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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is time to calmly read the entire decision at length later and go over every detail a few times before any more hypothetical arguments based on parts of it.

Proud to be an American.
Let this be step two (after the creation of the 2nd Amendment) to abolishing unjust laws and restrictions.
 
Well it was a narrow victory, yes. But it was a victory just the same. While the court could have, and in my opinion SHOULD have granted a more powerful opinion, that more powerful opinion may have cost a critical swing vote.

The court did it's job and answered the narrow questions it was asked, and they answered them, more or less, correctly.

I am disturbed at the intellectual dishonesty of the liberal leaning justices. I find it astonishing that 4 SCOTUS Justices got this fundamental Right incorrect!!!

Todays' verdict was not as powerful as I would have liked, but the bottom line is that it is a strong reversal of decades of anti-Right and anti-gun oppression in our country and cities. Categorical anti-gun bans across the nation will start to fall and as more citizens can enjoy the right, positive things will happen and more pro-gun laws will be passed.

What we needed was our standard "common" individual gun rights affirmed - and that's what we got. We didn't get a definative answer on the full auto or tax stamp issues, but that will come in time. Let's rejoice in what we got. The recognition that our handguns, rifles, EBRs, shotguns, etc. are lawful.

And as others have noted, we just KICKED A$$ in the public eye. Much of American fence sitters now side with the individual right interpretation and this will have lasting positive effects for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.
 
I was pleased with the decision, and am amazed at the number of posts on this and numerous other forums, many not firearms related. I knew there was a lot of interest but never expected this.
 
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 ...
__________________
unspellable

The ruling doesn't cover more of those issues because at best it would carry no force, and at worst would be viewed as unconstitutional. SCOTUS is not the legislature, they can only decide cases and controversies.
 
This is a BIG victory and a wonderful day for America in more ways than one. If the 2nd Amendment had been gutted, so could all the rest. The decision was quite narrow, but that's what most of us expected. Now we can build on that victory.
The scary part is how close we came to losing. ONE vote! The NRA has been criticized for avoiding a Supreme Court case, and this has shown them to have been right in doing so! In earlier courts, we probably would have lost!
Marty
 
Illinois State Rifle Association filed suit against Chicago within 15 minutes of the ruling. NRA followed, including a few suburbs with handgun bans. 1st salvo....
 
1. The fact that it was 5-4 even for such a narrow pro-gun ruling explains why the NRA and many other organizations have been reluctant to pursue lawsuits. And this is the best Supreme Court for our purposes we have had for a long time and the best we are likely to have. Bear in mind Republicans have been in the White House for 20 out of the last 28 years, and yet we still have four justices willing to uphold an absolute ban on handguns.

2. Having read the full opinion of the court and the two dissents, I can summarize them this way:

Scalia: individual right, the purpose of which is to make sure we are well armed for our militia role and for self-defense, and this law violates it. But apparently it just barely violates it, since licensing and registration are ok.

Stevens, dissent # 1: Individual right, but only for those in the militia.

Breyer, dissent #2: individual right, but the DC ban is a reasonable response to urban crime. (basically this is Obama's position)

3. Since all the dissenters signed on to Breyer's dissent, they are all on record as saying there is an individual right for everyone, not just militia members.

4. I was happy to see the antis forced to discuss history and legislative intent. Once they're on that ground, they will lose.
 
I forgot to mention in my earlier post... The dissenting justices should be ASHAMED of themselves! They know as well as anyone else what the 2nd Amendment means, and they were willing to contort the meaning and intent of the framers to press their personal anti-gun agendas. They took an oath to uphold the constitution...
Marty
 
Marty, that's why this presidential election is so critical; we have to keep the leftist out, so the Court isn't packed with more leftists. Thank God that Bush gave us two very good Justices.
 
I find it astonishing that 4 SCOTUS Justices got this fundamental Right incorrect!!!

Alas, there is nothing truly astonishing these days about four rogue "justices" who ignore the Constitution to impose personal moral and policy preferences.

