This decision is going stimulate gun sales in DC.
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.
ABC radio news just now mentioned the decision and then played two anti-gun clips. That’s balance?
I want one of them for me. Plus a companion for my wife, and at least an additional one as a spare in case one of our two breaks. Oh, and the kiddies will need one in a few years, when they turn 16 and become physically fit enough to be considered members of the militia.
To paraphrase Yoda: "Looking forward to having that '86 ban overturned am I."
“Oh, and the kiddies will need one in a few years, when they turn 16 and become physically fit enough to be considered members of the militia.”
Great point. One ban whose days appear to be very numbered is the GCA ‘68 ban on the sale of handguns to adults aged 18-20. Perhaps stretching to 16-20.
Yeah, they deliberately did not rule on whether a fundamental right can be licensed.
This preserves most state laws.
Of course some like to peek through history's looking glass only through a dim slender hairs-width of a slit. The whole picture is very scary. So we redefine words, change meanings -- make the Constitution "alive" like some Frankenstein's monster, rather than have it be the fearsome contract for Liberty that it was to have been.
“This preserves most state laws.”
For now. That’s another question for another day.
Just as a privateer needed a charter, so to may the right to dangerous items be by license. A vouchsafe that those engaged in the holding and usage thereof are able, sane, sober and have adequate financial means to keep the weapons safe when stored or carried and to use them properly.
Medved has a Brady Center A**Hole on the radio right now You should hear him spinning this decision.
Good News: SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban.
Bad News: SCOTUS restricted DC gun purchases to foreign Muslim terrorists.
One vote away...
Exactly, the Euphoria is well earned, but let’s not get too drunk on the feeling of “winning one”...no, not at all, the Doom of our Freedom is hanging by a cord slightly smaller then a spider silk, it was 5-4, with 3 concurrences on the dissent side, their minds are made up.
We are in a very very precarious situation here, let’s not lose focus on what is really happening, we are 1 vote away from the Extinguishing of Liberty in favor of the Collectivization of “Human Rights” not “Sovereign Powers”.
Danger, Danger Danger...watch with jealous attention anything that approaches the jewel of our liberties.
Their minds are made up, and, as with the Obama campaign, they are "coming out".
Like the great scene in "A Few Good Men", where Tom Cruise cops on to the fact that Jack Nicholson is just DYING to tell the courtroom what he thinks, that he won't be able to help himself - these traitors and knaves have become emboldened.
Who could imagine a dissent, even ten years ago, which would deny that "Right of the People" had no implications for individual Liberty AT ALL? That "Right of the People" was a collective right only (excepting, of course the Free Exercise of Religion)?
The situation is perilous, frought with danger.
Obama, and the people who created him, are inches away from the prize. Unless the People wake up, this victory may very well be fleeting.
it’s scary that this came down to 5-4. The SC is my only reason to vote for McCain.
I agree with your analysis.
The old argument was whether we had RKBA or not, and laws were based on that battle.
Now, RKBA is a fact, but the registration, licensing, fees, and what is an “unusual weapon” or one not in “common use” will be the new battleground.
This will lead to new “reasonable restrictions”, citing this decision as justification.
Obama’s words today made that clear- OK, there is RKBA, but like any fundamental right, government can restrict it pretty much how they want (well, Im paraphrasing, but that’s what I heard).
Exhibit "A" at his impeachment trial. If the 'Pubs had any cajones, they'd try to get him tossed out pronto, and get Bush to name a successor.
I know, I know, it'll never happen with either house, let alone both. But today's a day for expansive dreams about real liberty, and getting rid of that senile old statist would advance the cause.
Exactly, the dissent is simply shocking in it’s lack of allegiance to the Bill of Rights, we are walking on the edge of the blade, stray any amount, the US will fall off it and into Euro Socialism.
IMO, we need to rally around “our” Conservative Institutions and sort out who is who amongst us, right now we are scattered and ineffective IMO, to many lobbies with their own agenda.
