Have you read the decision itself?

[yhtomit]

Hi there!

One thing I'm frequently guilty of (hey, time is a limited resource) is intending to read certain decisions, then endlessly procrastinating actually doing so. Then I figure I've heard so much, and from some smart people, that it becomes less important to actually read. So: this time, I'm going to (think of it as a New Year's resolution) actually read the text of the decision, and I post this as a gentle goad to anyone who feels the same way.

I've downloaded the decision, and hope to have it read (doing some other work in the foreground) before dinner -- so mine is the inaugural "No, but planning to" vote above. It's annoying when arguing / debating / discussing a SupCt decision, and someone asks "Well, have *you* read it?!" and I can't say Yes. This time, I want to be the one who *can* say Yes to that. Hence this poll!

EDITED TO ADD THIS NOTE TO CLARIFY:

a) For purposes of this poll, I think you can count yourself (as I will) as kosher to have read "The Court's" decision -- need not read all 157 pages!
b) The decision itself: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

timothy

 

[Mulliga]

I'd wager most THR members are very familiar with Miller, Cruikshank, etc., so it's definitely a bit more tedious to read than your average SCOTUS case. Scalia does a good job of incorporating all the pre and post ratification support for an individual rights interpretation (there's plenty, of course) but he also comes across as a little snippy.

The dissent...whew. It's like they took a lint roller and collected all the Brady/VPC arguments into one big mess. I can't believe we were one vote away from defeat.

 

[brighamr]

I read everything up until the dissents. Those I skimmed, as I couldn't read all the dissents and keep my stomach down.

 

[fletcher]

I read pretty much everything up to the dissenting opinions, and even then, bits and pieces.

 

[csmkersh]

From the opinion:

...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.

So Heller wins, but does anyone else? That remains to be seen. LA Ca was sued and lost on their licensing practices. They then issued the one license and then back to business as usual..

With the lack of incorporation, I don't see this carrying to California, NY or Illinois. Hope I'm wrong. I think places like Mortons Grove, Chicago, are left out. They will need to fight their own battles.

​

 

[ctdonath]

Only been 3 hours. Give me some time to settle into reading 157 pages...

Actually, parts of the dissents are very interesting and agreeable, esp. the bit about "MGs aren't common and thus can be banned, but if they were un-banned they could become common, which means they cannot be banned - WTH?"

 

[hexidismal]

Well, I had to go with the "No! But I intend to, forthwith or at least semi-soon" option. My quick pop into the gun forums certainly has me interested, but it's a busy day and company is coming over later ..hehe So.. maybe tomorrow I'll get to really sit down with it.

 

[kcmarine]

Can someone post a link where the decision is? Or is that already in the Big Assed Heller thread?

 

[#shooter]

I read the all of what Scalia wrote but skimmed the decent.

 

[Cosmoline]

The dissent is not part of the opinion. It's a scary read but has no authority. The opinion itself is classic Scalia, with its focus on original intent and often obscure and archaic supporting material. Personally I would have liked a broader reading that relied less on what some monarch did in olde England. But this one is still very good, and gets the ball rolling.

 

[csmkersh]

Heller opinion can be found here

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

​

 

[ZeSpectre]

Read it (took a while)
Digesting it mentally now
Will probably re-read and then write little comment notes all over it later as is my personal habit on stuff like this.

I'm caught between being super excited and knowing full well all the obstacles that are going to be thrown in the path as we restore the RKBA to it's proper place in the United States of America.

 

[telkontar]

Bits & pieces so far. Printing the Scalia opinion as I type. Some of the quotes from the dissent seemed over the top. Legal rulings are interpreting a text, not twisting it to get a result. [Both sides always accuse the other of being "results oriented." This text always seemed clear to me, but then the SCOTS thinks tomatoes are a vegetable and that growing wheat on your own land and consuming it is interstate commerce.]

 

[GreenFurniture]

Yes, as it was posted. Otherwise I would have to hear a lot of speculation from those who had not read it.

 

[PaulBk]

I just finished all 157 pages. I also read all of the the oral arguments presented earlier. I don't trust interpretations or paraphrasing by others.

-Paul

 

[ctdonath]

Change my vote to a "Yes", insofar as the prevailing opinion is concerned.

 

[wuchak]

Printed it. Had work to do so I will read it all tonight.

 

[Duncan223]

I read the opinion and only skimmed the dissents.

 

[enfield]

No, I haven't read it.

I printed it, and it's a book. I don't read books in one day

 

[RealGun]

I have the PDF files from Cornell Law, but there is much more to the saga and the implications than the decision itself. I think I will wait for the inevitable books to hit the presses, perhaps in only a month or two. Separating wheat from chaff and staying within scope on a gun forum is too much work, and who to believe?

 

[Seminole]

Every last little bit. Some parts I even read twice!

 

[Seminole]

I read the all of what Scalia wrote but skimmed the decent.

I think you have that backwards--the decision, authored by Scalia, is the decent. The dissenting opinions are the indecent!

 

[Jdude]

I am working on it. I skimmed it for the major parts for my opinion log (see signature) but other than that I am going through it carefully now.
I am only here to get a brain-break, reading it got a bit tedious.

 

[yhtomit]

Originally Posted by #shooter
I read the all of what Scalia wrote but skimmed the decent.

I think you have that backwards--the decision, authored by Scalia, is the decent. The dissenting opinions are the indecent!

I think he was referring to the descent

timothy

 

[Hokkmike]

I think it is scary that we are reduced to a position where 5/9 opinions can make law. This time was good. But with the next presidential appointees things may not go down so well.