These rogues ought to be run out of town on a rail.
 
Did any of you read the commentary on SCOTUSBLOG?? I noticed this, written by Carl Bogus (who apparently wrote an amicus supporting DC).

On a different topic, I read Justice Scalia’s opinion with both great interest and trepidation to see whether he embraced insurrectionist theory, that is, the argument that the Founders adopted the Second Amendment as a check against governmental tyranny. What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law - not to mention traditional conservatism - than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government? Nonetheless, this theory has animated much of the individual right literature. Its popularity has undoubtedly disturbed the sleep of giants on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely, insurrectionism has had both James Madison and Edmund Burke spinning in their graves.

Clearly, Justice Scalia tried to be careful not to expressly embrace insurrectionist theory. Yet he alludes to it gingerly - a sort of toe in the water. He writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Call me foolish, but I was hoping that the conservative Court would expressly repudiate insurrectionist theory. Somewhere, Robespierre is smiling.

Has this guy read NOTHING that Jefferson wrote??? This "insurrectionist theory" was mentioned many times in Jefferson's writing. It just amazes me the extent that some folks will go to (lies and hypebole such as the quote above). I personally believe that Madison and Burke must have HUGE grins on their faces right now!!
 
Scalia: individual right, the purpose of which is to make sure we are well armed for our militia role and for self-defense, and this law violates it. But apparently it just barely violates it, since licensing and registration are ok.

Scalia didn't say licensing was "ok," he effectively said it wasn't part of this case. If Heller hadn't said he was ok with a license, it would have forced the issue. It's now a future court case.

Stevens, dissent # 1: Individual right, but only for those in the militia.

Breyer, dissent #2: individual right, but the DC ban is a reasonable response to urban crime. (basically this is Obama's position)

3. Since all the dissenters signed on to Breyer's dissent, they are all on record as saying there is an individual right for everyone, not just militia members.

All four signed on to both dissents, so they are effectively arguing for and against the militia case at the same time, if your interpretation is correct (and as far as I've digested it, I can't argue). Dissent #2 is particularly odious, though. The dissenters are effectively on record as going with the "living constitution" interpretation as far as I can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

In other words, sure, they'll agree 2A means an individual right, but that really doesn't mean anything - it's subject to "reasonable" interpretation, or, they can interpret your individual rights however they want, any time they want. These four won't be missed by me when they are no longer on the court.
 
Justices get a life appointment. They aren't going to step down until their party is in the white house so they can be replaced with a like-minded individual.

Such as <> Ginsberg. She falls asleep on the bench, if this happened in a district courtroom she would be removed. She won't step down until the next Left-wing president can replace her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law - not to mention traditional conservatism - than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government?

Where does this guy live? Canada? I know it can't be the United States, last I checked I lived in a Constitutional REPUBLIC.
 
This wasn't settled in the ruling, but my reading has me thinking the the National Firearms Act IS constitutional, but 922(o) is not. Outright bans would have a high standard to overcome, but extensive restrictions on machine guns would stand.

We'll see...
 
Here's my take:

Personally, I disagree with the Supreme Court decision. I think by going strictly by what the second amendment says, firearms are not an individual's personal right (i.e., I agree with Stevens).

However, I do not agree with the Washington D.C. law. In fact, I think that owning a firearm should be a right. I could be persuaded to consider an amendment that allows for individuals' rights to arms, if worded carefully. If the people of Washington D.C. disliked the law so much, I wonder why it was never on the ballot so the residents could vote against it (though it may have been, I don't know).

To summarize: I don't agree with the court's decision, though I do believe that we should be entitled to individual rights to own firearms (within reason, of course). Because of that belief, I subsequently disagree with the law, though, in my opinion, it didn't contradict the constitution. But, for better or for worse, the court made its decision and I respect that decision.
 
