on this favorable ruling by the Justices.

Bill

[davidwiz]

Washington DC Mayor's Press Release:

News Release for Immediate Release

June 26, 2008

District Government Reacts to Heller Ruling

(Washington, DC) -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled that District of Columbia statutes banning private handgun possession at home and requiring safe storage of firearms at home violate the Second Amendment.

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.

“In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.

Fenty, Nickles and Lanier emphasized that they will continue vigorously enforcing other gun-control laws that the court did not disturb—including the law that all firearms including handguns must be properly registered with the Metropolitan Police Department—and considering other ways to lessen gun violence in the District.

“I commend the efforts of our legal team in presenting our side of this difficult and contentious issue,” said Interim Attorney General Nickles. “I will continue to direct the Office of the Attorney General to fight hard for the people of the District. While we were not successful regarding the handgun and safe storage laws, I am pleased that the court recognized that local jurisdictions like the District can adopt common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence, and that the court left intact the District’s law requiring licensing of those who would carry handguns.”

The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. 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. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.

“We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier. “At the same time, we will continue vigorously enforcing the District’s other gun-control laws and are considering other ways to protect the District’s citizens against the scourge of gun violence.”

Under its rules, the Supreme Court will not formally issue its mandate for about a month to allow the parties to file rehearing petitions. After that period passes, the court of appeals will send the case to the district court to enter an injunction, though the district court will have to decide exactly how the injunction should be phrased. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may yet take several weeks.

In the meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police Department within three weeks days will issue the text of regulations to establish a process for registering handguns, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision. MPD will make clear how those who wish to register handguns should do so and what handguns may be registered. MPD will establish an amnesty period during which residents who already own handguns that were not registered previously can register them without fear of criminal liability under District law. Registration will proceed as expeditiously as possible but may need to await lower court orders implementing the Supreme Court decision.

MPD will keep the public informed of the date on which citizens officially can begin registering handguns. Citizens with specific questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275

The second that DC enforces their new ban on semi-auto handguns, they are going to get sued, as it directly conflicts with the decision in Heller.

[JThompson]

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

Nice Hank

[davidwiz]

Brady Bunch's press release:

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”

[JThompson]

Washington DC Mayor's Press Release:

News Release for Immediate Release

June 26, 2008

District Government Reacts to Heller Ruling

(Washington, DC) -- Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled that District of Columbia statutes banning private handgun possession at home and requiring safe storage of firearms at home violate the Second Amendment.

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.

“In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.

Fenty, Nickles and Lanier emphasized that they will continue vigorously enforcing other gun-control laws that the court did not disturb—including the law that all firearms including handguns must be properly registered with the Metropolitan Police Department—and considering other ways to lessen gun violence in the District.

“I commend the efforts of our legal team in presenting our side of this difficult and contentious issue,” said Interim Attorney General Nickles. “I will continue to direct the Office of the Attorney General to fight hard for the people of the District. While we were not successful regarding the handgun and safe storage laws, I am pleased that the court recognized that local jurisdictions like the District can adopt common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence, and that the court left intact the District’s law requiring licensing of those who would carry handguns.”

The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. 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. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.

“We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier. “At the same time, we will continue vigorously enforcing the District’s other gun-control laws and are considering other ways to protect the District’s citizens against the scourge of gun violence.”

Under its rules, the Supreme Court will not formally issue its mandate for about a month to allow the parties to file rehearing petitions. After that period passes, the court of appeals will send the case to the district court to enter an injunction, though the district court will have to decide exactly how the injunction should be phrased. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may yet take several weeks.

In the meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police Department within three weeks days will issue the text of regulations to establish a process for registering handguns, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision. MPD will make clear how those who wish to register handguns should do so and what handguns may be registered. MPD will establish an amnesty period during which residents who already own handguns that were not registered previously can register them without fear of criminal liability under District law. Registration will proceed as expeditiously as possible but may need to await lower court orders implementing the Supreme Court decision.

MPD will keep the public informed of the date on which citizens officially can begin registering handguns. Citizens with specific questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275

The second that DC enforces their new ban on semi-auto handguns, they are going to get sued, as it directly conflicts with the decision in Heller.

Yes, a "total ban" on semi-autos, I think, will not stand. It a classic case of the Gov trying to loop the law before it's even dry. I think it's good that he made this statement so early after the decision was handed down... if this one ever gets kicked up that far, which I doubt, the SC would have to be perturbed at how rapid their ruling was circumvented.

[jimbob_texas]

Brady Bunch's press release:

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution. ”

Poor babies. Deprived of their gun laws. What gibberish.

[jhgtyre]

Alright, I cant keep quiet. It's already starting,"ok you can have the guns but the AW have to go,

there's no need for them". Just about everything is an AW to an anti...

