Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bartholomew Roberts, Jun 26, 2008.
So what your saying is that what Scalia said is good?
Title 18 already makes it illegal to have an insurrection against the Government. Of course, the Constitutionality of that law should be challenged, too.
I hereby vote that anyone who posts in this thread who obviously hasn't read the Opinion has to spend 10 minutes in Timeout.
Hint: Scalia spoke at length about the right being natural and enumerated.
I'm saying that what Scalia wrote got Kennedy's swing vote. Do you think that's good?
I've read through the opinion up to Stevens dissenting. I must say I'm mostly encouraged - however, the part about "self defense in the home" concerns me. Is this something that would be considered relevant to the specific situation of Mr. Heller himself or is it something that could give the anti's ammunition to push us "back into the house"....????
I'm just wondering why Scalia would go on and on and on about our right to keep and bear arms for self defense but only extend that right to "in the home"??? Am I reading too much into the "in the home" thing?
Today is my 15th wedding anniversary. I would like to thank the SCOTUS for giving me a nice present. It is not perfect but it is a start. What I liked even better was the look on Mayor Daleys face and Blago our Gov and the good reverend Fr.Snuffy Phleager. I do not believe we got all we wanted but if people like the above as well as Feinstein are pissed it is all good.
Perhaps. You're reading Scalia addressing what the court was asked to address.
We win. woohoo
I know I'm a little slow to post, but what the hell.
i think he went on about it because that was the focus of the lawsuit. people couldnt have functinal firarms in their own homes. I am very encouraged by him talking so much about what it means "to bear arms" I think that lays the groundwork for some very good things.
I'm breaking out the champagne! I am ecstatic! Even if it was only because I went to CNN and saw their reporter say, "The Supreme Court affirms that the Second Amendment is an individual right".
I thought I'd never see the day!
...and reading the ruling is even better because Scalia did all he could to allow future suits. If he had tried to go for even more (no 4473, for example) he would not have gotten 5 votes.
Be happy! We won!
I've read the decision, but not all the details. From that alone, I see this as a mixed victory, but a victory. To wit:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
This is clearly very important, and it stated right up front. First sentence in "held." It should stand up against a lot of testing.
"The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
Possibly my favorite part. Should be self-explanatory to all here.
"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
I do not like the last part of this. Arguably "sensitive" places are those where firearm carry is most needed, especially schools, churches, and other places where large numbers of people can be expected to be unarmed, en masse.
"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
This really bothers me. If a weapon isn't "dangerous" what the hell use is it? As for unusual, again, WTH? Sounds like they're angling to preserve/extend cosmetic bans like AWs, and Miller was one of the largest travesties ever perpetrated on the people. Wish they'd overturn it, but, now, it's reinforced in this opinion.
I'm sure I'll be able to say a lot more when I've read it all, but for me this is definitely a mixed victory. But, still, a victory.
Don't get me wrong - I feel very encouraged as well about what Scalia wrote. I'm just "wondering out loud" what the "in the home" thing might mean to future applications....Like whether it would be viewed more in relation to Mr. Heller's specific circumstances or whatever....Like if Heller had said he wanted to keep a handgun in the home, wear it in his yard while mowig and open carry in public while walking to the store? I wonder if the opinion would have still said "in the home"?
Happy Happy Joy Joy!!!!
Was it a perfect Decision? Perhaps not. But it does say INDIVIDUAL!
Maybe one day I can take time to read the whole thing....
I don't see how people think a challenge to the machine gun ban is dead on arrival. The end of the document says that banning a whole class of arms is unconstitutional. The sale of machine guns has been restricted in much the same way as pistols in DC....if you had one prior you were good, but nothing after the ban. I think the reopening of the registry is a completely possible thing with this ruling. The removal of the registry, no dice there.
I would have loved to have seen the look on the face of Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, the criminal Bloomberg, and the rest of the the gun grabbing ilk. Now that we have this victory, we can now start tearing down the rest of the bad laws around the nation. It was the greatest victory for gun rights ever.
