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

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

[Ancesthntr]

“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.”

HOT DAMN!!!! Guess who passed the 14th Amendment - you know, the one that is used to incorporate all kinds of other BOR protections against state and local governments? Yeah, that's right, a Congress that was seated only 2 years after the Civil War.

I think that the case for incorporation has just been decided, and all that's left is the formality of the legal process. Say GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE to all state and local bans. The grinding of the legal gears will take 2-3 years, but Chicago can stick its ban, Cali and NJ can stick their AWBs, etc. I'd LOVE to see Quilici (sp.?) sue Morton Grove again - because he'd win the rematch.

[jwalsh07]

Well the 5-4 decision makes the RTKABA a surefire campaign issue in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Wisconsin.

McCain should start running ads tomorrow with Obama displaying his utter contempt for the RTKABA amendment in the US Constitution.

[patton]

Wow. Expensive hobby.

[PapaBear3625]

However, it does appear this does not threaten “may-issue” regulations as it would perhaps still be “reasonable” even to Scalia here (keep in mind he had to keep Kennedy to be victorious).

In a "shall issue" state, there are specified, concrete criteria which are the only reasons for denial. In a "may issue" state, denial is subject to the arbitrary opinion of the issuing authority

The decision means that any "may issue" denial may be the subject of a lawsuit, with the issuing authority being required to show rational cause for his denial, and would lead to "may issue" necessarily having to be "shall issue"

[Danae]

RE: #3; There are no congresscritters with balls. They all castrate themselves the moment they get there.

[patton]

Yep - EG, I own a home in NY, even though I live in VA.

I have a VA CCW.

But I cannot take even one of my pistols to NY, because I am not a NY resident.

Guess again, NY.

[loboinok]

I agree with most of what you say with one exception...

O'Connor seemed like a safe bet

Reagan knew O'Connor's positions and votes(as an AZ Senator)concerning the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion-on-demand, abortion for minors without parental consent, Constitutional amendment to protect human life and abortion for minors without parental consent, to name a few.

She had a pretty solid liberal record, indicating how she would rule.

[LdSentinal]

Did Reagan ever apologize for supporting the Brady Bill?

[Ancesthntr]

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...

Uh, the 14th Amendment was written, passed and ratified in the late 1860's. Brother Scalia just ruled on an incorporation case without even having a case or controversy in front of him...all that's necessary to bury state and local bans (including AWBs) is to have a case filed and brought before the Court. THANK YOU, JUSTICE SCALIA!!!

Additionally, I think that part of the reason this statement appears in the opinion is to show that nearly 100 years after the Revolution, the meaning was clear - implying very strongly that the recent collectivist interpretations of the 2nd are dead wrong.

[RKBA Democrat]

“Consider any battle that you survive a victory. Now is the time to rejoice, we have won the fight!”

Amen, Brother. There will be plenty of time to build on this victory. Today is a day for raised glasses and celebratory time spent at the local range.

[TeleStraightShooter]

*sigh*
that was Bork's seat on the SCOTUS.

[Ancesthntr]

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. 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.[Emphasis added]

At last, a majority opinion that recognizes that the Court is not the Congress or the People. THANK YOU, JUSTICE SCALIA!!!!!

[loboinok]

Did Reagan ever apologize for supporting the Brady Bill?

If he did - I'm not aware of it.

[Still Thinking]

I actually disagreed partially with Bork's rejection of a Constitutional right to privacy. Granted he was asked because of the way it had been applied to abortion (wrongly, you can't kill someone in the privacy of your own home), but he seemed to buy into the concept that the Constitution enumerates our rights, rather than the powers of the government. Of course there's a personal right to privacy from the government whether it's explicitly stated or not! It's they who may not do a damn thing without Constitutional permission, not we who must scour it to find some phrase justifying our right to be free of government in some respect!

[Still Thinking]

Oops, 834 was meant for you, TSS.

[Diggler]

Now now, that would be mean-spirited, and not the type of campaign that McCain wants to run...

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I don't think he did but he was between a rock and a hard place on that one. He would have been considered a hypocrite abandoning his friend Jim after all of the support he gave Brady after his shooting. He was stuck. In that case it was best to leave bad enough alone.

[houeto]

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. (Is he saying that because “modern developments” include public acceptance of a machine gun ban, the ban is justified, or is he saying that the principle of the 2nd amendment must be upheld regardless of whether it means we must accept certain weapons?)

My reading says the latter.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

Hard to believe that 4 Supremes are against the Second Amendment. God Bless President Bush and our Troops.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

I don’t have time to read this thread right now, so can someone give me a quick synopsis of the ruling and what effect it will have on all the bans?

Thanks