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

Status
Not open for further replies.
How will the effect the rules against SBRs and SBSs?
Click to expand...
It doesn't.
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
Click to expand...
We will now see a subsequent case demanding the right to military-specific arms, in conflict with this verdict.
 
Two comments:


RE: Common Usage....


I think you will find that AR-15's and other EBR's with "High" capacity magazines are in VERY "Common Usage" in the USA.

I'll take that.


Re: Brady Site....

haha now the brady's front page is, "GIVE US MONEY, PLEASE!!"
Click to expand...


Talk about throwing good money after bad money....


-- John
 
Quote:
How will the effect the rules against SBRs and SBSs?
It doesn't.
Quote:
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
We will now see a subsequent case demanding the right to military-specific arms, in conflict with this verdict.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. But what is the likelihood a case against the ban of SBRs will be successful in light of the Heller decision.
 
2A right not unlimited - restrictions on concealed carry, felon possession, mentally ill, firearms in schools or federal laws regulating sale all given as examples of OK laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is exactly what bothers me, the ruling is exceptionally narrow.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the "affirmation of an individual right" aspect, but, NOTHING CHANGES with regard to "reasonable restrictions (infringements)" vs. " . . . shall not be infringed". NFA'43 stands, GCA'68 stands, all other local restrictions stand . . . . Hello AWB'08.

"A" firearm"
" . . . in the home"
Good luck making this go any further anytime soon.

Guess I've gotta read the whole thing, but, I'm not as happy as I could have been and it's obvious that SCOTUS disregards the literal meaning of the Amendment.
 
Arthur, I took that to mean "arms" is a perfectly valid word to use for weapons not designed directly for military service; in other words, you don't have to be a soldier for your gun to be an "arm."

Of course, i could be way off base.
 
SCOTUS has recognized a right to "common" arms - those which people commonly have for non-military purposes.
SCOTUS has specifically not recognized a right to "militia" arms - those which allegedly have little place in normal society.

This utterly fails to recognize two plain points:
- the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY recognized the need of the populace to be armed for MILITARY PURPOSES, which presumably includes whatever tools are most suitable thereto
- tools cannot become "common" if they are nationally prohibited prior to becoming common. To wit: many/most here would have M16s if only they were allowed to.

SCOTUS really doesn't want the machinegun ban to fall.
 
Scalia on the definition of arms:

"The term was applied then as now to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."
Click to expand...

I'm confused on this too.So, Scalia is saying anything designed for, or used by the militray, is NOT "arms"? So "arms" can only be a weapon not designed for, or used by the militray?
 
explain please ...for the short bus crowd
Click to expand...

Scalia is saying as clearly as humanly possible that a 922(o) challenge is dead on arrival.

He is also saying that the Second protects two separate rights - to keep arms and to bear arms.

Reading some of the dissenting comments is just sickening. It is disgusting to see the lengths that grown, well-educated adults will try to twist words out of their ordinary meaning and still look at you with a straight face and say "But it really does mean that!"
 
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."



That would be a hell of a quote for a t-shirt.:D
 
what is the likelihood a case against the ban of SBRs will be successful
Click to expand...
It won't, because they're not banned (at least federally; your local jurisdiction may vary). I bought one last year.
SCOTUS has upheld the power of the gov't to require licenses (or other forms of permission) for ownership. SBRs are legal under NFA law insofar as you pay your $200 and submit paperwork, and you get your SBR.
 
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”
Click to expand...


Yeah, this can't be good.




Scalia on the definition of arms:

"The term was applied then as now to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."
Click to expand...


What? Wasn't there basically two arms (besides cannons); muskets and pistols?

And they were both used for military/self-defense and hunting purposes?


.
 
- the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY recognized the need of the populace to be armed for MILITARY PURPOSES, which presumably includes whatever tools are most suitable thereto
Click to expand...

Yep. This is disappointing. I don't think SCOTUS needed to address this at all. As someone else posted, they REALLY don't want the machine gun ban to fall. This is especially disappointing given that it was a 5-4 decision in which the majority wasn't even trying to get the liberal members happy by tossing them a bone.
 
I'm pretty happy with the outcome, but find it interesting that Scalia sided with the gov't on the "Enemy combatants" case and with "the people" on Heller. I guess my big take away from following SCOTUS this month is that it really is a political animal in that for justices on either side, the BoR can apply in one case, and be suspended in another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
Replies
5
Views
921
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
Was Heller Insignificant?
Replies
18
Views
875
LaBulldog
L
E
  • Locked
Summary of positive effects of Heller
Replies
2
Views
456
everallm
E
W
  • Locked
The Three Steps In Heller vs D.C:SCOTUS'S Crucial Answers
Replies
0
Views
397
Winchester 73
W
Jeff White
  • Locked
The Impact of Heller on the Illinois State Legislature
Replies
2
Views
483
Geneseo1911
G
Back
Top