At least somebody wearing a robe has some common sense.

I was just wondering what I was going to do if it had gone the other way. Too spooky to think about.

OORAH!! Clearer heads prevailed!

Yes!

At least a partial redemption for their equal rights for terrorists&child rape not a capital offense decisions.1out of3 IS bad!

to clear anything up
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

I am pleased to see Diane Not so Feinstein reeling over the courts ruling. Didn't she get caught carrying a handgun some years ago for protection?

Wait to see how the liberal infested media spins this. I'm sure their opinion of this historic ruling will be as far removed from reality as usual. Desperately trying to still convince us what they think the Second Amendment really means.

BIG DAY!!!!

We should have it declared a national paid holiday for gun owners with the money for paying the holiday coming from special taxes collected from non gun owners. Isn't how most other taxes are collected and spent?

Another idea would have it always be on a Monday so we could have a three day weekend like all those stupid three day federal holidays where we still have to work and pay taxes to pay for the holiday.

Another part of the paid holiday should include free tracer ammo issued @ 1000 rounds per firearm. This should be some special light weight projectile that wouldn't sting too bad when it falls back on your head.

We could have the holiday slated for Friday and have three nights in a row where every major city looks like the video of bullets over Bagdad.

So what does this mean in gun-law ridden Kalifornia?

Are the Draconian gun laws of California now done?

quote:

Originally posted by KimR:
At least a partial redemption for their equal rights for terrorists&child rape not a capital offense decisions.1out of3 IS bad!

Kim, this certainly isn't the proper forum for me to argue with you, but I'll let the moderators move it. (like I'd have a say in the matter.)

I don't think you get it. The Bill of Rights is an "Us against them document," meaning we the people against the government. That was the original intention of the document and its value today.

You are kidding yourself if you think the Clintons, Bloombergs and the rest if the liberal Democrats don't think of people like us as "terrorists," If you believe the Second Amendment guarantees the people the right to defend themselves against an oppressive government to secure a free state, then Barbara Boxer considers you a terrorist.

If we and our courts don't insure the rights of all people, (yes terrorists are people,) than we as people cannot be sure we will have rights when we are prosecuted or persecuted.

Appologies to Moderators, I know better that to post this far off forum.

This ruling is only a fair start. Two other questions have to be answered and will be the subject of considerable discussion and litigation in the future:

1) What is meant by "arms" protected by the Second Amendment? and
2) What is the meaning of "shall not be infringed"?

A most rigorous adherence to the written word would require that 1) sporting and military small arms of all kinds be allowed and 2) Licensure or registration must not be required (do I have to have a license to practice free speech? is my mouth or pen to be registered?).

Only a start, Guys!

The D.C. Mayor said that automatic and semi-auto handguns will still be banned. The dirtbag may only allow these for personal use.



If so, I'm going out tomorrow and buying stock in Birchwood Casey.

WHEW!! We were only ONE ROBE away from losing our right to keep and bear arms!

And the Mayor of DC was just on the tube saying that the Supreme Court ruling applies ONLY to handguns kept IN THE HOME. And that it does NOT apply to semiautomatic handguns. What a JERK…

I think that it's going to be one of those things, that get's contested again when someone breaks one of these laws that violate the second ammendment.

quote:

WHEW!! We were only ONE ROBE away from losing our right to keep and bear arms!

That's scary, true, but very damn scary.

What is even scarier are these thoughts:

1. The superemes did not delineate whether their decision is binding on States. It does bind the federal government, which may help Washington D.C.residents, but there are a lot of legal scholars who will argue that it does not restrict States in their anti-gun actions.

(2. The decision did not forbid, in fact, specifically approved local government regulations on the SALE of guns, requiring licensing of all gun owners in order to own a gun, etc.

3. Licensing alone may prove to be a de-facto ban on gun ownership, depending on the amount charged and the hoops to be jumped through to qualify for a license...not to mention the slowness with which the licensing provisions may function.

4. The decision does not speak to limitations on how many, or which kinds, of guns may be owned.

5. Probably most important, the decision cited no "theory of law",but rather mirrored the ideological biases of the justices. Luckily for us, there were 5 conservatives on the court, but the 4 Liberals are a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. One more Liberal appointed when one of the current justices dies or becomes unable to perform his/her offices, will likely sway the balance the oher way. A soundly reasoned "logic" behind the decision could have gone a long way to setting a LASTING precedent.

