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.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
So will we see a challenge to the Sullivan Act and the Chicago ban? I have always said the carry concealed license thing was crap and we should be allowed to carry anywhere without a stinking license.
Now the "antis" will be screaming that since it was only 5-4, it shouldn't count!
Held:
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.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
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.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Shout it from the mountaintops... 5-4 is cutting it too close.
From a quick glance: it’s not broad, but it’s not narrow, either.
Clear: second amendment protects ownership in the home. Does not protect “unusual weapons” and does not guarantee a right of concealed carry.
Unclear: what types of weapons are allowed?
I happy that Heller was affirmed, but I’m shocked that it was a 5 - 4 decision. Should have been 9 - 0.
All of the amendments to the Constitution are individual rights. In addition, the founding fathers, in their papers, were absolutely clear about gun ownership being an individual right (to enable the citizens to fight back against a possible tyranny).
To be honest, I was going to stay home on election day because I’m not all that thrilled with McCain.
However, after realizing that we are only one Supreme Court justice removed from losing our rights and our country, I’ve changed my mind and I’ll be voting on November 4th for McCain. Judges in general.....and the Supreme Court in particular....is the reason I’ll vote; plus we, as a country, can’t put our military and the War on Terror in the hands of Obama and his fellow commies.
That a court ruling on this was even necessary is very disturbing.
This is what I wanted to see. This is awesome.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Ugh, FR moving slowly for me. :( I keep losing my place. - To be honest, I couldn’t care less about the dissent. The best news, IMHO, that 2nd Amendment advocates could get is one CLEAR majority opinion; with no plurality. I’m reading Scalia’s opinion now! Yayayaya.
If I’ve not responded to everyone, I’m sorry; not trying to be rude; just reading opinion and FR is slow; :-D My apologies.
While this is excellent news, if it wasn’t obvious to EVERYONE in this country that we have a major problem in the judiciary before this, it should be now. It is blatantly obvious that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right.
The four justices who dissented should be impeached immediately.
That language is even better than what I had hoped for. This is a great day for liberty and for America!
That's the dirty secret of liberals. Most of them are not opposed to ownership of guns.... they are only opposed to YOU (conservatives/moralists/religious people) owning guns.
ALLELEUIA!!!!
‘The irony is that this case was funded and pushed by a libertarian with his own funds if I’m not mistak”
yes, a guy who doesn’t own a gun but beleives in the 2nd amendment. He decided to do what the left has been doing and found several people in DC willing to stand up. He funded the legal costs and designed the case to go to the supreme court. He lives in Florida, palm beach I think.
place holder.
WOW! I guess I jumped the gun here! I’m shocked by their ruling...DOUBLE WOW!
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.