Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
Today is the day.
The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.
They already banned the 4th Amendment. Two weeks ago.
It's only fair, the government scares the crap out of me!
Thank you, God!
And thank you President Bush for allowing the American people to protect themselves from criminals, stalkers and other lunatics and tyrannical governments.
Praise and Blessings to the Almighty and all SCOTUS Justices who voted to protect those rights.
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.
Worrysome. But about what we expected. Notable that they are silent on OPEN carry...
So basically, except for the most egregious total gun bans, it's the status quo. They can still restrict the hell out of your ownership rights as long as they don't ban them completely, and still require licensing. But, check this out...
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.
Does this mean that the Supreme Court just ruled "may-issue" handgun licensing, but NOT "may-issue" CCW licensing, unconstitutional?
}:-)4
Stuffing his fat face.
Still waiting for the download but I’ll bet that the 5-4 split was because the majority opinion held that the individual right was probably violated by MANY gun control laws.
How about the viability of AWB II, proposed by the Democrats?
I wonder what ROSIE thinks? Go Tom Selleck!
That seems like pretty strong language.
GOD BLESS YOU SHELLY PARKER!
So how do we start the process of impeaching the 4 judges that ruled against the Bill of Rights and our Constitution? I thought they were sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they just blatantly opposed it. The people need to act.
“The whining and cursing on DU has already begun.”
I’ll bet. It’s tragic that the Supreme Court can read the Constitution, instead of following the superior wisdom of DU members. I wish more government decisions offended them.
Quotes from Scalia’s majority opinion (courtesy of www.scotusblog.com):
Quotes from the opinion:
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“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.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
[Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.]
That single line is the most important part of the decision and the decision is the most important in the last 100 years.
Money - the whole country just became shall-issue.
“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.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.