Here's a shortcut to an analysis by the head of the Stanford law school. (Scroll down to the "Clarity is in the eye of the beholder" item when you get there.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

AC

AC ; This may be correct as I'm no F ing lawyer .

I would surely think this opens the proverbial can of worms for state gun laws , as they can now be argued unconstitutional !.

We Idiots here in Kommyfornia , proposed legislation in the form of a AB 187 or Prop 187 .

It went through the proper state legislation and was put on the ballot . Voted on and Passed by a majority .Only later to be shot down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional !.

How is this possible ?. We the People for and By the People is how laws are made ?.

I want to know How it's possible for States to supersede Federal law ?.

This opens up an avenue of Challenges from Every State including New York !.

Local laws may not trump Federal law !.

So I would guess the Courts will be filled with Suits and the NRA had better get of their lazy money collecting asses and GET TO IT !.

I would also argue that a State NOW and ALWAYS HAS HAD THE RIGHT to have a STATE MILITIA !.

Not the Nat. Guard which is Federal , but a STATE MILITIA . I'll be in line signing up !!!.

Shoot Straight Know Your Target . ...

It does look like no licensing plan that basically tries to be a "ban" will fly under this decision. The court is allowing them to tinker at the margins, but not go overboard with the regs.

Actually, my take is that it may well end up killing various "assault weapons" bans, although that's far from clear. (Banning entire "classes" of weapons "in common use at the time" is what they held can't be done).

It sure does give a big arguing point for the pro-gun side in susequent cases.

AC, I would have to politely disagree with you on two points you made:
1) Since this decision deals with the amendment, it is not one of those items left ennumerated to the states, just as the original constitutional intent.

5) Not only was there "theory of law" but also the history of the law and intrepretation. Not just in general, but maticulously by century.

I will certainly agree with you on the others.

In this case, the Supremes were only looking at the case before them, which involved Heller and DC. Their ruling could not be a national one covering all states in the union.
The precedent established will be used by all states in future rulings by Courts.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
AC, I would have to politely disagree with you on two points you made:
1) Since this decision deals with the amendment, it is not one of those items left ennumerated to the states, just as the original constitutional intent.

5) Not only was there "theory of law" but also the history of the law and intrepretation. Not just in general, but maticulously by century.

I will certainly agree with you on the others.

I do not think there is a theory of law espoused in anything like adequate form to substantially forestall a great deal more litigation. There is a summary of precedent, and of U.S. history but the two are not really the same thing as a caewfully worded logical basis for deciding future cases at any level. So, I guess that we will just have to politely disagree.

Of course, I HOPE you are right, but the link which I posted will take you to the view of a prominent law-person who is already arguing that there was not a basic theory of law established. I mistakenly said it was the fourth item at that site. Actually, it is more like the 8th or 9th...anyway, it is titled "Clarity is in the eye of the beholder."

As for the part about the States rights, you need, again, to read the commentary to which I linked, to see why that will be a question for a future "Supremes" decision. With the current court, if they are all still there, it will likely be determined in favor of gun owners when it arises in its turn. But with a different court, neither your opinion nor mine will be of much importance. That could have been better resolved now by having the court simply say it applies to all legislative jusisdictions within this country.

So again, I view this as not a primary legal decision, but as more of a political one. Could be viewed as a collective effort to not greatly piss off either side, but certainly will stir the pot for more lawsuits to be heard by the Supremes, I suspect.

I knew I should not have commented during the early euphoria of "we won, we won!", but I honestly don't think we had a decisive win. Just enough to get us to game two of the series by the equivalent of a ninth inning bloop single. A long way from a Home Run.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
What is even scarier are these thoughts:

1. The superemes did not delineate whether their decision is binding on States. It does bind the federal government, which may help Washington D.C.residents, but there are a lot of legal scholars who will argue that it does not restrict States in their anti-gun actions.

AC

It most certainly is binding on states. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court interprets it.

Name one legal scholar who will argue it isn't binding on the states.

A lot of federal constitutional rights have been made applicable to the states by the Supreme Court through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

In the DC handgun case I believe the argument was whether local governments can restrict the ownership and use of handguns. But there will still be a lot of litigation concerning what restrictions, if any, states can put on ownership and usage, such as registration laws, carry laws, transport laws, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

It most certainly is binding on states. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court interprets it.

Name one legal scholar who will argue it isn't binding on the states.

