I am sure all on this forum in the USA know by now that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has finally determined that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution means what it says:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Check any news wire for the decision. Sadly, it was a five to four decision with the Liberal Justices dissenting.
I STRONGLY suggest that the subscribers to the Forum go to:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... inion.html
and read the decision of DC vs Heller in its entirety, including the dissenting opinions.
Now, the battle is not over, it is just begun...
Tillman Eddy
Second Amendment
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
Steve Swartz
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:06 am
- Location: Auburn, AL
Very troubling decision.
Full of "Ifs, Ands, and Buts."
Apparently you could interpret the ruling to mean
- A local mayor can exercise prior restraint (by requiring registration)
- A local mayor can demand registration of *everything*
- A local mayor can ban everything up to a single shot black powder gun (re definition of all rifles and any semi-auto as nominally "military weapons" which are then later on described as being "within the scope of a lawful ban.")
And even at that, as TIllman notes, it was *barely* recognized that the RKBA was even an "individual" right at all . . .
Full of "Ifs, Ands, and Buts."
Apparently you could interpret the ruling to mean
- A local mayor can exercise prior restraint (by requiring registration)
- A local mayor can demand registration of *everything*
- A local mayor can ban everything up to a single shot black powder gun (re definition of all rifles and any semi-auto as nominally "military weapons" which are then later on described as being "within the scope of a lawful ban.")
And even at that, as TIllman notes, it was *barely* recognized that the RKBA was even an "individual" right at all . . .
Steve,Steve Swartz wrote:Very troubling decision.
Full of "Ifs, Ands, and Buts."
Apparently you could interpret the ruling to mean
- A local mayor can exercise prior restraint (by requiring registration)
- A local mayor can demand registration of *everything*
- A local mayor can ban everything up to a single shot black powder gun (re definition of all rifles and any semi-auto as nominally "military weapons" which are then later on described as being "within the scope of a lawful ban.")
And even at that, as TIllman notes, it was *barely* recognized that the RKBA was even an "individual" right at all . . .
The fact that it was 5-to-4 is somewhat troubling, but the fact that they limited their ruling to the question put before them isn't. As Scalia said in the opinion for the majority, it's only their first look at the issue, so it's not unreasonable that they have left a lot of questions undecided. Asserting that the 2nd amendment protects an 'individual' right, and that 'self-defense' is at the core of the 2nd amendment is a very positive first step. Besides, the supremes almost never issue a ruling beyond the scope of what is put before them.
As for the rest, a mayor CANNOT "... ban everything up to a single shot black powder gun (re definition of all rifles and any semi-auto as nominally "military weapons" which are then later on described as being "within the scope of a lawful ban.")" A local mayor specifically cannot ban loaded handguns in the home.
Registration was not addressed, because neither Heller nor the District of Columbia raised it.
In fact, Justice Breyer's dissent appears to be focused on giving judicial deference to the legislature -- not the mayor.
Cheer up, this one is a big win -- it invalidates virtually all of the gun-control crowd's arguments against the 2nd amendment. Expect, though, that this will be a long, drawn-out battle, similar to the civil rights movement.
Regards,
Al B.
While this was a wonderful moral victory, the dark tower is still standing, and the black gates have not been cast down in ruin. I would be extremely surprised if it were practically possible to own a handgun in DC any time soon.alb wrote:As for the rest, a mayor CANNOT "... ban everything up to a single shot black powder gun (re definition of all rifles and any semi-auto as nominally "military weapons" which are then later on described as being "within the scope of a lawful ban.")" A local mayor specifically cannot ban loaded handguns in the home.
Mayor Fenty has already declared that "automatic (?) and semi-automatic handguns" will be banned, and that safe storage will still be mandated. I'm sure DC will have an "approved gun" list (just like MA), and I'm sure the list will fit on a matchbook cover with lots of room to spare. I imagine the cost to register a handgun (or rifle) will be several hundred dollars per year, if you can manage to get the dysfunctional DC government to actually give you a permit. I don't think it's a stretch to envision zoning such that FFL's can't operate in the city, and without an FFL dealer how can you acquire a gun? Finally, Fenty also stressed that this ruling applied only to possessing a handgun in the home. How do you get it TO your home in the first place, if they declare that it is illegal to possess a firearm outside of your own home (i.e., a ban on transporting firearms, which DC already has)?
