Quantcast

The Big Heller Decision Discussion Thread - AFFIRMED 2ND AS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bartholomew Roberts, Jun 26, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I agree.

    And however much it may stick in your craw, vote McCain this fall, and encourage everyone you know to do so as well, so that Federal Judges will be appointed so any of that actually has a chance in hell of happening.
     
  2. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,796
    From the Chicago Tribune:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story?page=2&track=rss


    This is good. Better get onto it quick, before we get judges on SCOTUS who would rule against us.

    Months is better then years.
     
  3. security6

    security6 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    No offense, but I think you are dead wrong.

    Page 19 of the opinion:

    I believe you are ignoring the trend. Look at the past 10 years. The AWB died, more states have enacted CCW, more states have enacted castle-doctrine, states have enacted laws banning gun confiscation during emergencies, and now we have a SCOTUS opinion saying the right to own guns is an individual right. The trend looks pretty good to me.

    Most of the people complaining about the decision don't understand how SCOTUS works. Changing things through the courts is slow and time consuming, but eventually it gets done. Look at civil rights for example. Brown was decided in the 1950's (the first two iterations anyway). 50 years later we still have SCOTUS cases about race (e.g. Parents v. Seattle School District in 2007). Look at the first years of civil rights after Brown came out, not much changed. However, civil rights activists kept working and look at how things are today. As gun-owners, we must keep working to get our rights back. SCOTUS cannot change things overnight, but if we keep working we will get more and more of our rights back.
     
  4. #shooter

    #shooter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Indiana
    common use

    It seems to me that "common use" is not limited to civilian use per se, it could also mean common military (or police) use as well. I am sure a future court battle will be waged on this matter.

    I'm also unsure of the constant pairing of "self defence" and the "home." I wonder what this will do to and challanges to CC or OC. I understand that this case was about the firearms and how they are kept at home but we shall see.
     
  5. salthouse

    salthouse Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    Southeastern, PA
    I apologize in advance for my not understanding all of the history with Heller, but I've been wondering.... Why did it take 32 years for a case like this to reach the SC? Did earlier challenges fail? If so, why?
     
  6. Frohickey

    Frohickey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,018
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Heller decision is just in time...

    This SCOTUS decision on the DC vs Heller case is just in time for the Fourth of July celebration!!! :D
     
  7. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    The only real downside I see is that they affirmed registration and license. Indeed they even ordered it. But the upside is fantastic.
     
  8. Wes Janson

    Wes Janson Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,962
  9. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,275
    I thought of that angle, but I didn't cover it because I think many here have failed to see the losses on some issues previously unresolved that we recieved today.

    The gains are obvious:
    The RKBA is an individual right, and arms includes handguns. Possession of arms is for use, and requiring they be disassembled or otherwise rendered unusable is unconstitutional.

    Chicago and NYC are obviously dealt with here. Ultimately fail yes, with the current court. This was a 5-4 case though, and a slight change in the court could change the result several years from now when that issue would finaly have been appealed all the way to the SCOTUS if it came to that.
    Essentialy SCOTUS left enough room that the ruling can be ignored by those that do not agree with it and have enough money to appeal it in the context of another case over years (by claiming it is a different matter through seperate legal arguments.)
     
  10. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,796

    We have to have a license to drive a car because it is a privilige.

    We shouldn't have to have a license to own a gun because it is a right.

    We don't need a license so that we may speak freely.

    How can they do this?

    Will licensing only be in D.C. or will it become mandatory for all states?
     
  11. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Because it took that long for people to figure out what, exactly, was at issue. The general subject is so emotionally charged, and so full of overlapping & distracting obfuscations, that it really did take 32 years (or much longer) for someone to say "hey, let's do this right by keeping it simple" and work out the precise details without letting other red herrings through - and even then, 5/6ths of the plantiffs were ejected on a stupid technicality (which the judge had to hand to DC on a friggin' silver platter), and SCOTUS had to wade thru a half-million words of briefs on both sides, and somehow came up with a 157-page verdict when "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" should have been enough.
     
  12. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    I saw nothing in there even suggesting licensing for all states. All that was said was an implication that licensing is OK (although not said outright), and that Heller should be given a license asap.
     
  13. Seminole

    Seminole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    Where the west begins
    So if, according to Scalia, restrictions on concealed carry are ok, what about laws that disallow even open carry, given that they disallow the bearing of arms completely? Could this be another fruitful avenue for litigation?
     
  14. fletcher

    fletcher Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    ^ I think so, at least something to look into. Constitutionally protected OC would be nice :p That and CLEO signoffs (because of how arbitrary they are) for current NFA items are the two things that seemed pretty clear targets for suits.
     