These knaves are more organized, and now they are having their coming out party, in that you are 100% correct JM, and well said.
Even the gun control advocates seemed to have missed this. Poll taxes are illegal. Any tax on a 'right' makes it into a privilige. Any 'capricious' non granting of a permit is also automatically demolished in this opinion.
National Shall-Issue Concealed Carry and incorporation and Scalia specifically noted that the challenge on Machinegun infringement was never performed regarding Miller and the NFA.
Yep, because there's no precedent for overturning fees for rights like say .... poll taxes.
Nothing bigoted about you, Sir, is there?
Many “gun rights” activists are claiming that the decision, written by Justice Scalia, is a “win”. By considering only the way it could have gone otherwise could this decision be considered anything like a positive for gun rights. The second amendment is written in clear, concise terms and its meaning and intent should be perfectly clear to anyone whose IQ is above room temperature and has any grasp of the English language: “...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It would take a complete maroon, or a liberal/socialist gun grabber - but I repeat myself- to think that it states anything but what it does. However, there has been great controversy and voluminous high level discourse picking apart each and every word, phrase, punctuation point, nuance and penumbra by both proponents and opponents. This in itself is rather disheartening and shows just how far down the slippery slope to tyranny that we are today in these United States.
Most people who were anxiously (need I say apprehensively?) awaiting the ruling will probably not read past the second paragraph:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Many rather nearsighted - or illiterate- people will only get through to the first comma in that sentence and start gleefully rejoicing and celebrating, thinking that they have been vindicated by this opinion and their rights have been upheld. However, after reading almost every word of the majority opinion, the parts that are extremely troubling- no, terrifying - are buried 54 or so pages into the verbiage proclaiming and justifying the Court's holding that the amendment confirms an individual right to possess firearms. Well, DUH! It doesn't take years wrangling and arguing about the nuances of the simple words. What part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is beyond even the simplest gradeschooler’s grasp of the language?
So after all the pages of justifying what everyone who even has a passing grasp of the English language already knew, we come to the most terrifying part of the “ruling”. If you think that the most terrifying words in the English language are “We're from the government and we're here to help you”, feast your eyes upon the latest perversion of that:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose...[cites omitted]. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues...[cites omitted] 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.
Note very carefully the statement:
*** “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.”***
If anyone can show me the “win” in that, I'll be happy to point out their loss of rationality. Maybe my grasp of the language isn't as functional as it should be or I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the Court is saying that the government, contrary to the “shall not be infringed” part of the Second amendment, can go ahead and infringe all they want. All they have to do is make “reasonable” regulations that set prohibitions, conditions and qualifications, or designate public areas as “sensitive places” in regards to firearms.
What is absolutely hilarious about the ruling is the stretch made to reconcile absolutely contradictory parts of the opinion. Contrast the above outright prohibitions, conditions and qualifications with the following:
“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.”
“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government... the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon”. If this is so, how can laws creating prohibitions, conditions or qualifications completely contrary to the “shall not be infringed” decree of the amendment be established and upheld by courts- other than on a case-by-case basis?
Many point out that there are restrictions on the first amendment, by claiming that you can't shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That is totally, absurdly wrong. Anyone can shout “Fire!” in any theater or other establishment any time they want to. Or any other word. They do not have to obtain a permit in advance by being unusually qualified in the English language, nor are they restricted from using the word “Fire” on any property or public land. They are not required to cloak or whisper the word “Fire” in their speech, nor are they fingerprinted, photographed and required to carry their “license” with them any time they want to use the word “Fire”. Anyone can discuss “Fire” or write articles using the term, or do just about anything they want with the word. Or any words. Admittedly, if someone should shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and a stampede ensues or someone is injured, there would be some kind of consequences or liability for the shouter, but there is no prohibition, prior licensing requirements, conditions or qualifications imposed upon such person. They would not even be charged with “shouting fire without a license” or “shouting fire in a crowded theater”, as there are no laws covering that. Why should there be any law imposing qualifications, prohibitions, restrictions or requiring government permits or licenses on lawfully owning, buying, carrying any firearm? Where do we start drawing the line of “reasonable”? When does the government start “infringing”?