Fenty also talked about an amnesty period where people could register guns which they currently illegally own. You would have to be an utter fool to let the DC government know you have a gun, because dollars-to-doughnuts they're going to try to confiscate them as soon as they think they can get away with it.
As an OT aside - the 4 "bad" votes also voted against the execution of child rapists, and for the taking of private poroperty in the Kelo case in Connecticut back in '05. These people need to retire.
-
1413shooter
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:12 am
This is the logic, I'm afraid, that will keep things from changing anytime soon;
Because the case before the court arose from the District of Columbia and thus involved only federal law, the court did not resolve the important question of whether the Second Amendment’s protections apply to state and local laws.
Benna Ruth Solomon, a lawyer for the City of Chicago, said there was, at least for the time being, no doubt about the proper answer to that question.
“As we sit here today,” Ms. Solomon said, “this decision does not apply to the city of Chicago. It does not apply to the states or municipalities. The court has held that on three prior occasions. Those precedents remain good law until the Supreme Court says they do not.”
Those three decisions, from 1875, 1886 and 1894, were listed in the majority opinion. Justice Scalia seemed to cast doubt on their continuing validity in a footnote, saying that one of them “also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the states,” a view later rejected by the court.
Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner, said Thursday’s decision should not undermine restrictions on possessing guns in the city.
“The specifics of this case, as I understand them, were aimed at an absolute prohibition of having a weapon in your home,” Mr. Kelly said. “We have a provision in our law, in our regulations, that allow for a weapon in the home if you have a permit, a premises permit. But there’s no question about it that this decision will generate litigation throughout the country.”
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive officer, agreed only with the last statement. He said the city gave out gun permits capriciously, and he predicted that the practice would attract a legal battle.
“We all know how New York City handles that permit list,” Mr. LaPierre said. “If you are rich and famous, or a Wall Street executive or a celebrity or politically connected, you have no problem getting a permit. But if you are an average citizen, you are flat out of luck.”
To that point, Mr. Kelly said the permit system consisted of “common sense regulations” and was well run and fair.
Mr. LaPierre said New York would not be the immediate focus of the association’s legal strategy, which would instead center on cities with handgun bans.
Mr. Levy, the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs who challenged the gun law in Washington, said New York’s ordinance was in practice “not much different” from the one the Supreme Court struck down.
“You can have a gun in New York,” Mr. Levy said, “but you have to jump through a heck of a lot of hoops.”
Because the case before the court arose from the District of Columbia and thus involved only federal law, the court did not resolve the important question of whether the Second Amendment’s protections apply to state and local laws.
Benna Ruth Solomon, a lawyer for the City of Chicago, said there was, at least for the time being, no doubt about the proper answer to that question.
“As we sit here today,” Ms. Solomon said, “this decision does not apply to the city of Chicago. It does not apply to the states or municipalities. The court has held that on three prior occasions. Those precedents remain good law until the Supreme Court says they do not.”
Those three decisions, from 1875, 1886 and 1894, were listed in the majority opinion. Justice Scalia seemed to cast doubt on their continuing validity in a footnote, saying that one of them “also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the states,” a view later rejected by the court.
Raymond W. Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner, said Thursday’s decision should not undermine restrictions on possessing guns in the city.
“The specifics of this case, as I understand them, were aimed at an absolute prohibition of having a weapon in your home,” Mr. Kelly said. “We have a provision in our law, in our regulations, that allow for a weapon in the home if you have a permit, a premises permit. But there’s no question about it that this decision will generate litigation throughout the country.”
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive officer, agreed only with the last statement. He said the city gave out gun permits capriciously, and he predicted that the practice would attract a legal battle.
“We all know how New York City handles that permit list,” Mr. LaPierre said. “If you are rich and famous, or a Wall Street executive or a celebrity or politically connected, you have no problem getting a permit. But if you are an average citizen, you are flat out of luck.”
To that point, Mr. Kelly said the permit system consisted of “common sense regulations” and was well run and fair.
Mr. LaPierre said New York would not be the immediate focus of the association’s legal strategy, which would instead center on cities with handgun bans.
Mr. Levy, the lawyer who represented the plaintiffs who challenged the gun law in Washington, said New York’s ordinance was in practice “not much different” from the one the Supreme Court struck down.
“You can have a gun in New York,” Mr. Levy said, “but you have to jump through a heck of a lot of hoops.”
To get a gun in NYC you do have to jump through a lot of hoops. You have to know someone who can get you one and pay him or her a lot of money, with no guarantee that the gun will work or be worth anywhere near what you paid for it.
