Supreme Court

[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

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.

The fact that those issues are so deeply rooted in our minds does not abrogate the rule against political discussions on these forums. We have allowed the discussion of this particular topic on the basis that discourse would be limited in scope. The exploration of the various negative ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling does not belong here.

-ld

[Jim Rusert]

"... 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

A rewrite would involve "The People".

Us.

I seriously doubt that we could do a better job now than our the Framers did 200+ years ago. Today's decision is an illustration of how the Court is supposed to work in the design that Thomas Jefferson and the others envisioned. God Bless the U.S.A.

[outerlimits]

i'll go out on a limb here, but i suspect the word "Heller" will be an institution in our memories as much as 12/7 and 9/11.

[racerba]

i'll go out on a limb here, but i suspect the word "Heller" will be an institution in our memories as much as 12/7 and 9/11.

6/26

[Carmoney]

I met and shook hands with Justice Scalia a few years ago. I considered it an honor at the time, and it feels even more so today! This is truly a great day.

[davidwiz]

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.

The Constitution regulates government behavior, not private organizations. There is no way you can sue a private organization for violating your rights under the Constitution, unless such private organization was acting on behalf of the state.

[markcic]

Nice summation here.

... sport-utility guns ....[/i]

Sport utility guns.

[davidwiz]

VPC's press release:

Supreme Court Ruling Overturning DC Handgun Ban Should Allow Ban on Semiautomatic Handguns to Stand

Washington, DC--Following today’s 5-4 Supreme Court opinion authored by 2007 Sport Shooting Ambassador Award winner Antonin Scalia (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarma...r_b_109367.html for more info) overturning Washington, DC’s handgun ban, but apparently allowing for the retention of the law’s ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiautomatic handguns (see background information after statement), Violence Policy Center (VPC) Legislative Director Kristen Rand states:

“Today’s opinion turns legal logic and common sense on its head. As measured in gun death and injury, handguns are our nation’s most lethal category of firearm: accounting for the vast majority of the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year. Handguns are our nation’s leading murder and suicide tool. Yet the majority opinion offers the greatest offender the strongest legal protection. It’s analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case.

“In its ruling, the Court has ignored our nation’s history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia. Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District's ban on "machine guns," Washington, DC’s ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected.”

The ruling comes one day after a Kentucky factory worker killed five co-workers with a handgun before taking his own life. For a copy of the amicus brief submitted by the VPC in the case, please see http://www.vpc.org/hellerbrief.pdf.

Background Information

The Court’s ruling today does not appear to affect the District’s ban on “machine guns,” which under DC law includes any gun “which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.” This definition would include virtually all semiautomatic handguns. As a result, the District’s ban can remain in force for those types of handguns, commonly known as pistols. In essence, the Court’s ruling for the most part will only affect revolvers and derringers.

Semiautomatic guns fire one shot per trigger pull, have greater ammunition capacity, and can be quickly and easily reloaded. They are the weapon of choice in mass shootings and police killings, and are the most common type of handgun manufactured in America, representing 73 percent of the 1,403,329 handguns manufactured in the United States in 2006 (the last year for which figures are available). In contrast, revolvers hold only five to six ammunition rounds, fire more slowly, take time to reload, and represent only 27 percent of the handguns manufactured in 2006.

This is apparently what the DC Mayor is relying upon, DC's "machine gun" ban in order to say that DC can still ban semi-auto handguns. In any event, I would suspect that if DC tries to ban semi-auto handguns from people's homes, expect a lawsuit to be filed.

[davidwiz]

Considering the Majority opinion stated, “weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” are OK, I would dare say that semi-auto handguns would be covered too and that DC can't ban the possession of them in the home.

There are several unanswered questions after Heller:

(1) Is the 2nd Amendment applicable to the States?

(2) If yes to #1, what kind of firearms are covered under the 2nd? Just revolvers? All handguns? All rifles? All shotguns? Is there is right to concealed carry?

(3) What is the Standard of Review? The Majority opinion suggests that it is something more than the "rational basis" test.

[el pres]

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

Thats right, so the original appeals ruleing stands as precedence also? If thats the case then we are good because that

Judge was defenitely a shooter . That was a really well writen opinon that covered a lot of bases. That man deserves a

handskake at the least..

