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.
GREAT NEWS!
I just called my Husband at work and told him just to make his day brighter!
Guess they weren’t looking forward to a “million gun” march.
Hoss yeah!
This keeps the door open for licensing of all firearms.
The scope of this appears limited to home possession...will this change the status quo on concealed carry?
Heller quotes from the majority
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:27 am | Tom Goldstein | Comments Off |
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!
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.”
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“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.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
Many rank-and-file Democrats, especially the blue-collar union type, are still pretty pro-gun even if they’re quite liberal in other ways.
I think that’s one reason the Dem politicians, as a whole, have softened on the gun control platform.
Ditto, but that's cool. When the power is all on the state's side, however...
Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
Heinrich Himmler
But can the SCOTUS really have said this?
“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.”
Even I, historical ignoramus that I am, know the writing of the Bill of Rights, as the Constitution, followed the Revolutionary War, but preceded the Civil War by quite some time...
Scalia has waited his entire life to write this one opinion, IMHO. The 2nd Amendment has been radioactive. Now, it is clarified.
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."
I am absolutely shocked at the overwhelming positive response on DU.
I am especially glad to see some point out that the gun BAN is what is FASCIST, not the overturning of the ban.
Bump for later and big
NEENER NEENER NEENER to the Brady bunch
This is not only about McCain. He doesn’t stand a chance of adding a conservative judge if the Senate is full of Libs. The focus needs to be on the congressional members to truly change anything. Regardless of who gets into the White house it will become meaningless if the Senate will not confirm a Conservative Judge
Scalia cites Volokh in the ruling! (page 6)
Big bump to that. The irony is that this case was funded and pushed by a libertarian with his own funds if I'm not mistaken.-bf
Just like JimRob did for FR. I got an email about an auction in DC area tomorrow. It is on the net, They have lots of servers and associated gear, at some pretty good prices. Used stuff can make few dollars go further.
Click above for details. Shipping can be arranged by DC FReepers, possibly?
For the ownership of guns in the home, yes. Not for CCW, probably not for open carry. It looks like cities/states can still require licensing and are free to make the licensing restrictions fairly onerous if they want. Let’s face it, proving that a city is enforcing its laws “arbitrarily and capriciously” is pretty darn hard.
What this looks like it does is remove the most drastic of the gun bans, like the District’s. And it builds a firewall that basically says “you can restrict up to here, but no further.” It doesn’t roll back a whole lot, really. It’s a good decision, and a necessary decision. But it’s more of a solid defense than a strong offense.
}:-)4
They voted against the Constitution! I agree...
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.