Heller Decided! (several threads merged, new ones will be locked)

[Bubbles]

We didn't lose our gun rights overnight, and we won't regain them overnight. Today's ruling was a first step. A big step, yes, but still a step. Other issues will be settled in future cases.

That said, I'll raise a toast to Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts tonight.

 

[DEDON45]

... hmm, only 5 out of 9 ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment. That's scary right there. They also (folks are still poring over it) seem to think that "reasonable" restrictions are allowed... well, given it is the liberal politicians that will be doing the "reasoning", I don't think this will change much at all... they will find other ways to make it difficult for Joe Citizen to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Thank goodness we didn't lose everything to wring our hands over!

 

[Seancass]

fox news just did a good segment with an anti-gun law prof who said the court ruled correctly.

 

[BrianB]

Definitely a mixed bag...of opportunities! The clear language relating to the definitions of "militia, arms, keep, bear, one right, individual" open a lot of doors. Furthermore, the clarification of the Miller case, stating that it has been grossly misread and misunderstood by prior judges, including the dissenters was beautiful!

Down the line...
Best case is open ownership and right to carry anywhere.
Worst case is registered ownership and right to carry on your property.

Where I live, I'm closer to the worst case, so ANYTHING in the middle of those two is a major improvement!

 

[RedLion]

Good for us, Bad for Santa

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Even if the 4 dislike guns, the constitution is the constitution, period! It is very clear that the 10 ammendments are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and for 4 of them not to agree with this because of their dislike for guns is troubling.

Totally agree. Four Justices say that the Constitution provides for civilians serving in the MILITARY are allowed to have firearms and no one else. Doesn't anyone else find this very scary? How close to tyranny can we get? One judge? That is TOO CLOSE!

 

[RP88]

it's exactly as we thought it was right after the oral arguments: a non-rock-the-boat decision that only addresses the matter at hand.

Sad to see the ruling made that narrow. they probably did that on purpose.

things we got out of Heller:

-strike down of DC's bans and restrictions
-affirmed individual right to keep and bear arms
-a case that be incorporated to turn down other city-wide bans
-a statement that presumes that the 2A only limits the federal government, which could be implied that the 2A is/could become only a state issue

things we didn't get (from a first look):
-protection from more federal regulation due to the 'reasonable basis' concept
-protection of all guns (although it could still be implied that the 'what is in use now' clause may extend to every gun available on the market)
-some other things, but i don't know of much else now

what will happen?
-DC will enact draconian registration processes, while still banning concealed carry and/or whatever else they can get away with i.e. minimal change to existing law
-we probably won't see a change in DC's crime rate, gun ownership rate, etc. for five years or longer.
-everyone will go to work as usual, and the us versus them/NRA versus Brady, writing your congress people, etc. will continue.

The only thing is that they cannot take ALL of our guns for now.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that, aside from Scalia and a couple others, most of the bench just dodged and evaded (half-assed) the ruling.

They made alot of holes for both the we the people who like guns and the Brady Bunch to exploit in the future. All the more proof that this case only did the bare minimum. but hey, at least it did something.

 

[ShunZu]

I got a kick out of the last line in the MSNBC story that reported it... saying Washington D.C. law enforcement had already said they wouldn't charge anyone using a handgun in self-defense, anyway.

SURE.....

Perhaps Chicago and Gov Blago will get a test of their laws now.

 

[Cosmoline]

The machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.

Felons 922(g) are not mentioned at this time.

Armor piercing handgun ammunition is not mentioned at this time. 921(a)(17)(b)

The Lautenberg amendment is not mentioned at this time. 922(g)(9)

The gun free schools act is not mentioned at this time. 922(q)

Background checks are not mentioned at this time.

NONE OF THESE WERE BEFORE THE COURT. Remember this is not a legislature. Their holding is limited to the question before them. We have taken the first step. How far the courts are willing to go remains to be seen. But we now have the courts as a tool in addition to the political tools.

 

[Shung]

You showed us what democracy means today !

 

[lee n. field]

Blocked off tomorrow afternoon for "Heller Decision Celebratory Shoot"

 

[Seancass]

All the news programs keeps saying "Key decision on YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Titan6]

More gold for the dissent.