Just watch what happens. “Reasonable” laws, regulations and prohibitions will start popping up everywhere. Gun-control proponents have already made the case that it's “reasonable” to prohibit firearms from school property- after all it's for the chilluns. And firearms are easily prohibited in government buildings or on government property. After all, those are all “sensitive places”, because frustrated citizens, unhappy with government regulations and bureaucratic policies, may come in with guns blazing- it's happened before. And there certainly shouldn't be any “reason” to allow firearms on any public recreational property- as this is a “public safety” issue and therefore “reasonable”. And because of the possibility of “road rage” which is ever increasing on a daily basis, there should be no reason for anyone to need to carry a firearm in their vehicle when not on their own property- again as a “public safety” issue.
After each of these “reasonable” restrictions and prohibitions are upheld by the Court, then the only place you'll be able to legally have a firearm is on your own property. But again, there will be certain “reasonable” restrictions, qualifications and licensing put in place because of the possibility of fire, police, post office, utility and other personnel having the need to access your property. You certainly shouldn't mind taking a one year, college level firearms safety course at your own expense, paying a very reasonable $500 “licensing” fee, being fingerprinted and photographed and then registered as a potential firearm abuser in our friendly, publicly accessible government database, would you? It's entirely “reasonable”. Along with the “reasonable” registration and licensing of each and every firearm, piece of ammunition or component you have in your possession. And those will be the “conservative” areas of the country. Chicago, NY and LA will be worse- far worse.
And of course, it would be entirely “reasonable” to restrict firearm ownership to property owners only and only on their property that they actually reside on. After all, there's no “reasonable” way to track transients who do not own and reside on their own property. That's reasonable isn't it? And naturally, since firearms are so dangerous, “reasonable” regulations prohibiting transfer of all firearms or ammunition or any components by any licensed carrier will have to be instituted, since it's a matter of public safety. So if you want to purchase a firearm or ammunition, you will have to go get it yourself. Except that you will have to have a “firearms and ammunition transport license” in order to transport anything by any means whatsoever. It's for public safety you see. And it's very reasonable. And every component of any firearm ammunition shall have or contain unique identifiers, such as serial numbers, so that firearms used in crimes can be tracked properly. This is entirely reasonable, and again for the safety of the public.
Since felons and the mentally ill cannot own, possess or carry firearms, it is entirely reasonable apply the same restrictions to anyone who has been charged with a violent act, or is or has been the subject of a restraining order or domestic violence charge. After all, this is again a public safety issue. And extending these restrictions to anyone who has been charged with a violation of law, even a traffic ticket, is entirely reasonable. After all, if they would break simple traffic or other laws, they certainly would break other, more serious laws and therefore should not own or possess dangerous weapons like firearms. Isn't that entirely “reasonable”?
These laws, regulations, prohibitions and restrictions are entirely “reasonable” since they don't discriminate against any one person or class of people, or firearm or class of firearms. They apply across the board to all “subjects”. That's exactly what makes them “reasonable”. They are all needed for the “safety of the public”. Other than the fact that you cannot legally purchase, transport, store, carry or own a firearm or any ammunition without complying with such reasonable licensing laws and regulations, everything is completely reasonable. After all, the US Supreme Court said “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited”.
Yes, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm”. That is, subject to “reasonable” restrictions, prohibitions, qualifications and licensing. Mark my words well, as you will see that I am totally correct when I say that this USSC opinion was not a “win” for anyone but the government on the road to the installation of tyranny in these United States. These exact quotes from that opinion will be offered as legal USSC precedent for every restriction possible to imagine regarding firearms or anything related to them.
That we even had to have such a debate and resolution about this subject says all that needs to be said about the direction in which the socialist politicians are taking us. The tree is in dire need of watering.
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.