I want someone to define that the 2nd is "Not" about hunting !!!

Q:What do you need those high caps and scary rifles for, it's all over the radio ?

A: To protect my self from you and your cronies, LE M4's agianst single shot shotguns is the reason...

Start buying mags and frames boys and girls !!!

This thread has remained open because of the strict adherence to the SCOTUS decision. The post I am quoting is the sort of rhetoric that will get this thread closed.

-Larry Drake

The moderating team

[JThompson]

This thread has remained open because of the strict adherence to the SCOTUS decision. The post I am quoting is the sort of rhetoric that will get this thread closed.

-Larry Drake

The moderating team

Comon Larry... at least let out a little Whopeeee! or something.

Keep the thread on track.... Yeeehaw! we have a win

[jhgtyre]

This thread has remained open because of the strict adherence to the SCOTUS decision. The post I am quoting is the sort of rhetoric that will get this thread closed.

-Larry Drake

The moderating team

Comon Larry... at least let out a little Whopeeee! or something.

Keep the thread on track.... Yeeehaw! we have a win

Whoopee is okay. Speculative discourse of a negative nature serves no purpose.

Whoop it up!

-ld

[Alan Meek]

The decision, from what I read, stated the examples "such as self defense and hunting" was not specific in that the 2nd was about hunting.

[el pres]

The decision, from what I read, stated the examples "such as self defense and hunting" was not specific in that the 2nd was about hunting.

The non owner consenses currently on the talk shows !!!

Acually it really shows that we did have a great win today because they

are obviously pissed off. I see press release after press release ....

Anyhow ..... WoooooHoooooo !!! Carry on, Carry on

Edited June 26, 2008 by DIRTY CHAMBER

[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?

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…”

<snipped a bunch>

There is also (page 19 of the pdf):

"The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter"

A trifle more, um, learned than some of the other comments. I was going to say subtle, but not really.

Lee

[Genghis]

I'm about 35 pages into the 157-page opinion (including dissents). Some initial observations:

1. We won! The Supremes (or at least five of them) decided that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.

2. Scalia wrote the opinion. He dug out a number of Supreme Court cases that touch only tangentially on 2A, or that dealt with seemingly unrelated issues, and applied their reasoning to this case, which shows he did his homework.

3. The opinion relies heavily on contemporary state constitutions, that section being reminiscent of the research of Dave Kopel and Eugene Volokh.

4. The decision was 5 to 4, with Kennedy casting the swing vote (as I predicted!). This means the upcoming presidential election is CRITICAL because the new President will probably appoint at least three replacements.

I haven't made it to the part applying the ruling to the DC law. This is a critical part of the case, because the level of scrutiny determines how many gun control laws could be overturned by this decision. Scalia did note that the decision will not invalidate concealed handgun laws, the felon-in-possession law, and the prohibition on "mental defectives" possessing guns. This means there will be significant exceptions to RKBA.

[Lee King]

Yes, a "total ban" on semi-autos, I think, will not stand. It a classic case of the Gov trying to loop the law before it's even dry. I think it's good that he made this statement so early after the decision was handed down... if this one ever gets kicked up that far, which I doubt, the SC would have to be perturbed at how rapid their ruling was circumvented.

Scalia himself also said "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns". To me it leaves the door open to regulating handguns to the point where it is impossible to meet whatever rules are imposed. 12" barrel using only blackpowder...

[dirty whiteboy]

Considering what the DC Court of appeals ruled on this case in March, I'm not too concerned about the "hunting" text! Check it out!

"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."

__________________

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia."

DC Circut court of appeals 3/09/2007

[rubberneck]

Alright, I cant keep quiet. It's already starting,"ok you can have the guns but the AW have to go,

there's no need for them". Just about everything is an AW to an anti...

I want someone to define that the 2nd is "Not" about hunting !!!

Q:What do you need those high caps and scary rifles for, it's all over the radio ?

A: To protect my self from you and your cronies, LE M4's agianst single shot shotguns is the reason...

Start buying mags and frames boys and girls !!!

The court did just that today. While it mentioned hunting it also clearly addressed the self-defense issue. As of today the 2nd amendment clearly protects your right to own a gun for self defense.

[JFlowers]

Now, I am just waiting for some aggressive young lawyer to take this ruling and start slapping the various anti-gun organizations with lawsuits for willful violation of rights. Paint them in the same corner as groups that try to stifle the ability of minority groups to exercise their rights in the 50s.

The only way we are going to win back our freedoms to dump the reactionary passive-defensive stance we have held for so long and take on a professional unified aggressive stance like our opposition has used against us for the last 70 years. Yes, I think we can learn a lot by looking at the Civil Rights movement and the tactics they used to overcome.

Chicago and San Fran, then New York. And start on some of the more imbecilic federal laws.