I've read the entire slip opinion in Heller -- read it yesterday -- all 157 pages of it. Apparently the Supremes feel that it would be okay to carry a registered handgun in your house if you have a license to do so.
New York's Sullivan Act was originally passed in the fear of anarchists and immigrants, especially immigrants. Can't have them Irish and Italians and Jews and Poles and Africans and Germans packin' guns; they might cause problems for established money.
Ah well. I'm glad I live in Idaho. My CCW permit renewal will be ready in a few days and in the meantime I could, if I wished, carry on my unexpired original one. If I want to I can carry a gun openly without a permit.
About a year ago I was going to work and did a double-take: a chap was carrying a scoped rifle (looked to be a .308, but I didn't stop and ask) down the street like it was a briefcase. The first glance was "Nice gun." The double take was the realization that I really didn't think anything of the man doing it, figuring that he was taking it to a friend or something. Try THAT in NY, Chicago, Toronto, Seattle and see what happens....
At least the Supremes said it was an individual, not a collective, Right. In the meantime, this town (53,000+ people) is estimated to average a minimum of four firearms per household. People are polite, helpful, and overall, law-abiding and responsible. For a membership fee of $40.00 per YEAR I can shoot at a very nice range with targets out to 650 yards -- you're assumed to have your own insurance and sign membership papers absolving the Club of all liability. Around the bend and downhill is the police range; the road to the ranges is gated and locked.
I'll stay here for a while....
I've read the entire slip opinion in Heller -- read it yesterday -- all 157 pages of it. Apparently the Supremes feel that it would be okay to carry a registered handgun in your house if you have a license to do so.
New York's Sullivan Act was originally passed in the fear of anarchists and immigrants, especially immigrants. Can't have them Irish and Italians and Jews and Poles and Africans and Germans packin' guns; they might cause problems for established money.
Ah well. I'm glad I live in Idaho. My CCW permit renewal will be ready in a few days and in the meantime I could, if I wished, carry on my unexpired original one. If I want to I can carry a gun openly without a permit.
About a year ago I was going to work and did a double-take: a chap was carrying a scoped rifle (looked to be a .308, but I didn't stop and ask) down the street like it was a briefcase. The first glance was "Nice gun." The double take was the realization that I really didn't think anything of the man doing it, figuring that he was taking it to a friend or something. Try THAT in NY, Chicago, Toronto, Seattle and see what happens....
At least the Supremes said it was an individual, not a collective, Right. In the meantime, this town (53,000+ people) is estimated to average a minimum of four firearms per household. People are polite, helpful, and overall, law-abiding and responsible. For a membership fee of $40.00 per YEAR I can shoot at a very nice range with targets out to 650 yards -- you're assumed to have your own insurance and sign membership papers absolving the Club of all liability. Around the bend and downhill is the police range; the road to the ranges is gated and locked.
I'll stay here for a while....
The real issue is the 5 to 4 split as Tillman stated.
While it is a win for the RTKBA community, it should not be stated as a resounding "win" as I'm afraid the NRA may do.
Too many will think it is a done deal and sit back on their duffs. The political climate in the next few years is something I fear to contemplate. Only one different Justice on the court and it will be 5-4 in reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment
While it is a win for the RTKBA community, it should not be stated as a resounding "win" as I'm afraid the NRA may do.
Too many will think it is a done deal and sit back on their duffs. The political climate in the next few years is something I fear to contemplate. Only one different Justice on the court and it will be 5-4 in reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment
TomAmlie wrote:While this was a wonderful moral victory, the dark tower is still standing, and the black gates have not been cast down in ruin.alb wrote:As for the rest, a mayor CANNOT "... ban everything up to a single shot black powder gun (re definition of all rifles and any semi-auto as nominally "military weapons" which are then later on described as being "within the scope of a lawful ban.")" A local mayor specifically cannot ban loaded handguns in the home.
Of course the dark tower is still standing. With over 22,000 gun laws on the books in this country, many of which don't impact our individual right to self defense at all, and with a strong anti-gun lobby, and with legislatures continually passing new gun control laws without regard to their consitutionality (e.g., Philadephia), you can expect it to be a protracted struggle, lasting decades, ala the civil rights movement.alb wrote:Expect, though, that this will be a long, drawn-out battle, similar to the civil rights movement.
