This gets a big Texas
YEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWW!
I’ve never been more proud of (5/9 of) the Supreme Court than today, EVER.
The Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right!
No federal gun bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns, EVER! No federal requirements for trigger locks, EVER!
Self-defense is SPECIFICALLY protected by the 2nd.
_________________________
OK, now what are the implications?
First, politically: is BHO going to shoot himself in the foot (pun intended) by criticizing this decision, and stating that he’ll nominate more judges and Justices like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer? I sure hope so. What will McCain say? It is really his fight to lose on this issue, and a tremendous opportunity to distinguish himself from that socialist rat.
Second, legally: a couple of issues here...
1. Incorporation - I’m sure that we’ll see a case filed challenging Chicago’s ban on handguns (all guns?) by no later than Labor Day (and I think it would be appropriate to file it on July 2, the anniversary of the ACTUAL day that the Declaration of Independence was signed), based heavily on the words of this case. I am STRONGLY ENCOURAGED by this decision - even though the level of scrutiny for analyzing firearms laws was purposely not mentioned, the language about the basic nature of the right of self-defense (esp. in one’s home) leads me to believe that the 2nd will be incorporated within 2-3 years at most.
2. Full autos - I’m also encouraged here. Yes, the decision did say that the 2nd wasn’t blanket protection of a right to own any weapon under any circumstances by any person, BUT it didn’t foreclose any particular weapons. It mentioned the Miller standard of protecting “arms in common use at the time.” Well, folks, full autos are standard issue in all of the armies of the world, and have been for roughly 50 years. In addition, full autos have never been illegal at the federal level in this country, only regulated - most of us can still buy an honest-to-goodness Tommy Gun, for instance, so long as we have a fat wallet and jump through some regulatory hurdles. The only reason why full autos are not more common now is that a ban has been in place for 22 years. SO, IMHO, I think that the Court will invalidate the ‘86 ban (though almost certainly NOT the’34 NFA and its regulatory framework, even though NICS does essentially the same thing - that’s a different battle). Me, I’d like to see the case brought by an ex-Special Forces member with an utterly spotless record and reputation, who already owns a pre-ban full auto and who was denied the opportunity to pay for a tax stamp for a virtually identical post-ban gun.
3. OK, here’s where we get to have a bit of fun: Does any Congresscritter have the cajones to begin the impeachment process against Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer?
What do y’all say?
Something like this:
"Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Agreed.....this is a great start, but the fight isn’t over yet....
And Scalia’s “license” quote looks more like acknowledgement of “shall-issue” over “may-issue”. In other words....if there’s no specific qualifications set into law for disqualifying a license to own or carry, it’s not Constitutional....
...we’ll win the rest later....
RE: #3; There are no congresscritters with balls. They all castrate themselves the moment they get there.