*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.

[semantic]

Exactly. Based on this ruling, states & cities can regulate firearms till the cows come home, but they will be repeatedly challenged/overturned if they differ in any way from voting rights. A right is a right is a right ie NOT a privilege. That means no broad classes banned, no unreasonable restrictions, no fees & no qualifications.

From the libs' perspective, personal/private ownership + strict scrutiny was the "poison pill" that will kill practically all forms of gun control. To make it easy on everyone, play out this thought experiment: simply substitute existing laws restricting 'guns' with voting, discrimination, employment, lending/insurance (ie red lining), etc. H*ll, add abortion since it's currently the law of the land.

Would they fly? Hah! They don't even pass the laugh test. In fact, if public officials attempted it, they would be impeached, perhaps even arrested. That's how fundamental RKBA is now - thank you Scalia for writing an opinion that will be cited for 100 years.

[X-FID]

No you wouldn't, he was stuck on stupid and he has taken his stupidity elsewhere, poor gun-grabber.

I'm guessing he'll keep moving on until he finds a fellow numbnut to share his Constitutional expertise with. Cheers!

[MRadtke]

“If ray guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have ray guns!”

Right, Bender2?

[zeugma]

"This isn't America. I want a Country that treats its citizens with benign neglect."

I was late coming to this thread, as I've been out of pocket, but I've been reading the decision and am up to page 46 of the opinion itself. (taking a break now) I just had to agree with you. I'd love to see a bit more "benign neglect" from our government.

One comment I will make so far is that a search of the opinion indicates zero mentions of Letters of Marquee and Reprisal. Interesting, that.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

newnhdad: why is everyone so happy? we were just told that the constitution was constitutional by one un-elected egotist.

fkabuckeyesrule: Am I the only one bothered by the fact that it was only a 5-4 vote. A precious freedom like the second amendment passed by just one vote.

I'm not happy.

You know what happens if you're caught driving without insurance? Or if, God forbid, you have an accident without insurance (assuming you're legal at all)? The statists will get us one way or another, friends. You can own a car without a license but you can't use it; you can't drive it without registration and insurance. You have to get gasoline somewhere too...

And so it'll be with firearms. You'll need to register, insure, license, buy ammunition, and if it's lost or stolen or mishandled in any way, kiss it goodbye, and your license too.

As hadit2here observes at post 900, "The tree is in dire need of watering."

[patton]

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second

Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

[Arkinsaw]

Also, I don’t think that I have ever seen one justice refer to another as “mad as a hatter” before.

That is nothing new for Scalia...he used to basically call Justice O'Connor an idiot in many decisions. But he says it so eloquently.

[djf]

Oh No!

He’s banned?

I also woulda loved to hear his commentary.
Gawd, after all the bilge he used to dump all over the place, that guy’s gotta have arms a quarter mile long cause he would sure reach and reach and reach to try to make his point.

He never did, but ya gotta give him an A for effort. Maybe not. Stupid is as stupid does, doncha know!

;-)

[Gondring]

fwiw, you NEED to go READ "Miller".

And NY is a classic for that example.

They legislated against handguns under the "not a military/militia weapon" idea. Then they put the "Assault Weapon (sic)" legislation in place.

[raybbr]

[BTW, it wasn’t a “grand pronouncement”. It was a guess.] You are correct. I am wrong and apologise.

Thank you for the apology.

I am glad we got the ruling in our favor. I don't even own a gun but I am tired of nine people deciding our lives.

[hadit2here]

Already covered multiple times. Scalia's opinion limited itself to the case at hand. In fact, by specifically mentioning these issues, he is inviting future challenges meant to expand on Heller.

While I like your "interpretation" of Scalia, and wish mightily that it is shared by SCOTUS in all future cases, my worry is specifically the quote:

“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...

I can just visualize future lower courts quoting this part specifically to uphold "reasonable" restrictions as the gun grabbers/socialists/liberals play the salami game by taking away little tiny pieces at a time. First a "reasonable" restriction here, then one there. Finally, no RKBA, due to all the petty laws that were upheld based on "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Sorry, maybe I'm just pessimistic today. It's just that some of those phrases just jumped out at me, after 60 pages of "historical" BS 'splaining the simple meaning of plain words that any 3rd grader understands perfectly.

;^)

[patton]

LOL - I have to read more of his opinions, just for the humor factor. IANAL, I don’t play one on TV, and I slept at home last night - I usually just give defference to the USSC on their decicions.

Some exceptions apply - Roe v. Wade, eg.

And, I wouldn’t call it “eloquently” - more like, obliquely. He said, IIRC, you would have to be mad as a hatter to believe what my opponent does.

That is a technique I have seen on various FR threads - “You must be a child rapist to defend the constitutional rights of FLDS”, eg.

It is astounding to see it in the USSC.