The Bill of Rights sets out certain liberties that the Congress/federal government cannot infringe. Through the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation, some but not all of them are also protected against state and local government action. The Heller opinion did not have to decide if the Second Amendment rights are included by incorporation because D.C. is a federal government entity and thus left the issue open for a future determination.

You can read more about the issue here.

AC, I agree with a lot of what you say. I think one of the salient points that the majority held was the fact that the question has not been brought that much throughout history and this was only a beginning.

I also agree that this is NOT a home run, but the trip to first base. It really only affirmed the right to "keep and bear" within ones own home and only then with the passing of all of the state regulations that may be required for ownership at all.

The biggest disappointment I have is that Heller stated that licensing was not a problem. Look for that one to surface quickly. I believe this will be the method of control for the future and so did the gun attorney I talked to here.

quote:

The biggest disappointment I have is that Heller stated that licensing was not a problem. Look for that one to surface quickly. I believe this will be the method of control for the future and so did the gun attorney I talked to here.

If you read the opinion I believe the court said that Heller admitted that licensing would be permissible if not administered capriciously. Thus, they did not rule on licensing but indicated that the District must issue the license unless the Heller is "disqualified." The issue is still open but licensing as a back door ban does not appear to satisfy the test in the case.

The opinion offered a couple of interesting things:

It categorically confirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purpose. It also based the right on the necessity of an armed militia having the capability of restraining the hand of government.

Thus if disassembly and/or trigger locks is an unconstitutional infringement, then it follows that any weapon held with the intent to restrain the hand is going to be very difficult to flatly ban. That would seem to make licensing of guns or people to possess gun of any type a very difficult task to pass constitutional muster.

This strikes me as setting up some rather gigantic collisions with aspects of Bush The Lesser's (BTL) unconstitutional search activity. While we have less than a year left of BTL, the precedents of unlimited presidential power and unlimited governmental authority will need to be radically rethought. You just can't act with the same impunity if the guy you want to step on might have a fifty mounted on top of his ride or half a dozen grenades behind the door.

"At least somebody wearing a robe has some common sense."

And the other four can't read.........

Larry -

I agree with pretty much everything you say.

I believe in the right to carry without permit, the right to own anything I want so long as I do not misuse it, and that "shall make no law" is pretty simple English.

I was both a soldier and a police officer before the 1960s, and was trained to shoot people by both the Army and the FBI. Yet, I am basically a pacifist. So, I am not trying to throw up roadblocks and do not believe in gratuitous restriction of the activities of responsible citizens.

But, as I have both university legal training, and an M.A in Public Administration, and have served as the head of major government departments, I know how some of our opponents (and their attorneys) think.

So my comments were more by way of suggesting things we might want to be preparing for, even now.

I suspect the first challenge will be by jurisdictions against which the NRA is now preparing to file suit. They will argue that the ruling does not apply to their level(s) of government. You and I would disagree with them, but their attorneys are not paid for being idiots, and they will put up strong arguments.

I think the second level of looming attack on gun owners will come at the "permit" level. I suspect numerous jurisdictions will try to take the NYC (Sullivan law) approach. Even the federal government has done this successfully in the long established past...i.e., the NFA of 1934, now used to "control" possession and transfer of machine guns, sawed off long guns, destructive devices, etc.

$200 was a hell of a lot of money when Feds first instituted the "transfer tax" during the great depression (My dad was lucky to have a job paying $0.25 PER DAY, and bread was $.05 per loaf). I would not be surprised to see "Inflation-adjusted Permit Fees" in the near future. (That adjustment would have the "transfer tax at well over $2,000, perhaps as much as $4,000 now, if it had been annually inflation-adjusted!)

Will the Supremes overturn those laws under the current RINOs or the upcoming "Dims"? Hardly!!

The third step then will likely be in the court authorized area of "gun sales" legislation. If you can't find a seller, it is pretty hard to become an owner, especially if you are not rich or famous. Rich people and celebrities, of course, often have enough "influence" ("juice") to circumvent the laws anyway.

As the Chinese curse goes, "May you live in interesting times". I just hope our times have us anticipating, and mentallly & financially prepared for those "interesting" occurances.

Best wishes,

AC

AC, well put!

Sure a lot remains to be litigated, but that is the nature of judicial review. No responsible court can rule on more than the limited matters in dispute.

