Heller Decision

[G27]

A win (5-4)!!! I will read the opinion thoroughly today and post comments tonight (for those of you interested in a lawyer analysis). I will also provide some links to constitutional law experts' commentary for further review. Have a great day!

Yes please, and thank you!

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

The weeping by the Bradys in the wake of this should be entertaining.

[Guest db99wj]

Hooooraaaayyyyy!!

[Marswolf]

I was hoping for better than 5-4, but you take what you can get.

[The Rabbi]

I was hoping for better than 5-4, but you take what you can get.

I suspect the rest of it will be disappointing.

[Volzfan]

i just heard that the Supreme Court has struck down the DC handgun ban!

Vote was 5-4

That's tight but it is a win!

Edited June 26, 2008 by Volzfan
additional info

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Hey Bill... wanna expand and open up in D.C.

[G27]

I suspect the rest of it will be disappointing.

Agreed, but this decision is a victory against the anti-constitutionalists no matter how you slice it!

[Marswolf]

The Devil is in the details. I'm not expecting much.

[The Rabbi]

Look at the poll on SCOTUSblog, 86% are pleased with the decision.

If nothing else, this will give impetus for new RTC legislation.

[midtennchip]

The majority were in agreement on why the ban should not stand. But it appears there are two dissently opinions. Apparently, the liberal justices are not in complete agreement on why the ban should be allowed. The full opinion is available at the site below if you are interested. I'll follow up tonight. Now, back to paying clients.

www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[midtennchip]

No wonder it was the last decision. The majority opinion (J. Scalia) is 67 pages, and a total of 157 including the disents. WOW!

[BryanP]

Now we need to wait for some legal eagles on our side to read the whole thing and translate it into English.

[G27]

Regardless of the further details, these quotes mark a HUGE win for us:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.â€

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.â€

Now we have a definitive statement from the SCOTUS saying the 2A grants individual rights, which destroys many of the anti-constitutionalist's arguments!

[Guest db99wj]

The majority were in agreement on why the ban should not stand. But it appears there are two dissently opinions. Apparently, the liberal justices are not in complete agreement on why the ban should be allowed. The full opinion is available at the site below if you are interested. I'll follow up tonight. Now, back to paying clients.

www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

D'oh, was about to post that link!

[saintsfanbrian]

I was very happy to see them link the Right to gun ownership with the right to assemble and be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Looks like a banner day for the 2A.

Thank you NRA, GOA, and Justice Scalia, now, does it say I have a right to a fully automatic glock 7?

[Guest aBRG2far]

Celebrate by buying ammo because the anti's will go after it next.

[Guest jwp]

What a good read that was.

On a side note, of the people logged in the the SCOTUS blog's live updates 48% were NRA members, 53% were not.

63% owned more than 2 handguns.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

I'm disappointed. I visited the Brady site to see how they were going to spin this into the biggest disaster in the country's history, and all they've got is a link to the SCOTUS blog. Maybe they're still brainstorming some good alarmist talking points.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

What is scary.... wasnt Kennedy the "swing vote" ???

[Marswolf]

From SCOTUSblog:

Heller quotes from the majority

Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:27 am | Tom Goldstein | Comments Off |

Quotes from the opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.â€

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.â€

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.â€

“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.â€

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.â€

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.â€

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.â€

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.â€

[mrming]

Heh.. you beat me to it Mars. Only just saw the opinion get posted..

[Marswolf]

What excites me is that the Court specifically says that we have a right to possess arms for self defense.

[Guest aBRG2far]

5 to 4 is closer than I would have liked

[Marswolf]

Some more quotes:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.â€

“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.â€

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.â€

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.â€

â€In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. 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.â€