[patriciaruth]

I think you do Sandra Day O’Connor an injustice in believing she wouldn’t have voted in favor of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

She owns guns and hunts from what I’ve heard.

BUT, as far as other issues go, it’s much better to have Alito than O’Connor.

[bvw]

Re the phrase "to bear arms", Justice Scalia's own opinion includes the parenthetic comment:

That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . ."

Meaning ... the captives pressed into Royal Navy service operated Men of War -- battleships and the biggest cannon, grenades, mortars, torpedoes, rockets and missiles, etc. Thus "to bear Arms" includes the ownership and operation of the biggest of weapons.

Surface to air missiles, and so on.

Not just stuff a soldier can carry in his arms, or on his body.

Thanks, Mr. Scalia!

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

A right is a right is a right ie NOT a privilege. That means no broad classes banned, no unreasonable restrictions, no fees & no qualifications.

You have a right to own property, but you have to pay property tax, if you own a house. They're not taxing the right, they're taxing the exercise of it, or the means of exercising it. Same thing with a car. If you use it or keep it in legally operable condition, it'll cost you. There's tax on the gasoline too.

Malpractice insurance for gun owners is just around the corner. Tax, registration fee, insurance, penalties for every little thing, and forfeiture if you so much as jaywalk. (And do try hard not to be on the receiving end of a restraining order!)

Rights are not what they used to be. "Reasonable" is whatever the sheeple don't object to.

[hadit2here]

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

I'm not trying to argue the Miller decision at all, but one question I have always had is where in the Second or the whole Constitution itself is there anything that gives the government the right to determine that a shotgun with an 17.99" barrel has less "lawful purpose" than my "lawful" Mossberg with the 18" barrel. I'm not a great firearms expert, so maybe there is something I don't get about the "silly millimeter" difference that changes the usage and function so drastically as to make them "unlawful".

And if the gov't can make a 17.99" barrel "unlawful", then they can make an 18" or anything else unlawful.

I guess I'm a real strict constructionist, as I cannot even comprehend how someone cannot understand the simple 27 words of the Second.

I guess, from your comment, that you tend to agree with me on some of that. Like any of us peon's opinions matter... ;^)

[RKV]

I wish it WAS sticking in his craw (RPs that is). But I doubt it. For my part until we get a) incorporation and b) repeal of NFA/GCA, etc. we aren’t close to where we need to be. Of course, I live in the People’s Republic of Kalyfornya, so my concern for those two issues must be seen in light of the years during which I have had to endure having my civil rights infringed. Incorporation would choke RP alright. Heh. That’s a good image to have in mind, eh?

[Mr. Mojo]

I said O'Connor very well might've joined the dissent today; I didn't say for sure she would have.

She owns guns and hunts from what I’ve heard.

Plenty of liberal gun-grabbers own guns. ...even the queen grabber DiFi. It means precisely squat. That leftists in positions of political power believe in gun rights for themselves and not the populace at large shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'd rather have Alito than O'Connor sitting on the Court for every issue, including those where the 2A is concerned.

[Arkinsaw]

That is a technique I have seen on various FR threads - “You must be a child rapist to defend the constitutional rights of FLDS”, eg.

The difference being that usually Scalia follows his statement with logical analysis that at least comes close to proving the point.

Justice O'Connor had an unfortunate tendency sometimes to state propositions with incomplete truth conditions. Seemingly true but incomplete in contextual logic. Scalia (rightly) eviscerated Justice O'Connor on those occasions.

Justice Scalia has very little tolerance for torturing phrases until they bear no relation to reality in order to make them mean what you want them to mean. He has very little tolerance for statements that have no weight other than the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is saying them.

You see that in today's dissent. The arguments made by the dissenters are more like whining than logical debate.

Some of the dissenting arguments are almost childlike.....such as the concept that the 2nd Amendment cannot be an individual right because the founders would not have limited the government's tools to prevent kids from hurting themselves. 1) the two don't go together....2) the founders limited government in many other ways that could also be claimed to increase "danger". The founders were more interested in protecting us from government than from our own defensive weapons...this is a fact. Claims to the contrary deserve to be blasted and those who make them also...because they are not interpreting law, they are trying to reach a political end they agree with.

Scalia is not perfect. He often has the same type blind spots in the case of property rights, law and order, and property seizures. In this case though...mad hatter is mild terminology.

[Gondring]

Last graf, p 55...

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

A bit of circular reasoning there. How can an arm be made unlawful if not by passage of a law? If, prior to the law's passage, all weapons are legal (and the constitution covers "...the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home...", then the law would be unconstitutionally restrictive...and therefore void.

Scalia had fun with this (e.g., "Grotesque"), but it's weaselly at times, too.

But it will sure please those who are interested in a slow erosion of our rights couched in "reasonable" restrictions. President Bush will be very happy.

Still, it might be about as good as we could hope for in a dying Republic. :-(