The Court did a great job insofar as that goes. We now have an individual right. Banning handguns has been found to violate that right. Requiring that firearms in the home be rendered inoperable so as to preclude their use for self-defense has been found to violate that right. Licensing has been at least tacitly allowed, but it clearly must be rational and fair in administration and cannot be used as a de facto ban on possession.

I believe application to the states merely awaits the next case, which will be coming shortly, mark my words.

And as for reasoning and argument, I loved reading the majority opinion in this case.

The dissenting opinions were hard to stomach. Stevens' is the most outrageous. Its warped reasoning reminds me of the Clinton quote: "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." Breyer's dissent is mostly just wrongheaded, disingenuous and irrelevant.

But all four dissenting Justices joined in both dissents. You will nowhere find more appalling examples of judicial arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

But at least they gave Justice Scalia some nice targets to shoot at (if you'll pardon the pun) in the Court's majority opinion.

Here are some of my favorite Scalia-isms in this opinion. These may seem fairly tame to some, but given the collegiality and "respectful disagreement" that typify Supreme Court jousting, they are pretty inflammatory.

These citations do not denote mere disagreements. They call into question another Justice's honesty and basic intelligence.

" . . . Justice Stevens is dead wrong . . ." Note 5.

"[Describing the meaning of "bear arms" that JUSTICE STEVENS proposes.] "Grotesque." Page 13.

"JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to the bizarre argument . . . ." Page 18.

"JUSTICE STEVENS' accusation . . . is simply wrong." Note 22.

"Contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS' wholly unsupported assertion . . ." Note 16.

"JUSTICE STEVENS provides no support whatever for his contrary view . . ." Note 19.

" . . . JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record." Page 30.

"JUSTICE STEVENS has brought forward absolutely no evidence [to support another of his claims]." Page 31.

"JUSTICE STEVENS' view thus relies on the proposition, unsupported by any evidence, that different people of the founding period had vastly different conceptions of the right to keep and bear arms. That simply does not comport with our longstanding view that the Bill of Rights codified venerable, widely understood liberties." Page 32.

"[W]e take issue with JUSTICE STEVENS' equating of these sources with postenactment legislative history, a comparison that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of a court's interpretive task." Page 32.

"[Citing another Stevens statement] "That is wrong." Page 35.

"Thus, JUSTICE STEVENS' statement . . . is simply wrong." Page 38.

"[Regarding another of Justice Stevens' claims] . . . It is demonstrably not true . . ." Page 54.

Very satisfying reading, for a change.

Another strike against the "we'll make it up as we go along" theory of constitutional interpretation.

MR -

I like the language used too, but I think the threat of licensing abuse is far greater than you do. I hope you are right and I am wrong, but I don't believe we should assume that ipso facto.

I think we must expect and be supportive of a hard fight by keeping the pressure on the current & future Congress AND by notifying the Supremes of our support for their defense of the Bill of Rights.

"Reasonable and fair" could be argued to mean basically the same as the word "consistent"....i.e. if a person meets the qualifications legislated, he/she will be granted a license without unfair consideration of such things as financial responsibility, race, etc. Kind of the same way "shall issue" carry permits work now in most states.


BUT,

- If the licensing fee to possess was set at say $1,000.00, and

- If the handguns were restricted to 5-shot or fewer revolvers only (Who needs more than 5-shots to deter an intruder, and how much danger does that generate for the neighboring community? would be the argument), and

- If all sales had to go through a Federal licensed Dealer (to assure completion and general qualification per a Form 4473), and

- If all pistol owners had to complete a "Jurisdiction-approved" training course and qualify on a live range, and in a written test of when they could shoot and when they couldn't,

- HOW would this politically split 5-4 court rule then in the face of this Congress (and a farther left President)?

Personally, I FEAR THEY MIGHT APPROVE SUCH RULES as not BARRING pistol ownership in the home, just "reasonably" regulating it. (God forbid.)

I would have been much happier had they left out the tacit approval or any other mention of a permitting system, which was not part of the question being heard to begin with, which was essentially "Can the District of Columbia BAN ownership of pistols in the homes of its jurisdiction?"

Best wishes,

AC

I am relieved that the court ruled in favor of our rights. I am at the same time terrified by the narrow margin and as has been pointed out above the opinions of some of the justices. For the margin to be as narrow as it was is just cause for concern. We need to support any and all tests that would clarify and or strengthen the position of "The right of the people". DW