Big45
member
In the court of popular opinion we have WON HUGE!
The Big Heller Decision Discussion Thread - AFFIRMED 2ND AS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
We pretty much knew it wouldn't be everything that we wanted, and it was by a narrow margin, unfortunately. This underscores the need for EVERYONE to vote in the POTUS election in November and to be involved in politics on the local level if we want to make a difference.
fletcher
Member
^^^^ exactly.
jaak:
A better analogy might be a "trip & fall" than a "step". That is what sense happend to DC. Heller stuck out a foot and tobbled the clowns. Now, all the clowns following blindly along will trip and fall over the DC case. I love Dominos.
Doc2005
Doc, i do like that analogy. however, i was thinking maybe the perverbial wall we are behind, and one more step to pushing it over. i had to tone that down, i know this site isnt a fan of "radical" views
edit: can someone tell me how to quote? i cant find the button for it.
A better analogy might be a "trip & fall" than a "step". That is what sense happend to DC. Heller stuck out a foot and tobbled the clowns. Now, all the clowns following blindly along will trip and fall over the DC case. I love Dominos.
Doc2005
Doc, i do like that analogy. however, i was thinking maybe the perverbial wall we are behind, and one more step to pushing it over. i had to tone that down, i know this site isnt a fan of "radical" views
edit: can someone tell me how to quote? i cant find the button for it.
electronrider
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 68
Everyone really needs to read the whole 157 page document before all this wild speculation gets going. Personnally, I find it absolutely fascinating, the amount of pre constitional history that is in this descision.
the best thing I've read thus far is the phrase about the 2A being a limit on federal government. That could be used to throw out federal bans and restrictions that directly affect the ability to keep and bear arms, and turn the issue into a state-level one. IMO, that is an awesome unintended consequence to start with.
bobernet
Member
This may still leave the door open to another AWB.
Scalia says:
This is very similar to Obama-speak about particularly "dangerous" weapons. The antis have largely won the fight in the court of public opinion on portraying civilian versions of AKs and ARs as especially dangerous or deadly.
A major issue is going to be the word "and." Is "dangerous and unusual" describing a single type of arm that is both dangerous and unusual, or is it two classes of arms - those that are "dangerous" and also those that are "unusual."
The immediate fight, as I see it, is going to be about defense in the home, versus carrying other places (in public) for defense. I wish they would not have been so pointed about the "in the home" language. It certainly permits a non-exclusive reading, but expect it to get twisted by the gun banners and lower courts like San Francisco.
The second part is going to be about what qualifies as legitimate "self-defense" purposes. Do you really need more than 10 rounds for "self-defense" or are higher capacity magazines superfluous to a civilian? etc, etc
By totally disconnecting the second amendment's operative clause from it's core purpose of resisting the government and standing armies to preserve individual (and collective) liberty, Scalia has turned this into a Zumbo gun right. Hunters and home defense are fine; battle rifles, high (normal) capacity magazines, EBRs and full autos are all up for grabs.
Scalia says:
This is very similar to Obama-speak about particularly "dangerous" weapons. The antis have largely won the fight in the court of public opinion on portraying civilian versions of AKs and ARs as especially dangerous or deadly.
A major issue is going to be the word "and." Is "dangerous and unusual" describing a single type of arm that is both dangerous and unusual, or is it two classes of arms - those that are "dangerous" and also those that are "unusual."
The immediate fight, as I see it, is going to be about defense in the home, versus carrying other places (in public) for defense. I wish they would not have been so pointed about the "in the home" language. It certainly permits a non-exclusive reading, but expect it to get twisted by the gun banners and lower courts like San Francisco.
The second part is going to be about what qualifies as legitimate "self-defense" purposes. Do you really need more than 10 rounds for "self-defense" or are higher capacity magazines superfluous to a civilian? etc, etc
By totally disconnecting the second amendment's operative clause from it's core purpose of resisting the government and standing armies to preserve individual (and collective) liberty, Scalia has turned this into a Zumbo gun right. Hunters and home defense are fine; battle rifles, high (normal) capacity magazines, EBRs and full autos are all up for grabs.
dmazur
Member
I am largely ignorant of DC laws, other than their "unfairness" starting this whole thing -
Will it be possible for the residents of DC to register their guns and lawfully use them for self-protection? I don't mean instantly, but is that the direction the local authorities are going to have to move toward?
Will it be possible for the residents of DC to register their guns and lawfully use them for self-protection? I don't mean instantly, but is that the direction the local authorities are going to have to move toward?
MaterDei
Member
For the first time in my adult life I can honestly say that I'm proud to be an American.
Titan6
member
A law that would be beaten with a ruler in court. It would be very hard to prove that an AR is either unusual these days or especially dangerous, given that the normal standard is how often guns are used in crimes.
FYI, DC is not free. The next court case will be about a civil rights violation when guns are illegally seized from a home.
The DC ban was illegal before today, and DC chose to ignore the constitution. Now, the SCOTUS has explained to them that the ban is illegal. People (police, politicians, judges and prosecutors) who are heart-and-soul anti-gun aren't going to just start obeying the law and protecting civil rights.
The DC ban was illegal before today, and DC chose to ignore the constitution. Now, the SCOTUS has explained to them that the ban is illegal. People (police, politicians, judges and prosecutors) who are heart-and-soul anti-gun aren't going to just start obeying the law and protecting civil rights.
Blacksmoke
Member
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinion/07pdf/07-290.pdf
You will need Adobe Acrobat. Go to the summary on page 64, for a start. Electronrider is absolutely correct, read the opinion for yourself. It is about 67 pages. The remainder is the dissent by the Gang of Four. That makes interesting reading as well, but you can save it for Sunday after reading the comics.
You will need Adobe Acrobat. Go to the summary on page 64, for a start. Electronrider is absolutely correct, read the opinion for yourself. It is about 67 pages. The remainder is the dissent by the Gang of Four. That makes interesting reading as well, but you can save it for Sunday after reading the comics.
Sam Adams
Member
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?
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?
unspellable
Member
Common usage
The army has how many M16s? Seems to me that constitutes common usage.
The army has how many M16s? Seems to me that constitutes common usage.
fletcher
Member
General Geoff
Member
Not at all; up to this point, "sporting purposes" has NOT included self defense at all. As such, EBRs and other so-called assault weapons should be adequately covered, as they are specifically designed for the purpose of defending against predators of the two-legged variety.
One measely vote?
I have not read anything other than the decision, but I find the 5-4 score sobering and frightening. Only one vote to overturn what had to be the most slam-dunk case for the second-most important right laid out in the Bill of Rights. One measely vote and they could have effectively gutted the constitution? Astonishing. That there was *ANY* dissent on this, let alone the most possible without losing a fundamental right is very sobering. This court does not particularly respect individual property rights, and supports government harrassment of individuals, as evidenced by some of the cases I've followed.
The prospects of a future AWB getting overturned by this court do not look good. MGs are probably a lost cause in this court, imo.
I have not read anything other than the decision, but I find the 5-4 score sobering and frightening. Only one vote to overturn what had to be the most slam-dunk case for the second-most important right laid out in the Bill of Rights. One measely vote and they could have effectively gutted the constitution? Astonishing. That there was *ANY* dissent on this, let alone the most possible without losing a fundamental right is very sobering. This court does not particularly respect individual property rights, and supports government harrassment of individuals, as evidenced by some of the cases I've followed.
The prospects of a future AWB getting overturned by this court do not look good. MGs are probably a lost cause in this court, imo.
rantingredneck
Member
- Status