[Vlad]

This is apparently what the DC Mayor is relying upon, DC's "machine gun" ban in order to say that DC can still ban semi-auto handguns. In any event, I would suspect that if DC tries to ban semi-auto handguns from people's homes, expect a lawsuit to be filed.

Well seeing how the SCOTUS proabably refers to federal standards and wordings for such things I would expect that to be a non starter.

Can Scalia issue a warrant for contempt of court? They are judges after all. That'd be funny.

[austinkroe]

Thats right, so the original appeals ruleing stands as precedence also? If thats the case then we are good because that

Judge was defenitely a shooter . That was a really well writen opinon that covered a lot of bases. That man deserves a

handskake at the least..

I believe (since Carlos is too busy with the kid to comment) that the lower court ruling only stands for the ruling and not the opinion authored. Other courts are bound by what SCOTUS says and not by the lower court. As such, the writing of Scalia is law and not what the appeals court wrote. However, the appeals court opinion can be considered as persuasive law in other cases but other circuits will not be bound by what is said in the opinion.

[Genghis]

I believe (since Carlos is too busy with the kid to comment) that the lower court ruling only stands for the ruling and not the opinion authored. Other courts are bound by what SCOTUS says and not by the lower court. As such, the writing of Scalia is law and not what the appeals court wrote. However, the appeals court opinion can be considered as persuasive law in other cases but other circuits will not be bound by what is said in the opinion.

I've seen a few other opinions where the court says in essence, 'We agree with the opinion of the lower court and adopt it in its entirety.' Heller affirms the lower court's ruling but doesn't specifically adopt its reasoning.

[rubberneck]

If I ever run into Alan Gura or Dick Heller drinks and dinner are on me.

[raz-0]

Well, gee, it sounds like we have a proper fight on our hands now.

Time to start fighting it.

Chicago's budget is kind of screwed right now, think we can help make that worse with a nice big lawsuit?

From what others have posted some definitions of machine guns could use some overhauling as well.

I'm curious about all the AWBs though. The weapons are distinctly different form military designs, definitely in common use, and usable for self-defense.

I don't think the .50 BMG bans are in much danger though, and I've gotta wonder where magazine capacity bans would fit in the legal context this ruling establishes.

Concealled carry didn't get much help at all beyond the court affirming a right to self defense.

[davidwiz]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) press release:

“I must admit as much as I knew this decision was coming, I was viscerally affected by the decision.

I remember both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect stare decisis and precedent – and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent.

I guess I didn’t really think that they would do this. I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety.

I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who has lost a youngster that I mentored who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found. I speak as somebody who authored assault weapons legislation, who believes that it was working when it was allowed to expire. I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate.

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

Unbelievably, this decision also strikes down the DC trigger lock requirement, which simply ensures that the gun won’t be used by someone who steals it, or finds it, or doesn’t own it.

I think this is a monumental decision. I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us about their respect for precedent.

To the ranking member, I listened as you talked about Super precedent, and everybody nodded their head and agreed with it.

And with this decision, seventy years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”

[davidwiz]

I believe (since Carlos is too busy with the kid to comment) that the lower court ruling only stands for the ruling and not the opinion authored. Other courts are bound by what SCOTUS says and not by the lower court. As such, the writing of Scalia is law and not what the appeals court wrote. However, the appeals court opinion can be considered as persuasive law in other cases but other circuits will not be bound by what is said in the opinion.

The US Supreme Court affirmed the holding in the lower appellate court, meaning it is good law. The Supreme Court didn't address several issues that the appellate court did, such as did Heller have standing to challenge DC's gun ban. However, since the US Supreme Court opinion did not address whether it is applicable to the states, there needs to be more litigation to decide whether the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment.

[racerba]

Concealled carry didn't get much help at all beyond the court affirming a right to self defense.

Since the ruling states that the individual has the right to own guns for self defense, I don't see why concealed carry cannot be incorporated in this self defense. Of course, private entities, like a mall or wally world, can ban concealed carry on their premises.

[el pres]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) press release:

“I must admit as much as I knew this decision was coming, I was viscerally affected by the decision.

I remember both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect stare decisis and precedent – and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent.

I guess I didn’t really think that they would do this. I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety.

I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who has lost a youngster that I mentored who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found. I speak as somebody who authored assault weapons legislation, who believes that it was working when it was allowed to expire. I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate.

