*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)

SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

[RKBA Democrat]

Today is the day.

The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.

[Natchez Hawk]

So what did the previous generation learn?

Would this enlightened ‘previous generation’ be the baby-boomers? Oh, they’re wise.

The Jihad on drugs has a greater destructive effect on society than any person’s consumption of any drug.

[Dead Corpse]

AA-12 Full auto 12GA. Particularly useful in a “militia capacity” to clear large numbers of Zombies, er... enemies, at close combat range.

[andy58-in-nh]

The larger issue for all of us is the historical scope of judicial review and the self-appointed ability of the Court to determine what the Constitution says. This has been going on since 1803 (Marbury v. Madison) and will not go away anytime soon. What we need is more Justices who view the Court's role as one of interpretation rather than legislation; who view words as they were written, not as they wish they were written; who view the Constitution as a completed work, not as a blank canvas.

I know that John McCain might give us Justices like that, and as hard as it is to hang your hat on a "might", I also know that Barack Obama will give us more Breyers, Ginsbergs, and Souters - at best. Scary thought, that.

[Professional Engineer]

I like it!

[Redbob]

"In a number of states, legislatures have passed laws barring t he possession of firearms by men (mostly) who have been convicted of even the slightest form of domestic violence..."

I do believe this is a federal law, and also that there's nothing in Heller to use to challenge it.

[Still Thinking]

There would have to be some action on the part of government, I would think. Either you have to be arrested for breaking a law which you could then challenge, or you’d have to be denied a license after applying like Heller was. Just the mere existence of a law you don’t agree with isn’t enough because it’s hard to show you’ve been harmed by the law. If you’ve been arrested and facing some penalty for breaking the law it’s obvious that you would be in a better condition were the law not on the books.

[cake_crumb]

WOOHOO, we can keep our guns to protect our homes from the foreign terrorists they granted US civil rights to!

[EdReform]

NRA just announced on the steps of the Supreme Court steps that they are filing suit in Chicago.

YES!!

[Still Thinking]

Since a misdemeanor is not a felony nor are the subjects in question mentally ill, I would concur.

Well, those things are probably justified now be saying that they're public safety measures, so people would probably try to argue that they fall into the same category with the prior-restrainty feeling "schools and government buildings" phrase.

I'm upset that Scalia put that and the gun purchase loophole in, but maybe he had to in order to pick up Kennedy.

[Marie2]

“Has any of the 4 dissenters EVER READ the CONSTITUTION?”

They’ve read it. They just don’t like it.

[patton]

Good questions - dunno.

[Outraged At FLA]

Interesting line in the majority opinion:

"Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

[Still Thinking]

Count me in for $50.

[DBrow]

“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.”

Looks like national gun registration and a national “must issue” license law is coming, the Supremes said it was OK. Soon they’ll know what you have and where you live.

I wonder what it will take to get your “must issue” permission slip?

[infowarrior]

too bad Thomas didn’t write a consenting opinion.

As I recall, a consenting opinion is only written when the the end result is the same, but the legal/Consttutional reasonings are different (or is that a concurring opinion?)

the infowarrior

[onemiddleamerican]

Clinging to my guns and bible in jubilation for my law-abiding DC brothers and sisters.

[vox_freedom]

CCW regs will continue to be Constitutional insofar as they are reasonably related to the protection of a valid state interest (protecting school children, preventing panic in crowded public areas) in regulating where and in what manner an individual might carry a gun outside of his or her property. That does not change.

Where the bar has been significantly raised is with regard to a state or locality's attempt to "balance" its interests with gun ownership rights.

Thanks again for the clarification. Appreciate it.

[NFHale]

“...Time to go on the offense!!...”

EXACTLY!!! Now is not the time to back down. Hold the left by the nose and kick them in the A**.

Our job is FAR from over. We have a country to take back, culturally, mentally, and judicially...(or judiciously, if you prefer...)

This is a historic day - the day Civil War III was averted.

[stand watie]

as you likely know, i'm a retired LEO of 4 decades of service "behind the badge".

i've printed off the whole decision & am taking it to my "part-time job" to read in DETAIL.

free dixie,sw

[Tammy8]

the coup that the judiciary has pulled off in this country in the last hundred years.

The Supreme Court coup took place more than a hundred years ago- it happened in 1803; Marbury v. Madison. They did wait a while after that to exercise the power they assumed for themselves in that case- but that case is what their power is based upon.