However, the anti-gun lobby's best argument, that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right, has just been totally shot down. As to whether or not individual rights protected by the consitution are incorporated against states and municipalities, yes they are. Can you say, "Miranda Warning?" Of course, the courts will have to rule on this, which means that someone with legal standing will have to bring an appropriate case before them, complete with appropriate arguments, because the courts only rule on what is presented to them. This alone will take years.
Up until now, pro-gun advocates haven't gotten much help from the federal courts. 9 of the 11 circuit courts in this country have ruled that the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect an individual right, due in part to what Scalia described as: "they overread Miller." (footnote #24, pg. 52 of the opinion).
The NRA-ILA, in writing about the right-to-carry in federal parks legislation said, "Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws." The gun-control advocates will continue to do their worst, but with increased gun ownership accompanied by falling crime rates, to stimulate enthusiasm for more gun control laws, except in places like Philadelphia, or Chicago, New York or Washington DC, where they refuse to deal effectively with criminals.
Cheer up. Things just got a little better.
Regards,
Al B.
I think I read about a little tussle some 147 years ago that ended up involving constitutional rights and states' obligations relative to those rights. I thought it was utterly hilarious that DC was claiming that constitutional protections didn't apply to their residents. Bondage (in the old sense), anyone?alb wrote: As to whether or not individual rights protected by the consitution are incorporated against states and municipalities, yes they are. Can you say, "Miranda Warning?"
Miller held that possession of a short-barrel shotgun was not protected under 2A since it wasn't a weapon customarily used by the militia. That suggests that if Miller had possessed a military weapon he would have been within his rights.alb wrote: Up until now, pro-gun advocates haven't gotten much help from the federal courts. 9 of the 11 circuit courts in this country have ruled that the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect an individual right, due in part to what Scalia described as: "they overread Miller." (footnote #24, pg. 52 of the opinion).
If the court had meant "you've got to be in the militia" they would have said just that.
Better than we might have hoped for?
True, not the resounding victory we would like but it could have been worse. Hard to say what might happen with a new president. Maybe this will send a message his way? I am sure many of you read the same NRA letter that I did where Barack stated that those in small towns hold onto "guns and religion" because they are bitter that nobody has provided them with jobs. I must say I found it very insulting.
It is amazing that a guy can be paid (and armed) to guard others but then told that he is not "allowed" to bear arms to protect himself and his loved ones.
No way would I tell the government what guns I own and I suppose I should get a CCW permit while I can.
Russ @ HRPC
It is amazing that a guy can be paid (and armed) to guard others but then told that he is not "allowed" to bear arms to protect himself and his loved ones.
No way would I tell the government what guns I own and I suppose I should get a CCW permit while I can.
Russ @ HRPC
Nothing in the US constitution prevents lawyers and polititians from advancing specious arguments. It's up to the courts to set them straight. By the way, the rights of individuals protected by the constitution are incorporated against states and municipalities through part 1 of the 14th amendment. Still, it will be up to the courts to strike down laws that violate those rights.TomAmlie wrote:I think I read about a little tussle some 147 years ago that ended up involving constitutional rights and states' obligations relative to those rights. I thought it was utterly hilarious that DC was claiming that constitutional protections didn't apply to their residents. Bondage (in the old sense), anyone?
Scalia made both of those points in his opinion.TomAmlie wrote:Miller held that possession of a short-barrel shotgun was not protected under 2A since it wasn't a weapon customarily used by the militia. That suggests that if Miller had possessed a military weapon he would have been within his rights.
If the court had meant "you've got to be in the militia" they would have said just that.
Regards,
Al B.
DC has always wanted the best of both worlds: all the rights of a State and none of the responsibilities. It used to be called "Federal City" and it should be again, simply to remind those who live there that there were good and sufficient reasons (which still pertain) as to WHY it was created as it was.
Of course, I actually favor moving the nation's capital to the geographic center of the US (Belle Fourche, SD could use the jobs) and turning DC into an historic monument (except for the Supreme Court). Put each Department in a seperate State, and make the Congress folks live and telecommute from their home districts.
Terrific national security, not the least because we could keep a closer eye on them folks....
Of course, I actually favor moving the nation's capital to the geographic center of the US (Belle Fourche, SD could use the jobs) and turning DC into an historic monument (except for the Supreme Court). Put each Department in a seperate State, and make the Congress folks live and telecommute from their home districts.
Terrific national security, not the least because we could keep a closer eye on them folks....