This historical evidence demonstrates that a selfdefense
assumption is the beginning, rather than the end,
of any constitutional inquiry. That the District law impacts
self-defense merely raises questions about the law’s
constitutionality. But to answer the questions that are
raised (that is, to see whether the statute is unconstitutional)
requires us to focus on practicalities, the statute’s
rationale, the problems that called it into being, its relation to those objectives—in a word, the details. There are
no purely logical or conceptual answers to such questions.
All of which to say that to raise a self-defense question is
not to answer it.

What were they doing for the last year if not this?

 

[Jdude]

NONE OF THESE WERE BEFORE THE COURT. Remember this is not a legislature. Their holding is limited to the question before them. We have taken the first step. How far the courts are willing to go remains to be seen. But we now have the courts as a tool in addition to the political tools.

The majority of my audience (friends and family) are novices, and I wrote those in to eliminate potential questions.
But you are right. Those items were not before the Court.

 

[Cuda]

Maybe if we broaden the term "common use" it won't worry us so much.

I've read a bunch of posts concerned with a specific model of firearm. And until that specific model is in the hands of many we are concerned that it would not be considered a common firearm.Consider what a lawyer might argue, rifle, pistol, revolver not the specific model but the type of firearm. Rifles, pistol and revolvers are common use arms. Caliber, model, make not withstanding.

I may be wrong but I believe they left the door open on a positive note for us. It would now be up to the gun banners to show proof that a gun is not common...


C

 

[everallm]

This is probably one of the most important sections

JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applica-
tions 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 Amend-
ment, 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.

This means that they have deliberately left open ALL areas of firearms control open for question and challenge where appropriate.

 

[DEDON45]

The deal (for me, anyway), is that this decision will change very little... since "reasonable" restrictions will be allowed... watch for cities that say, OK, you can have a gun, but, being the "reasonable" politicians we are you must:

1) Register your guns
2) Take a VERY expensive training course
3) Use only the calibers we deem as reasonable
4) Use microstamped ammo so we can track it's usage
5) Pay a heavy tax on ammo so we can pay for all this reasonable oversight
6) Only be able to buy guns that meet our "safety" standards
7) Not own more than a "reasonable" number of guns

on and on... I'm sure the geniuses in Chicago are already working on such bills... mark my words.

 

[Daemon688]

I'm sad to see a 5:4 vote. Hell, maybe it would have been better to have it ruled against an individual right and let them come and take our firearms through bans. Maybe then the will of the people will be heard loudly and clearly.

Also in the ruling

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.

That is the most ridiculous statement I can think of. If Heller can have a pistol in his home for the reason of self defense. Then his right for self defense ends at his door step? How friggen stupid is that? So, I guess restricted states like CA, NY, MA, etc can keep their may issue permits. That also means that people stuck in WI and IL are completely screwed.

If there was a logical next step from Heller, that would have been it. Yes, it is an individual right. Yes, the 2nd amendment is about self defense. BUT it ends at your doorstep.

 

[Hands of blue]

The news was talking to some DC residents and most of them were in favor of the ban because crime was so bad in DC. So logically you ban handguns and have a high crime rate so the ban works

One person has some sense and said ban or no ban there will always be guns in DC.

 

[jerkyman45]

Its a win, not a huge win, but it is one nonetheless. I'm pretty happy.

 

[Jdude]

Maybe if we broaden the term "common use" it won't worry us so much.

I've read a bunch of posts concerned with a specific model of firearm. And until that specific model is in the hands of many we are concerned that it would not be considered a common firearm.Consider what a lawyer might argue, rifle, pistol, revolver not the specific model but the type of firearm. Rifles, pistol and revolvers are common use arms. Caliber, model, make not withstanding.

I may be wrong but I believe they left the door open on a positive note for us. It would now be up to the gun banners to show proof that a gun is not common...

Interesting. So perhaps then instead of being able to show a "glock .40 commemorative edition limit 1,000" as rare and uncommon, they have to show that "auto loading pistol" is unusual.

Well, Hell. I like that line of thought.

 

[Cuda]

Interesting. So perhaps then instead of being able to show a'glock .40 commemorative edition limit 1,000" as rare and uncommon, they have to show that "auto loading pistol" is unusual.

Well, Hell. I like that line of thought.

That's my thought.

C

 

[divemedic]

Remember that most of what you are talking about is dicta and is not binding. The decision was very narrow, and machine guns is not a part of it, nor was it ever a part of it.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

And Cuda nails it...