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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still find it absolutely disturbing that it was only 5 to 4!!! Had they been intellectually honest it would have been 9 to 0. Which makes me question the existence of a judicial branch with this kind of power given their overt partisanship.

OTHO is it possible it was so narrow because the other 5 passed a very broad and sweeping decision?
 
200 posts in less than 15 minutes. You suppose this is a much-watched decision?

Hot damn, how about that quote!!!

"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."

Ash
 
One question:


Quote:
Tom Goldstein is such a funny guy...

10:12 Tom Goldstein - The Morgan Stanley opinion holds that FERC was required to apply the Mobile Sierra presumption. There, everyone knows what they came here to find out.


Why is this so funny?
Click to expand...

Because there was one minor decison still to be heard when he posted that "funny" comment--HELLER!!!
 
Well, now we need to use this to work on winning back MORE stolen rights.

heck of a good start, and maybe proof that the fight for gun rights is best waged in courtrooms and not trying to lobby politicans who half the time can't be trusted to hear us anyway.

the ballot box has been disappointing, but the jury box/bench is still hopeful.
 
Reading the opinion now - looks like it establishes an individual right to firearms for self-defense that is unrelated to militia service.

It also adopts the "in common use at the time" test - sorry 922(o) guys... but to me that is a pretty clear signal from Scalia (who said during orals that MGs were not common), that a 922(o) challenge NOW is a loser.
 
Interesting paragraph (Breyer, dissenting):
Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides
which loaded “arms” a homeowner may keep. The majority
says that that Amendment protects those weapons
“typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.” Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes
machineguns, but permits handguns, which the
majority describes as “the most popular weapon chosen by
Americans for self-defense in the home.” Ante, at 57; see
also ante, at 54–55. But what sense does this approach
make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress
and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of
machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect
their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find
that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the
individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
On the majority’s reasoning, if tomorrow someone
invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense
weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it
immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no
longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In
essence, the majority determines what regulations are
permissible by looking to see what existing regulations
permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers
intended such circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
 
Require trigger locks is UNCONSTITIONAL!

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
Why is this so funny?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Imagine it's Christmas and you have 3 presents under the tree. One is shaped like socks, one like a bunny suit from your aunt, and one like a Red Ryder BB Gun. You open the first two and your mother say, "Oh, you got that bunny suit you are hoping for. Let's all go have breakfast." Too obscure? OK, I'll try again. Heller was the big decision that everyone was watching for. The guy was making a joke buy saying implying that everyone was waiting for a not so big decision. Get it?
 
Does 5-4 mean there is a problem in the near future?...i.e. what is the likelihood that this issue can be revisited by the court in some capacity in the near future with a slightly different and less favorable cast?
 
From SCOTUSblog
Quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

That is worrisome.
Click to expand...

Actually, it says conditions and qulaifications of commercial sales, not all sales. California's private transaction law is in vilolation, but GCA 68 4473 is not. CalNRA filing suit yet?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
Replies
5
Views
877
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
Was Heller Insignificant?
Replies
18
Views
820
LaBulldog
L
E
  • Locked
Summary of positive effects of Heller
Replies
2
Views
429
everallm
E
W
  • Locked
The Three Steps In Heller vs D.C:SCOTUS'S Crucial Answers
Replies
0
Views
373
Winchester 73
W
J
  • Locked
The Impact of Heller on the Illinois State Legislature
Replies
2
Views
459
Geneseo1911
G
Back
Top