  15. esq_stu

    esq_stu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    966
    Location:
    Michigan
    I think you're onto something there.:D
     
  16. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,275
    The decisions do not create all the details of new law, they create the basis from which new laws will be passed.

    Basicly this says states can create as many "reasonable restrictions" as they desire without a conflict with the 2nd as long as actual possession of firearms 'in common usage' is not banned.
    That is a big change.

    Fees, licensing, qualification requirements, inspections, insurance requirements, etc etc are now allowed by SCOTUS.
    Pass a law that requires all those carrying a firearm to be covered by 1 million in insurance and you can seriously reduce who pay the costs, or who insurance companies will cover.
    Insurance is mandatory for cars in some states, and the minimum amount of coverage necessary is covered as well.

    Anything that is a 'reasonable restriction' is now covered.

    Now we just need licenses for free speech. I sure would like to see some 'reasonable restrictions' on what people can talk about. :rolleyes:

    The ruling makes it sound like open carry cannot be banned, but that concealed carry restrictions can be in place.

    However later on 'reasonable restrictions' leaves a wide avenue to restrict. $___ million insurance policy required by all those who choose to open carry. To cover injury costs if necessary of course. :rolleyes:
    How about a $100,000 of coverage necessary per round in the firearm. The higher the capacity the more coverage required. The more bullets that can be shot the more liability is present. Sounds like a 'reasonable restriction'.
    Once most start carrying low capacity arms to qualify for lower policies, then you can declare high capacity ones not 'in common use'.
     
  17. Kurush

    Kurush Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    did anyone else notice this, seemed like Scalia was taking a shot at Stevens in his choice of example (page 21)

    [​IMG]
     
  18. lacoochee

    lacoochee Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    San Antonio, FL
    I thought I read in effect that since Heller did not ask for relief from licensing, instead he asked to be able to receive that license, that they did not consider it...

    Checked:

    Yep that's what they did they ignored the licensing issue for now.
     
  19. lance22

    lance22 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    626
    Location:
    Minn Uh So Tah
    Ronald Reagan

    It was the Gipper who appointed Judge Scalia. It would not have gone the way it did, or with this wording had Scalia not been there. So - a moment of silence in respect for Ronald Reagan, who being dead yet preserves liberty in the nation he loved.
     
  20. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,321
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    As I suspected, the Court gave the anti-gunners what they SAID they wanted, namely "reasonable gun controls".

    Of course that was absolutely the LAST thing they wanted. They WANTED arbitrary and capricious restrictions on gun owners and guns, and instead, they got the exact opposite.

    Memo to vampires: If you don't want holy water with your happy meal, DON'T ask for it!
     
  21. rantingredneck

    rantingredneck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,777
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The good news is that the most likely justices to retire during the next administration are among those who were in the minority. Obama wins he will likely only replace liberals with more liberals. McCain wins and we can (maybe) push that 5/4 split a little more solidly our way.
     
  22. Seminole

    Seminole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    Where the west begins
    In regard to forbidding OC, Scalia, discussing pre-civil war case law, wrote:

    Granted, this was a state SC decision, but Scalia certainly used it to help articulate this decision.
     
  23. Owens

    Owens Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    373
    Location:
    Texas!
    I have skimmed through the opinion. No great detail, but several things that jump out at me is 'common use'. In my mind that simply means long guns and hand guns. Unusual and dangerous (however that was phrased) seem to imply tactical missiles and nuclear weaponry. Of course in keeping the advancement of technology in view, whatever the military uses (in my opinion, one that can be carried by an individual in a ready to use state) is available to the civilian, or if you would rather, the milita member.

    Another statement indicates the 'possibility' that the militia (unorganized military) may need the same kind of firepower as the organized military in the case of tyranny. Overthrowing tyranny being one of the recognized purposes for 'keep and bear'

    I'm no lawyer, but all that seems to say to me is that there is a basis (and I think a solid one) for further pushes for clarification in our favor.
     
  24. lacoochee

    lacoochee Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    San Antonio, FL
    Now wouldn't that be ironic, in some states you never get the right to carry a concealed weapon but if the 2A is incorporated later (Chicago ruling maybe), you might get the inherent right to carry openly without a license being necessary. :evil:
     
  25. Groovski

    Groovski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    102
    After reading excerpts of the decision, it's clear Scalia did a thorough once and for all body slam smackdown on any notion that 2A is anything other than what it was intended to be, and he is a hero as well, imo.

    Regarding "common use" and Miller, common use refers to common use in the military, not civilians.

    Regarding Heller and licensing, SCOTUS sidestepped the issue because Heller said he was willing to license his gun. They set no precedent whatsoever whether licensing is constitutional or not. Avoiding the issue does not mean it's "ok," it simply means they did not address it.

    I am still astonished that we effectively came within one vote of losing a fundamental, pre-existing right, with so many battles left to fight.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice