Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

[mvpel]

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.

DAMN IT, GURA!!!!

Do you need a license to criticize government officials?

Guess another case will have to be brought, at great expense and hassle, to overturn the patently unconstitutional prior restraint of licensing requirements.

 

[JWT]

It's a victory for sure, but will take some digesting to see exactly how much of a victory. I certainly is not a broad approval to own arms under any conditions and seems that certain restrictions will probably continue to be allowed under this ruling.

 

[Waitone]

Finally, pushback!

 

[ElectricHellfire]

Huzzah! Finally, a victory.

 

[FrontSight]

"We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

 

[rogertc1]

Life is good for now unless Saddam Obama wins in 2008.

 

[HKuser]

But since this case represents this
Court’s first examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us.

Scalia is inviting us to start challenges. Time to get those briefs ready gentleman. Scalia suggests alse that the standard of review is something other than rational basis but not what exactly it is. Finally, a Supreme Court opinion in which the Second is illuminated correctly.

Friendly Supreme Court appointees are more important than ever now.

 

[gordon_freeman]

Question to those with more legal knowledge than myself:

Does this decision keep cities from essentially regulating firearms ownership to the point that ownership is essentially impossible for the average person?

Will this have any impact or bearing on the machine gun ban of 1986?

 

[gretske]

This underscores the importance of making changes to Constitution using the amendment process, not the courts.

 

[xrocket]

.

One good step for a stronger America.​

Now, there are more dragons to slay ...





.

 

[rantingredneck]

A particularly Scaliaesque Gem:

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents.

 

[tyme]

Does this decision keep cities from essentially regulating firearms ownership to the point that ownership is essentially impossible for the average person?

Gordon, it looks that way.

Still digging through the opinion, but from the end of the Syllabus:

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.

I read that as potentially striking down may-issue laws for licensing of gun ownership (NYC, *cough*), as well as striking down and prohibiting outright bans on firearms such as assault weapons.

 

[jfrey123]

Does this decision keep cities from essentially regulating firearms ownership to the point that ownership is essentially impossible for the average person?

In my uneducated opinion, yes. Various parts of the texts indicate to me that they allow a bit of room for the cities to regulate said possessions (i.e. they're focing DC to allow Heller to register his handgun). I'd bet some municipalities will try to make their registration processes expensive or difficult in order to combat this as long as they can, but those sort of "backdoor bans" would likely be struck down in lawsuits that reference the reading of these texts.

Will this have any impact or bearing on the machine gun ban of 1986?

Some group will have to put together the funding and legal team to challenge the 1986 law before a court, but:

...well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. ... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I think we'd have a leg to stand on for said challenge.

 

[Silver Bullet]

From Fox News:

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas

Glad I voted for Bush.

 

[applesanity]

Reading though the opinion, I get the feeling that Justice Scalia doesn't think too highly of either Stevens or Breyer. He didn't just disagree with them, he ridiculed them at times. Me think the Justices don't go on golf outings together.

EDIT: Pulled this from page 62-63:

After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interestbalanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Page 64:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

 

[WhyteP38]

Here are excerpts of ABC’s reporting of the decision, with my commentary tossed in:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5037600&page=1

The 5-4 decision marks first time the court has ever definitively addressed the issue, which had been one of the great unresolved constitutional questions as experts debated whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun, or only a state's right to arm a militia.

...

But the city's mayor, Adrian Fenty, has fought to keep the gun control law on the books. He says tough gun laws are essential in the city, where the crime rate is among the highest in the nation.

Apparently, Mayor Fenty doesn’t get the connection: tough gun laws in his city; crime rate among the highest in the nation. Go figure.

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," Fenty said.

Actually, that’s exactly what’s happening in his city, where the 9-1-1 responders arrive just in time to chalk outline your body before the coroner shows up.

...

But lawyers opposing the gun ban argued that the city's efforts to fight crime are falling short. In court papers they said that the city "consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime."

Recent polls have found that most Americans believe an individual has the right to own a gun. According to Gary Langer, head of the ABC News Polling Unit, "While gun control in general is popular, banning handguns entirely is not; better enforcement is preferred to new legislation; three-quarters believe the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to own guns; and culture get more blame for gun violence than the availability of guns."

Gun's rights advocates will now turn their attention to other cities like Chicago with strict gun control laws and argue that those laws should be overturned as well.

Dennis A. Henigan, of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says that the "whole purpose of the litigation is to achieve a Supreme Court precedent that they will use to attack many other laws."

"This will inspire years and years of litigation and undercut the network of gun laws," he said.

From your lips to God’s ears ....

Maybe now George Bush can truly say, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[tlm225]

After a quick read of the ruling I am tickled to death that the court upheld the 2nd as an individual right and that the meaning of "to keep and bear arms" is to possess and carry. I am concerned that the ruling allows a permit system to acquire/possess firearms and that it recognized the right to carry in the home for self defense.

 

[Quick Karl]

I cant wait to see what happens to the Sullivan Law in that cesspool of liberal democrap hogwash, NYC...

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm Unregistered....does this mean that now they will want all guns registered?I wonder how long it will take for all the other states to want the same thing........

Or am I missreading the artical

 

[SkySlash]

I agree applesanity. He at times says they are "dead wrong" and at others calls their opinions that of a "Mad Hatter." It's not just ridicule of their ideas, it's unconcealed scorn.

Scalia is, has been, and will probably always be my favorite justice of my lifetime.

-SS