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

Unbelievably, this decision also strikes down the DC trigger lock requirement, which simply ensures that the gun won’t be used by someone who steals it, or finds it, or doesn’t own it.

I think this is a monumental decision. I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us about their respect for precedent.

To the ranking member, I listened as you talked about Super precedent, and everybody nodded their head and agreed with it.

And with this decision, seventy years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”

Ohhhh. I could say something about her 70 years but "then" this thread would be closed..

Carry on, Carry on

[driver8M3]

However, since the US Supreme Court opinion did not address whether it is applicable to the states, there needs to be more litigation to decide whether the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment.

i'm not a lawyer, and clearly i'm missing something in your question...

so, a question for you...who did the 2nd amendment apply to prior to 1868 (when the 14th amendment was ratified).

why do you think that question (your question above) is still unanswered? throughout the oral arguments and the majority decision (i havent read the dissents), the phrase "the people" is used, and even defined. in addition, there were multiple references to other amendments that use "people" or "the people." why would you think that heller would only apply to "the people" of DC?

if tomorrow PA passed a law exactly like DC's law, don't you think it would be (eventually) overturned based on the heller precedent? couldnt you win such a case with pee wee herman as your lawyer?

[rubberneck]

However, since the US Supreme Court opinion did not address whether it is applicable to the states, there needs to be more litigation to decide whether the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment.

i'm not a lawyer, and clearly i'm missing something in your question...

so, a question for you...who did the 2nd amendment apply to prior to 1868 (when the 14th amendment was ratified).

why do you think that question (your question above) is still unanswered? throughout the oral arguments and the majority decision (i havent read the dissents), the phrase "the people" is used, and even defined. in addition, there were multiple references to other amendments that use "people" or "the people." why would you think that heller would only apply to "the people" of DC?

if tomorrow PA passed a law exactly like DC's law, don't you think it would be (eventually) overturned based on the heller precedent? couldnt you win such a case with pee wee herman as your lawyer?

Because the Bill of Rights only placed limits on the Federal Government. That has changed over they years as the Supreme Court has incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights to the States under the 14th Amendment. Sadly the Court has never incorporated the Second Amendment to the States. As noted in a footnote the Court has explicitly declined to do so on two different occassions since the ratification of the 14th amendment.

As it stands today the States are not bound by the 2nd Amendment, and since this case was brought by a resident of the District of Columbia, a Federal District, todays decision only applied to the laws in DC. It doesn't take a genius to see where this is headed if the court ever hears a case involving a state law but until the court address the states specifically it is a moot point. Scalia hinted that such a suit would find a favorable majority if it were to get that far, but since that legal question was beyond the scope of the case in front of him he could not address it. Well he could but then he would be a Judicial activist like Justice Breyer and Ginsburg and we all know how Scalia feels about them.

[davidwiz]

However, since the US Supreme Court opinion did not address whether it is applicable to the states, there needs to be more litigation to decide whether the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment.

i'm not a lawyer, and clearly i'm missing something in your question...

so, a question for you...who did the 2nd amendment apply to prior to 1868 (when the 14th amendment was ratified).

Only the US federal government. The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. There are a few of the Bill of Rights that haven't: the 3rd, 5th (concerning right to indictment by a grand jury), 7th, and the 8th.

why do you think that question (your question above) is still unanswered? throughout the oral arguments and the majority decision (i havent read the dissents), the phrase "the people" is used, and even defined. in addition, there were multiple references to other amendments that use "people" or "the people." why would you think that heller would only apply to "the people" of DC?

Because the question wasn't one to be decided by Heller. In other words, it wasn't before the court. Anything dealing with incorporation is considered obiter dictum, and not binding precedent.

if tomorrow PA passed a law exactly like DC's law, don't you think it would be (eventually) overturned based on the heller precedent? couldnt you win such a case with pee wee herman as your lawyer?

Yes. Concerning Pee Wee Herman as your attorney - Not necessarily, b/c you would still have to argue (1) that the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th Amendment, (2) that you had standing to bring suit, among other things.

[RobMoore]

I think the answer to many of these questions is contained in the downloadable Court Opinion, written by Justice Scalia.

It is worth reading.

[davidwiz]

Here are some other press releases relating to Heller:

US Dept. of Justice

US Conference of Mayors

National Network to End Domestic Violence

Freedom States Alliance

CATO Institute

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

American Public Health Association

[racerba]

Chicago has been sued

here