*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.

[Sender]

Strictly speaking, it does not address a ban on imported military weapons, nor does it imply that such a ban is unconstitutional. What we won today is that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that any ban which forbids us from keeping and bearing some form of firearm would be unconstitutional.

As long as we are allowed to own domestic firearms, I don't see that the Heller ruling overturns any import ban.

The anti-gunners are already splitting hairs on this decision. Mayor Fenty of DC just said that all guns will continue to require registration, and that all "automatic and semiautomatic" handguns will continue to be illegal. Thus, if he lets you own a registered revolver, he has complied with the Heller decision.

[Jim Noble]

So far, it looks like I was wrong, since Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents

Stevens wrote the dissent, and all 4 concurred.

His dissent is radical and striking, going well beyond the gun issue.

In the view of the minority (soon to be a majority if Obama is elected), "right of the People" does not guarantee ANY right to ANY individual which is not subsumed by the collective.

This is an extremely radical opinion, basically ending Liberty in favor of Equality and Fraternity, and it's one vote away from being the law of the land.

[afnamvet]

....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Glorious news.

[patton]

Technically, a revolver IS a semiautomatic.

So Fenty wants to allow single-round guns? Sort of like a single-shot Deringer?

Fenty is an idiot.

[Centurion2000]

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

OMG that is so damned awesome ... you just made my day. :)

You can be dang sure that Chicago is going to delay daley delay .....

[stand watie]

i'm fine for the shape i'm in at nearly social security age.

fwiw, i was sworn in as a deputy constable 4 DAYS after my 18th birthday (fwiw, i like to have NEVER lived down my MOTHER having to buy MY service revolver FOR ME, because i was NOT old enough to buy my own. ===> i was "the little constable"/"kiddie cop" for a LONG time after that!!), because the Constable in my precinct passed away in his sleep (state law there requires a Constable in each of the precincts.) & the sheriff KNEW i badly needed a JOB to continue to attend college. i was "behind the badge" until Nov 2006, with two about a year long breaks in service.

i have the "somewhat dubious distinction" to have served as a town/city/county/parish/state/MP & federal officer over those 4 decades (i changed jobs/departments every time somebody offered me at least a 100.oo more a month. btw, i was told yesterday at the county SO that the county is considering appointing me again as a peace officer to help supervise some of the NEW/rookie officers. the county is growing so fast that we are constantly hiring NEW deputies.).

free dixie,sw

[MeanWestTexan]

Two out of the four losers were appointed by Reagan/Bush, Sr.

Souter, in particular, is disgusting.

[wagglebee]

Bush actually appoints far more conservative justices than Reagan, despite governing far to Ronnie’s left.

While on the surface that seems true, when you dig a little deeper it's not as simple as it looks.

Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed because Reagan had pledged to appoint the first woman to the Court. This was just eight years after Roe v. Wade and the whole notion of what to look for in an originalist justice was not even really known. O'Connor seemed like a safe bet, history proved otherwise.

Scalia was Reagan's second appointment and I don't think ANYONE will argue that he was a bad choice.

Anthony Kennedy was Reagan's final appointment and even though he is now considered the "swing vote" he is still far more conservative than O'Connor.

However, the biggest thing to remember with Kennedy is that he was Reagan's THIRD choice. We all remember Bork, and this was the first time a Supreme Court appointee had EVER been challenged based on his politics and not qualifications. Reagan then nominated Douglas Ginsburg, but his nomination was withdrawn because he had smoked marjuana twenty years before (something that would not even get a bit of attention today). It is worth noting that had Ginsburg been confirmed, he would certainly be among the most conservative justices on the Court if his record on the D.C. Court of Appeals is any indication. Reagan finally settled on Kennedy because everyone assured him that he would sail through confirmation and this was important, the Senate Iran-Contra hearings had just finished, Bork was trashed, and the 1988 election was coming up, Reagan needed to resolve the matter as expediently as possible and Kennedy was "safe".

[stand watie]

you are CORRECT. BEARING arms is an INDIVIDUAL, "God-given right", which is ONLY enumerated in the BOR.

free dixie,sw

[Lord_Calvinus]

Before everyone gets too fired up, from reading the actual opinion, it is clear that SCOTUS upheld the right to require registration of weapons, which, I presume could mean....

#1. Weapon ballistic and firing pin fingerprint.
#2. Fees
#3. owner profiency requirements
#4. a license like it is a privledge
#5. etc.

It, furthermore, did nothing to touch Miller’s decision about common use arms and does nothing to affect the ban on “assault weapons” or full auto weapons, etc. It seems to only state that a total ban was unconstitutional.

That makes this rather bitter sweet and means the fight has JUST begun. Sorry, if I have rained on any parades.

[109ACS]

The NRA is aready on it.

All the more reason to either become a new member of the NRA or tack on an extra year or two to an existing membership.

[wagglebee]

Technically, a revolver IS a semiautomatic.

A notion that has Borchardt, Mauser and Browning rolling over in their graves.

[CharlesWayneCT]

As I said, conservatives couldn’t find one candidate they all agreed was conservative.

Conservative organizations pledged support to 3 different candidates. The fourth was generally seen as conservative, but considered unelectable.

Of the 3, none were able to get support from all the different “branches” of conservatism. Thompson came close before alienating the religious conservatives.

[B4Ranch]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2036633/posts?page=609#609

I asked the same question.

>Unintended Consequences
Is this one of them?<

[MississippiMan]

How very far we have fallen as a society.

Tis what happens when we decided to shove aside the One who made us the greatest nation ever.

MM

[epow]

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.

I'm afraid that these phrases in the decision will be used to uphold laws against selling or possessing certain types of firearms. A judge can simply say that any firearm in question is not one "in common use at the time" and bingo, it is excluded from 2nd Amendment protection. I can see this part of the decision being used by unscrupulous anti-gun judges to allow the banning of almost any type gun that he or she claims is not a type in "common use at this time".

[Mechanicos]

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...

This is dicta ...

[kevkrom]

that SCOTUS upheld the right to require registration of weapons

More accurately, the Court did not rule one way or the other on registration, only noting that since Heller did not argue the point at all, that relief in this case would be satisfied by granting Heller the permit that he originally sought.

Essentially, it did not address the registration issue itself at all, it merely requires that registration is must issue instead of may issue.

[patton]

Perhaps - but, what is a semiauto?

You pull the trigger, one shot fires. Another is loaded.

How does that differentiate an M1911A1 from a .45 revolver?

In Fenty’s limited mind, I assure you, it doesn’t.

So his assertion that “semi-automatic handguns are still illegal” must be challenged.

[lainie]

I agree, but keep in mind that the federal city is just that. The congress has control of it, and it’s not a state (or a state capital city).

I misspoke earlier — said consenting when I obvs meant concurring. My bad. (I don’t believe there are any limitations to why or how a justice can offer a concurring opinion. He can say whatever he wants, whether it’s for a different reason or not.)