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. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,831
    Thank you Alan Gura. Thank You Cato Institute.

    Mr. Heller, you will live in American History.

    This Case, these Justices, this time frame.

    A noteworthy effort by all.

    Kudos to each and all. A very simple and heartfelt thank you.

    ...and a left handed thank you to the District of Columbia for making it so.
     
  2. gego

    gego Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    224
    Reagan also appointed Kennedy.

    But before we get too mushy, Ford was responsible for Stevens and H.W. Bush put up Souter. What were they thinking?
     
  3. obrienja

    obrienja Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Carry in National parks and forest

    Doesn't this mean that open carry of handguns can not be banned in national forest and parks.
     
  4. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Notable quotes:
     
  5. davec

    davec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Bayonne, NJ
    Ahhh, St. Reagan...the man who gave California gun control in the 1st place! And one of his last public acts was to support the Brady Bill before he disappeared from the public stage.

    Why Reagan worshipers gloss over his barbarous role in disarming black political movements when they were expressly exercising their 2nd amendment rights in the purest form dreamed up by the Founders...well...I dunno.

    Its guys like Reagan why we have a gun control fight in the 1st place.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...AA15750C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    With friends like that....
     
  6. Fletchette

    Fletchette Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    WY
    A BIG +1
     
  7. shdwfx

    shdwfx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    579
    Location:
    Go Bucks!
    No. The decision nearly always references the right to self defense within the context of "in the home."

    I think this was done specifically to keep from striking down any current bans against open or concealed carry. The national park carry ban still stands - for now.
     
  8. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    Before the ink was dry on the Heller Ruling...
    ISRA files suit against Chicago in Federal Court

    The Illinois State Rifle Association, together with Second Amendment Foundation and several individual plaintiffs, filed suit against the City of Chicago in federal court this morning at 9:15 CDT. More information will be made available in a statement from the attorneys tomorrow.

    Posted Thu Jun 26 13:30:45 CDT 2008
     
  9. Duncan223

    Duncan223 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    194
  10. kd7nqb

    kd7nqb Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    Puyallup Washington
    After reading the SCOTUS blog and THR all morning I have to say over all this is a good day. It could have been more perfect but all in all its a good ruling.
     
  11. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    To be fair to Reagan, at that point he was verging on vegetable status, due to the Alzheimer's.
     
  12. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    745
    Location:
    southern NH
    One big element of what I take away from the Heller decision is that handgun possession ("keep") and open carry ("bear") are now "shall issue" (to the extent that permits/licenses are required in the first place) as far as the Feds are concerned. Odds are fair that soon it'll apply to states and cities too. Sure there's lots of other less-than-wonderful stuff about full-auto, CCW, and the like, but the potential of getting DC, NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco residents familiar with the concept of owning and carrying pistols is at this point enough to make me pretty happy. And better yet, the "open carry is a constitutional right" part will get a LOT of press, hopefully cutting way down on 911 calls and police harassment of OCers that happens even in pro-gun states like New Hampshire.
     
  13. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,076
    Location:
    Lubbock, TX
    In skimming through opinion it seems that it was written less for support of the decision (which it does with aplomb) and more as a basis for future cases. The language, phraseology, and references all appear to be there for the intent and purpose of underpinning a broad spectrum of challenges. I believe he wrote his opinion and crafted it specifically to aid in further clarification of gun owners' rights in the 2A legal frenzy that is now an inevitable reality. The direct and forceful discrediting of dissenting opinions is especially revealing when viewed in this context.

    The next few years promises to be interesting.

    Brad
     
  14. FieroCDSP

    FieroCDSP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,146
    Location:
    Wooster, Ohio
    Soybomb, that is a freaking impressive find. Assuming that the opinion is printed on a laser printer, you do, in fact, have to get up pretty early in the morning to file that suit before the ink dries. Good luck to Illinois.

    I breezed through the summary, but the whole thing is going to take me a while. Someone needs to take Scalia shootin for this one!!! Thank God that Kennedy woke up on the right side of the bed this morning, or ate his wheaties, or whatever affects his good sense the way it does.

    I'm curious as to what kinds of restrictions they're going to have on their registry/licensing. At the verbal arguments in March, Heller should have said he'd have no problem with Shall-issue licensing, or not said it at all. I think Fenty is going to be up all night trying to find a way around this, and will eventually.

    A big win, but lets not give up the fight yet!!!!
     
  15. Orthonym

    Orthonym Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    Southern Florida
    Woot, hoot, toot, oh frabjous day, calloo, callay!

    I've been spinning continuous Sousa (starting with "Hail to the Spirit of Liberty") since I heard about this, and am right now drinking some nice Korbel Methode Champenoise wine.

