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.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
WHOO HOO!!!!!!!
(....man, we needed this, whew...)
Leni
This definitely reads as a status quo decision for most areas. It will likely have an impact in places like Chicago and the Chicago suburbs, where bans like DC are common.
It could have an impact in New York City, where it is technically legal to purchase a handgun, but is enforced capriciously, allowing only the well connected and famous to have weapons.
OTOH, governments have a long history of ignoring rulings like this. The Wisconsin supreme court struck down parts of the state CCW ban, charging the legislature with rewriting the law. The legislature has twice passed CCW laws only to have the vetoed by Jim Doyle.
PHEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Uh-oh. Can this ruling be used to prohibit self defense outside the home?”
No. The “such as” is an example without limitation. It like saying “Sports cars go fast, such as a Porsche.” It doesn’t mean there are not other fast cars besides a Porsche.
This ruling should put the onus on them to justify compeling grounds for denial now.
The right to own a firearm is an individual right and is unconnected with service in a militia. The 2nd Amendment opening clause that refers to a "well-regulated militia" should not be interpreted as limiting or expanding the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Court briefly addresses the historical reasons for the Amendment and finds that the idea was to to deny Congress the power to "abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms" so that the Federal Government would not be able to disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia.
The Court did find that none of the precedents conflict with their current interpretation. They also addressed the issue of limitations on the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
Reasonable restrictions only, in other words. D.C.'s handgun ban was not reasonable:
"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."
Yea, the Blue Dogs, while a minority over there, do have a good deal of common sense on this issue at least.
Any idea if this ruling extends beyond DC? i.e. is this a precedent that can knock down odious restrictions in places like Massachusetts? Or is this a in effect a one-time ruling since DC isn’t actually a state?
Those are decently priced. Are they needed? Enough techie people around here to do some good tuning of the architecture.
It’s great isn’t it? I’m just 22 pages into it - the last few pages have shown Stevens vaunted “pragmatic” look at the law to be pure fluff. Scalia is eviscerating Stevens and his absurd arguments.
Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Charlton Heston is smiling broadly.
That is freakin' awesome!
The whole country just became must issue CCL!
Not to quibble but Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 vote. Its hard to believe that 7 members of the Supreme Court could find an imaginary right to abortion and only 5 could find the obvious right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, me too, although my parents are liberal Democrats, hate guns, but also support 2nd Amendment rights.
By the way Obama released a comment saying he agrees with the courts decision.
And the AR-15 design rifles are arguably the type of firearm in common use for militia purposes today, as evidenced by practically every US Soldier and Marine being issued one. It will be very hard indeed for the antis to claim an AR-15 is unusual or uncommon.
Amen to that Brother.
BUSH'S FAULT!!
While I only skimmed the decision and will read it later, nothing on waiting periods I believe was challenged. If an issue isn’t challenge, it is not supposed to be ruled on by the courts.
Unassembled firearms, use of trigger locks at ALL times, and total pistol bans themselves were what is challenged by Heller.
Really? That surprises me.
I can’t wait to hear Daley’s reaction in Chicago. I’m sure the words, “deeply disappointed” will be in there are few times. heheheheheee
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.