This gets a big Texas
YEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWW!
I've never been more proud of (5/9 of) the Supreme Court than today, EVER.
The Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right!
No federal gun bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns, EVER! No federal requirements for trigger locks, EVER!
Self-defense is SPECIFICALLY protected by the 2nd.
_________________________
OK, now what are the implications?
First, politically: is BHO going to shoot himself in the foot (pun intended) by criticizing this decision, and stating that he'll nominate more judges and Justices like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer? I sure hope so. What will McCain say? It is really his fight to lose on this issue, and a tremendous opportunity to distinguish himself from that socialist rat.
Second, legally: a couple of issues here...
1. Incorporation - I'm sure that we'll see a case filed challenging Chicago's ban on handguns (all guns?) by no later than Labor Day (and I think it would be appropriate to file it on July 2, the anniversary of the ACTUAL day that the Declaration of Independence was signed), based heavily on the words of this case. I am STRONGLY ENCOURAGED by this decision - even though the level of scrutiny for analyzing firearms laws was purposely not mentioned, the language about the basic nature of the right of self-defense (esp. in one's home) leads me to believe that the 2nd will be incorporated within 2-3 years at most.
2. Full autos - I'm also encouraged here. Yes, the decision did say that the 2nd wasn't blanket protection of a right to own any weapon under any circumstances by any person, BUT it didn't foreclose any particular weapons. It mentioned the Miller standard of protecting "arms in common use at the time." Well, folks, full autos are standard issue in all of the armies of the world, and have been for roughly 50 years. In addition, full autos have never been illegal at the federal level in this country, only regulated - most of us can still buy an honest-to-goodness Tommy Gun, for instance, so long as we have a fat wallet and jump through some regulatory hurdles. The only reason why full autos are not more common now is that a ban has been in place for 22 years. SO, IMHO, I think that the Court will invalidate the '86 ban (though almost certainly NOT the'34 NFA and its regulatory framework, even though NICS does essentially the same thing - that's a different battle). Me, I'd like to see the case brought by an ex-Special Forces member with an utterly spotless record and reputation, who already owns a pre-ban full auto and who was denied the opportunity to pay for a tax stamp for a virtually identical post-ban gun.
3. OK, here's where we get to have a bit of fun: Does any Congresscritter have the cajones to begin the impeachment process against Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer?
What do y'all say?