I would like to think whoopeeeeee; but I am a skeptic at best. The Heller case involved the District of Columbia. Therefore I wonder, in getting down to the nitty-gritty of legal mumbo-jumbo, does the Heller decision apply to the states, or only to DC? Was that answered directly, or is it still unanswered or left vague and open to more challenges from the states?

Of course I think, and choose to believe it applies to the states, including NY, MA, NJ, CA and so forth.
 
def,
Please explain what you think the amendment says, if it doesn't say it's an individual right. Also, please note that the Constitution is there so that our rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. We are NOT a true democracy. We are a constitutional republic. It would be no more appropriate for people to get to vote on whether or not I should have the right to a gun than it would have been for a bunch of racists to vote on whether minority black children could go to school with the majority (whites) back in the 50's and 60's.
 
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Statement on the US Supreme Court's Ruling

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Statement on the US Supreme Court’s Ruling on Washington D.C.’s Gun Ban

The following is a statement from Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy in reaction to the United State Supreme Court’s Ruling on the District of Columbia v. Heller:

“Although I am disappointed in today’s decision to strike down the Washington D.C. gun ban, I am heartened by the Court’s acknowledgment of the right of legislative bodies to create sensible gun laws. This ruling now paves the way for Congress to move forward on passing the kind of laws that will protect our communities.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is the first major ruling on gun ownership by the Supreme Court since 1939. The Court has set an important precedent with its ruling today that will no doubt allow for the creation of future laws intended to stem gun violence. I signed a brief in support of the law and I know how much communities throughout the country are struggling to reduce gun violence.

“In the District of Columbia v. Heller, the court examined whether Washington D.C.’s 1976 ban on handgun possession at home, and requirement that all guns—including rifles and shotguns—be kept disassembled, was constitutional.

“It should be noted that the Washington D.C. gun ban was among the toughest in the nation. But, I strongly believe that lawmakers need to have the freedom to create legislation that protects communities, without violating people’s individual rights.

“In their decision, the Justices said that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but that communities have the right to make laws that create reasonable gun laws.

“Specifically, the court ruled that the Second Amendment right is ‘Not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’

“Also, signaling that this ruling is not a move in the direction of disavowing all limitations on gun ownership, the Court also said that the Second Amendment right is ‘not unlimited.’

“Of note, the Court maintained that this ruling is not intended to overturn any significant precedents set by previous decisions when it said, ‘[the Court’s] opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.’

“That is why I have been working so hard to keep guns out of the hands of those people who could potentially do the most harm, such as when Congress passed my bill the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. That law makes it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to gain access to guns.

“The NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007 needs to be fully funded in order to keep our communities safe. We also need to put more cops on the streets and increase funding for the Community Oriented Policing Programs Services (COPS) program.

“While I have consistently supported the right of gun ownership, it is crucial that government has the ability to create common sense gun laws. We have an obligation to keep our communities safer from gun violence.

“Since the Court’s decision today leans toward an individual right to gun ownership and does not suggest that the Second Amendment is strictly intended for the establishment of militia, as lawmakers, this interpretation allows us to create common sense gun laws that do not hinder the right to gun ownership, but keep guns out of the wrong hands and keep communities and individuals safe from gun violence.

“As the Justices said, ‘the Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem; including some measures regulating handguns.’

“With that in mind I will continue to work toward pushing laws that stem gun violence and keep guns from those individuals who are likely to cause harm, as I have for the past 15 years.

“We can never stop all gun violence, but there is a lot that we can do to keep our communities safer. Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on passing sensible gun laws that protect Americans, but not threaten the ability of law-abiding citizens to own guns.”

ARTICLE
 
Therefore I wonder, in getting down to the nitty-gritty of legal mumbo-jumbo, does the Heller decision apply to the states, or only to DC? Was that answered directly, or is it still unanswered or left vague and open to more challenges from the states?

It only applies to the Feds...the issue of what states can or can't do has not been decided. Many rights have been "incorporated" to the states by the 14th amendment, which basically means individual rights that can't be denied by the Feds can't be denied by the States either. That's the next big court case, and it is by no means a slam-dunk, imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top