The Big Heller Decision Discussion Thread - AFFIRMED 2ND AS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Affirmed???

Sounds to me like they may have technically recognized the 2nd as protecting an individual right and then opened the door to trample that right by endorsing many infringements already in place and providing for future infringements. What is this dangerous weapon bull crap? Sounds like they are opening the door to an AWB. We still need to jump through hoops to buy, sell, ship and carry.

All the cheering is for a victory in one battle while the war is perhaps being lost.
 
SCOTUS has recognized a right to "common" arms - those which people commonly have for non-military purposes.
SCOTUS has specifically not recognized a right to "militia" arms - those which allegedly have little place in normal society.

I thought they mainly addressed non-military arms and arms not from 1776 to say the right applies to them too where military arms would obviously be covered.
 
It's amazing how convoluted the dissenting opinions are compared to the majority. It's like they are third-rate hypnotists tying to get you to believe that the cow in front of you is in fact a chicken.

I also loved Stevens phrase about other laws falling like dominoes. We can only hope.
 
The next challenge will be on "Common Usage."


We need a number for what is common.


If they say common usage is that X number of people use a particular firearm for a particular lawful purpose, then all we have to do is get the number up.


For instance...


SBR's....

Well, I think I should start rabbit hunting with a SBR 10/22. If X number of us do it too, will SBR's become common usage?


Every challenge is a brick in the wall...


-- John
 
I think a dedicated 922 challenge, based on discrimination being the basis for a weapons uncommon status, might win.

I think they left a lot of room for a future legal challenge that the measurement of a typically used weapon as specificed in heller cannot be met by ANY new or currently banned designs since the ownership restriction forces the weapon to fail the standard.

just need a good lawyer, a good plantiff, and a good case.

but I think there is an opening there.
 
It won't, because they're not banned (at least federally; your local jurisdiction may vary). I bought one last year.
SCOTUS has upheld the power of the gov't to require licenses (or other forms of permission) for ownership. SBRs are legal under NFA law insofar as you pay your $200 and submit paperwork, and you get your SBR.
Could this set some sort of precedent for eliminating CLEO signoff for such things? It seems to imply/establish shall-issue for anything that is legal.
 
Quote:
How will the effect the rules against SBRs and SBSs?
It doesn't.
Quote:
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
We will now see a subsequent case demanding the right to military-specific arms, in conflict with this verdict.
Except they are truly banned is some places, like Michigan. Maybe the 200$ tax is a "reasonable restriction". What about state bans though?
 
For those that don't want to/can't read the opinion, here is an email I just sent to some friends of mine with some of the more interesting highlights:

Highlights of his opinion:

-At the closing of his section addressing the WHO the amendment refers to: "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans." IMO this COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE 'militia means military' argument

-On the "keep and bear arms" part: "Thus, the most natural readingof “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
-On the "keep and bear arms" part: "“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else."
-On the "keep and bear arms" part: "Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use."

-"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

-Well regulated militia: "Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . A Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence.
***Incase you didn't know/were wondering Article 1 sets up Congress and its powers***
-"Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them."
-"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

-Security of the free state: "The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued"
-First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
 
Scalia is saying as clearly as humanly possible that a 922(o) challenge is dead on arrival.


That is very disappointing. Not really from the standpoint of "I won't be able to get me one of them", but from the view that they've entirely misread the constitution.

That is very sad. And the fact that it's been written as DOA in the decision, means we are going to see an increasing discrepancy between the weapons that the government can use and those the commoners can use. That is a very bad thing. Very bad.

I didn’t expect to see a favorable ruling on true military small arms. But I didn’t expect them to go ahead and kill them out right.

Very troubling. Very.
 
I guess I'll be doing some shooting and maybe buying another gun this weekend!

While I know the whole sentence has been quoted quite a bit, the end of it is was concerns me "self defense in the home"

Are they trying to say that you are not allowed to defend yourself outside the home?
 
From Fox:

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.[/QUOTE]


Hard to be prosecuted when your dead because a burglar killed you since you didn't have a firearm to defend yourself.


No one to prosecute if all the victims get murdered. Yep, that's easy.


Washington D.C.: "We've never prosecuted a citizen for shooting a burlar in their home." [proudly].

Reality: Because the people can't protect themselves and all get murdered.



.
 
or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,

Doesn't this still imply that any such law would need to prove why a prohibition might be necessary? So an arbitrary law stating that you cannot "bear" a firearms on a public road, might be (would likely be) unconstitutional?

I am still confused as to why automatic weapons would not be included in a prohibition against bans. So requiring registration and a background check to won a lmg would be constitutional but an outright ban or de facto ban would not be constitutional, given their direct lineage from the military rifles of the founders.
 
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
 
Every challenge is a brick in the wall...
Precisely.

We've got the individual right affirmed. That was the big break. Now we have to keep chipping away the boulder.

Remember Shawshank Redemption - one man dug his way out with a tiny hammer tapping at solid rock. We've got something a wee bit bigger, and they've softened the rock for us.

As always comes up in the Caliber War threads: You do your part, the rest will take care of itself.

So, lets get some fundraising going and start getting a lawsuit or two together.
 
From reading Scalia's opinion, it sounds to me like the 1986 machine gun ban is here to stay. Is that how others are interpretting this?

Isn't he saying that since full autos are not common in civilian use, but are instead a military weapon, that the ban would be OK?

If that is what he is saying, why is everyone so happy?
 
If that is what he is saying, why is everyone so happy?

Because it's a step. MG's were never on the table, as far as I was concerned...oral arguments seemed to indicate an attempt to expand the question into MG-land, where it would have then been easier to reverse the lower court.

At least, that's how i understood the discussions way back when orals happened.

I'm happy with this. I want a machinegun, and I'm still happy with this.

Edit: I think Robert Hairless has pointed out in the past that we gun owners will always find something to complain about even when things go our way, too. I'm determined not to dwell on negatives for the moment!
 
Insightful dissent:
Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides which loaded “arms” a homeowner may keep. The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
 
-"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

This is so important. According to Helmke and other anti-2nd Amendmenters "well-regulated = massively regulated", with "reasonable restrictions" like the AWB and Washington DC Ban of course.






-Security of the free state: "The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued"


Does this mean no Incorporation?






From reading Scalia's opinion, it sounds to me like the 1986 machine gun ban is here to stay. Is that how others are interpretting this?

Isn't he saying that since full autos are not common in civilian use, but are instead a military weapon, that the ban would be OK?

If that is what he is saying, why is everyone so happy?[/QUOTE]



Because if it had been ruled a "Collective Right" were would we be?


This is a small victory, but a very important one. It's a stepping stone, a base to build upon.
 
Are you pleased with the decision in Heller?

Yes ( 86% ) No ( 14% )

I suspect the Brady's and VPC people watching are the 14%. Wonder if any of them are crying on thier keyboards......

no way the brady bunch could muster 14%. i suspect a large portion of that 14% is people disappointed the decision was only 5/4 or that it wasn't broader, removing more restrictions, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top