I read the whole thing , but I am not a lawyer. That said, I think this may help clarify your question: (PPG 55-56)
I hope this is helpful.
Note that they simply said that they would not pass judgement on where you can carry, not that they prohibit it altogether.
As for dangerous and unusual, keep the work "and" in mind. A stinger missile may be dangerous AND unusual, an AR-15, even if an anti-gunner says is dangerous, is certainly not unusual. This ruling kills any new AWB, and it leaves open an overturn of the 1986 machinegun ban.
Look at it this way, if Scalia wrote the ruling was any more our way, he would have gotten only 4 votes. We didn't get it all, but we got a huge victory!
Poper: I don't really know how to interpret that. I'll just say that there is an entire class of weapons that USED TO BE perfectly legal to own, and were fairly commonly owned, that, for many decades now, have not been legal, and therefore are presently "uncommon." Yet these same weapons are indeed "militia" weapons, so does this mean we can someday overturn Miller, et al, and get back to owning militia weapons? I'd like to think so, but I'm very skeptical. (People used to own their own cannons, you know.)
I am pleased with it, in general, but the fact that Scalia can support the definite regulation of arms that are not within the common use, or something to that effect, bothers me. It seems like something of a Catch 22, seeing as how a machine gun is not within the common use, given the price tag, but it perhaps, somehow, might have been, without the 1986 ban.
Especially seeing as how the AR-15 is in common use, why would not the M16?
Or am I totally on the wrong track?
Actualy Miller was very pro machinegun until the decision today "clarified" it.
In Miller the argument was that the sawn off Shotgun was not protected by the 2nd because it was not a suitable arm for the militia.
Nobody showed up to argue Miller in a pro gun way, so it was a one sided argument against.
Neither Miller nor the lawyer argued the case.
In the Court's final judgement they said that since nobody showed up to convince them a shotgun was a suitable militia weapon that they were not inclined to see it as such. Therefore the infringement on that arm was allowed.
They essentialy said that had it actualy been a machinegun or weapon suitable for military/militia use then it would have been easier to reach the conclusion that the NFA restriction was unconstitututional.
Since it was a short barreled shotgun and not a machinegun in question, they could not say the shotgun was a protected arm because in thier opinion with nobody to argue to the contrary, a shotgun was not suitable for military use. (but a machinegun certainly would be)
So the Miller decision, besides upholding the NFA on the shotgun issue was in fact highly pro gun. It was just turned anti gun because nobody used the ruling for positive change, merely to justify future restrictions.
That was a failure of gun rights people, not just the ruling itself.
Scalia however redefined what the Miller ruling meant today when he cited it, and he removed the pro gun aspect of it in doing so.
This is great and all BUT state and local laws still rule the day. I highly doubt
that anything in NJ is going to change. Due to the reasonable controls allowed. especially when the state decides whats reasonable. At least their won't be a total ban.
22 pages in 12 hours - 15 in the 1st hr
I'm up to page 15 and then everytime I come back to the board, 3 more pages have poppedup.
I believe Scalia is saying that use by the militia is a lawful purpose. Also that machine guns were in common use by the military at the time of Miller (1939) but Short Barreled Shotguns were not. His direct reference to the current battle rifle (M-16) and that the Militia were expected to field arms "in common use" and that the arms of the military and arms of the militia at the time "were one and the same" appears (to me) to leave open the possibility that citizens should have the same small arms as the military.
Would someone please clarify if I am in error?
This is most excellent. I was flying when it came down, I had the squadron duty officer call on the radio.
Zoogster: my understanding of Miller is obviously considerably at variance with yours.
Have you read Unintended Consequences by Ross? I think he did a pretty good job of elucidating the basic picture, and what Miller, together with all the subsequent court actions vis-a-vis the 1934 Act have wrought in our republic.
But, I would need to study the subject in much more detail to comment further. My gut feelings have not changed based on today's ruling, at least not yet.
More reading to do...
Footnote on pg 53:
Doesn't this footnote say that the Miller decision had nothing to do with interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and their referencing it is NOT the basis of this decision?
Or am I all wet?
Separate names with a comma.