    Had the decision gone 7-2, or even 6-3, I might have sprung for Mumm, or something.

    As SayUncle said, I reckon I'll have to get really hammered on election day, hold nose, grit teeth, check box for McCain, go home and shower and drink even moar, dreading that the Barackolypse is going to get in, anyway.

    Reason for the above? The very narrowness of the 5-4 decision and the prospect of more judges like Breyer and Souter.
     
  16. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,288
    The impact of this decision is only big if lots of people move to apply it in various ways.
    A few years from now trying to change things with the Heller opinion will be more difficult as the general consensus in how to interprete it will have been reached.

    What is a weapon in 'common use'? Is that one in common use by the armed forces that fits the milita or military roles envisioned by the founders, the people in general, all civilians (like police) or some other definition?

    What is " reasonable restrictions"? Do they have an end? Are they very limited narrow restrictions, or anything a location finds 'reasonable' if the population still has a way to obtain legal ownership?

    Until those are forced to be defined in a way that leaves boundaries most things are still up in the air. The antis can now accomplish more in most of the nation than before, they just have to acknowledge some guns must be allowed. The process to obtain even those though can be as difficult as 'reasonable restrictions' allows with no fear of SCOTUS disapproval.

    The old Fud type arguments will gain a lot of new strength, just not in the realm of hunting. You don't need a ____ to defend your home from a criminal, when a ___ will work.

    But the 2nd was never about defending your home from common thugs. It was about defending the people from organized tyranny.
     
  17. Seminole

    Seminole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    689
    Location:
    Where the west begins
    Scalia on Miller:

    This passage does lend support to the view that the "in common use" caveat means "in common [military] use."

    But then:
    Coupled with:
    seems to clearly indicate that "M-16 rifles and the like" are NOT "the sorts of
    lawful weapons" that may be possessed by members of the militia.
     
  18. Orthonym

    Orthonym Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    Southern Florida
    P.s.

    Oh, and aside from her wrongness in the instant case, I'll never forgive Mrs. Ginsberg for what she did to VMI.
     
  19. RON in PA

    RON in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,144
    Location:
    S.E. PA, USA
    This is one of the happiest days of my 67 years! Thank God for the five on our side and shame on the minority for their legal stupidity. The decision should have been unanimous. The major effect will be on places like DC and Chicago with current total prohibition. Most of the restrictions that we live with will stand, but the principle of the peoples' right to arms will help prevent any future total bans. I also suspect that any future total "assault" weapon ban is dead, based on some of the wording I've seen today.

    Great day for the USA:D:D
     
  20. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,488
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    From Ppg 52, 53 of the text of the decision:

    Sounds pretty clear to me...

    Poper
     
  21. hvengel

    hvengel Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    200
    This was one of the more interesting sections. It deals with the level of scrutiny. Since this issue was not before the court they did not specifically rule on it. But this section does contain dicta that implies that the level of scrutiny is AT LEAST intermediate (pages 56 and 57) since it explicitly rejects rational-basis scrutiny and in fact says that these laws would have been OK if this were being judged using that standard of scrutiny. Notice also that the ruling talks about "any standard of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights". As far as I know the only standard of scrutiny that has ever been applied to enumerated constitutional rights is strict scrutiny. So this strongly implies that if the question before the court requires a ruling on the standard of scrutiny that they will rule that is is strict.

    "Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."

    "27 JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all law would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating law under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions or irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 55U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."
     
  22. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    bottom of page 55, top of page 56.

    This seems promising.... especially in light of the fact that the ONLY reason they are unusual is because they are outlawed or fiscally impossible for most people to acquire because of the prohibitions and restrictions. Lift the restrictions and I guarantee that they become more common overnight!
     
  23. Groovski

    Groovski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    102
    What makes you say that? Incorporation to the states is one of the next legal battles, but that case is much more murky. Some of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the States and some have not. It is by no means a given, especially considering this very narrow case was decided by one measely vote.

    If the incorporation argument is not won, 2A means nothing to you unless you live in the right state.
     
  24. SDDL-UP

    SDDL-UP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    ID
    God bless America!

    And good for the Illinois State Rifle Association for taking up the torch for their state!
     
  25. unspellable

    unspellable Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,745
    Location:
    Iowa
    legal issues

    Following this decision the law suits will fly every which way. Some of them will be pretty obvious, as will their conclusions. One wonders why the ruling doesn't cover at leat some of those issues and save millions of dollars and yaers of court time. Of course some of the dollars thuis saved would have been spent on attorny's fees ...
     
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