Heller Decision

[molonlabetn]

Yep. That's huge... Probably won't cause any great changes, but will give gun owners a good foothold.

Anybody up for a road trip to D.C. to get a non-resident permit?

[G27]

Some really brilliant (and funny) stuff in the opinion:

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

ers and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some-

times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a

hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the

actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an

idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No

dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have

been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried

that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy

to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the

hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic mean-

ing would cause the protected right to consist of the right

to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no

commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of

the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase

“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word

“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:

“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of

“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like say-

ing “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled

the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

[The Rabbi]

I didnt expect the court to strike down a lot of existing legislation. Iwasn't surprised. It seems only an outright ban is unconstitutional. A licensing scheme, like NYC has, is still OK. Here is Scalia in his opinion.

JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications

of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for

not providing extensive historical justification for those

regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.

See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this

Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,

one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,

any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145

(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left

that area in a state of utter certainty. 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.

[G27]

I didnt expect the court to strike down a lot of existing legislation. Iwasn't surprised. It seems only an outright ban is unconstitutional. A licensing scheme, like NYC has, is still OK. Here is Scalia in his opinion.

Yah, somewhat disappointing, but considering this decision could quite literally have (in essence) erased the RKBA, it's a big win. First definitive decision from the SCOTUS on an individual's RKBA in US History!

[Marswolf]

.....

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.â€

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

The battle moves downstream.

[Warbird]

It can only be considered disappointing if someone expected the court to do something it never does, make a wide ad general ruling. The SCOTUS decides rulings very narrowly. This ruling actually went further than many hoped or expected. It also means the gun grabbers cannot succeed in their penultament goal of a England Australian law as the UN money folks helping Brady hoped for., They can't pass a law saying yes you can own the weapon but it must be kept at the local Sheriff's office and you can get it from there to hunt with etc. It says you have the right to protect your home and keep your firearm there.

They will now ramp up efforts to restrict sales wherever possible, another ban on so-called assault weapons. The fight ISN'T OVER friends. But, it does effectively destroy the old mantra of the gun grasbbers that the intent of the 2nd A was a right to the states for the militia. It shuts that crap up once and for all.

It didn't go as far as we would hope but then again we didn't expect them to.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Warbird

[fury2neon]

That's one for our side!!!

[Guest Len]

From a real quick reading, here, in my eyes, is a key element of the majority decision:

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.

Thus the court basically says that the RKBA, like any other right is not completely unfettered. Just as speech can be regulated to some extent, so can RKBA. So, a victory for the citizens of DC and likely any other place with a de-facto handgun ban, but for the rest of us, most things are just like they were yesterday. Reason enough, however, to celebrate.

Edit: My bad. I see another poster (Marswolf) already has this quote posted. Sorry about the everyone's wasted bandwidth.

[Marswolf]

But, it does effectively destroy the old mantra of the gun grasbbers that the intent of the 2nd A was a right to the states for the militia. It shuts that **** up once and for all.

At least until a new Justice is appointed by a gun hater and the matter is revisited in a new case. But with case law, that will be more difficult to do. 5-4 is far too close to say the individual right question is settled forever.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Marswolf

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Pretty much what everyone expected. Yes, you can regulate. No, you can't have an outright ban, even in practice. It's a step in the right direction, just not a big one.

[Guest ProguninTN]

Let the follow-up challenges begin. (ie Chicago gun ban)

[Guest db99wj]

Pretty much what everyone expected. Yes, you can regulate. No, you can't have an outright ban, even in practice. It's a step in the right direction, just not a big one.

Unless you live in DC.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

got this from TFA...

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.

( 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.

© 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 individual rights

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.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed

[The Rabbi]

Let the follow-up challenges begin. (ie Chicago gun ban)

The Court said it wasn't out to define the entire field, only to offer an opening.

THe Chicago ban will be the first one to be challenged and it will be overturned, I am pretty sure.

ETA. OK, I see the NRA already has that in mind. From the Yahoo article:

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

[Marswolf]

CNN's take on the decision. I'll ignore the airhead comments from the Va Tech student.

From Bill Mears

CNN Supreme Court Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

"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," Scalia wrote. "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."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. See poll results »

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.

advertisement

"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

[Guest meadowmb]

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation†— in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,†it added.

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, â€is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,†going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

So basically, the court ruled it doesn't really care how tightly DC hands out licenses, as long as they give Heller one?

[Marswolf]

And now the politicians chime in. From MSNBC:

The ruling quickly became fodder for the presidential race. Sen. John McCain lauded the decision in a written statement, calling it a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

The Republican presidential hopeful criticized his rival Barack Obama's stance on the issue, saying the Democrat had refused to sign a statement calling for Thursday's ruling.

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.

[Guest ProguninTN]

So basically, the court ruled it doesn't really care how tightly DC hands out licenses, as long as they give Heller one?

Not necessarily. The decision stated the right is not unlimited, but follow-up cases to determine what restrictions are permissible are possible. If D.C. allows guns, but with many restrictions, they could be sued again for "de facto" bans based on the extremity of those restrictions. Follow-up cases are very possible and likely.

[Guest meadowmb]

High court strikes down gun ban

[raydog1]

Still sounds like a legal problem if defending your home in DC.

Prosecutor: "How where you able to get to your gun, unlock it, load it, and fire so quickly."

Defendant: "Uhm, what are you talking about? Of course it was loaded and unlocked. They lifted the ban, right?"

Prosecutor: "The prosecution rests your honor."

I wonder what can be done about the tight restrictions in light of this legal victory.

[Smith]

Check out the Heller thread. It is being discussed throughly.

[G27]

It might have already been mentioned, but page 55 of the opinion seems to close the door on future AWBs...

[G27]

Still sounds like a legal problem if defending your home in DC.

Prosecutor: "How where you able to get to your gun, unlock it, load it, and fire so quickly."

Defendant: "Uhm, what are you talking about? Of course it was loaded and unlocked. They lifted the ban, right?"

Prosecutor: "The prosecution rests your honor."

I wonder what can be done about the tight restrictions in light of this legal victory.

Perhaps I've misread, but my interpretation is that you can now keep a loaded, unlocked gun in your house in DC...