But for today, hoist a toast. Then tomorrow its back to never ceasing vigilence.

[ysued]

Now, I am just waiting for some aggressive young lawyer to take this ruling and start slapping the various anti-gun organizations with lawsuits for willful violation of rights. Paint them in the same corner as groups that try to stifle the ability of minority groups to exercise their rights in the 50s.

The only way we are going to win back our freedoms to dump the reactionary passive-defensive stance we have held for so long and take on a professional unified aggressive stance like our opposition has used against us for the last 70 years. Yes, I think we can learn a lot by looking at the Civil Rights movement and the tactics they used to overcome.

Chicago and San Fran, then New York. And start on some of the more imbecilic federal laws.

But for today, hoist a toast. Then tomorrow its back to never ceasing vigilence.

Those Law Suits are already drafted and they were waiting for this decision!!

You will see them, soon, very soon!!

Y

[Jack Suber]

Now, I am just waiting for some aggressive young lawyer to take this ruling and start slapping the various anti-gun organizations with lawsuits for willful violation of rights. Paint them in the same corner as groups that try to stifle the ability of minority groups to exercise their rights in the 50s.

The only way we are going to win back our freedoms to dump the reactionary passive-defensive stance we have held for so long and take on a professional unified aggressive stance like our opposition has used against us for the last 70 years. Yes, I think we can learn a lot by looking at the Civil Rights movement and the tactics they used to overcome.

Chicago and San Fran, then New York. And start on some of the more imbecilic federal laws.

But for today, hoist a toast. Then tomorrow its back to never ceasing vigilence.

Those Law Suits are already drafted and they were waiting for this decision!!

You will see them, soon, very soon!!

Y

Wayne Lapierre implied today that NRA lawyers are preparing for just that. He stated they were preparing to file suit in Chicago, San Francisco, et al.

[SLM]

This is definitely good news but I'm still not comfortable with it. I was hoping for more I guess. Something along the lines are guns are tools. You can't build a car without a wrench and you can't participate in a shooting related activity (competition, gun hunting, etc) without a gun. Oh well.

[Jack Suber]

As I reflect on the mayor's comments about the court's decision and his statments about instructing the PD to establish procedures to issue licenses for handguns, I got the sense that he was not going to address the issue of getting guns to ones house/residence.

[vluc]

Nice summation here.

I like this one comment: Then, adopting the interpretation urged by lead counsel Alan Gura is his brilliant brief for Heller, the majority opinion states: “We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” This language — along with language a few pages later implying that an automatic M-16 rifle can be banned — indicates that the federal ban on civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after 1986 is still constitutional; but a renewal of the expired federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which outlawed about 200 cosmetically incorrect sport-utility guns either by name or by generic description, might be unconstitutional.

[uscbigdawg]

Nice summation here.

I like this one comment: Then, adopting the interpretation urged by lead counsel Alan Gura is his brilliant brief for Heller, the majority opinion states: “We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” This language — along with language a few pages later implying that an automatic M-16 rifle can be banned — indicates that the federal ban on civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after 1986 is still constitutional; but a renewal of the expired federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” which outlawed about 200 cosmetically incorrect sport-utility guns either by name or by generic description, might be unconstitutional.

Interesting. Wonder if there's hope in CA yet. I know the NRA is already filing against the city of San Francisco.

Rich

[J-Ho]

Alright, I cant keep quiet. It's already starting,"ok you can have the guns but the AW have to go,

there's no need for them". Just about everything is an AW to an anti...

I want someone to define that the 2nd is "Not" about hunting !!!

Q:What do you need those high caps and scary rifles for, it's all over the radio ?

A: To protect my self from you and your cronies, LE M4's agianst single shot shotguns is the reason...

Start buying mags and frames boys and girls !!!

This thread has remained open because of the strict adherence to the SCOTUS decision. The post I am quoting is the sort of rhetoric that will get this thread closed.

-Larry Drake

The moderating team

I'm not (for once) trying to stir the pot. I think this a legitimate part of the discussion.

This is in reference to the DC court of appeals.

The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

While comments about protecting ourselves from the "man" are sometimes tongue in cheek, they are a deeply ingrained part of our history. It's the reason we have a nation of our own. The DC court of appeals added the "resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government " part unsolicited. Their decision reminded everyone of the reason for the second amendment. I think if we are having a discussion of the case we can, as long as it is civil, talk about resistance to the government. I'm not trying to inflame anything of piss anyone off. I do however think this subject should not be blown off. It is, by the court's own opinion, an integral part of the second amendment.

Mods, if I'm out of line here, please let me know. If I am, please don't close down the thread. I will, if asked, not make anymore comments on the subject.

[Crusher]

"... but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

That has to be one of the all time greats from the SC as far as "rights" and leaves no doubt into the future. Unless of course the Govt decides to re-write the Constition