Heller Decided! (several threads merged, new ones will be locked)
- Thread starter 30 cal slob
- Start date
- Status
Folks, this is the basic opening needed for effective challenges to the draconian laws in Chicago and California and elsewhere, but the decision was only on the question before it and not the whole Happy Meal. There's a lot of work ahead, but we've been provided an excellent tool to get it done.
divemedic
Member
The decision is 157 pages long. Most of it is dicta and background. The actual binding part of it is less than 3 pages. I said before, and I am proven correct- this decision has nothing to do with machine guns, 922(o), incorporation, or any of the other issues people are sweating.
Dave Markowitz
Member
Now that I've done a quick read-through of Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision, I offer some observations:
1. The Court held that the 2A protects an individual right, one not dependent upon membership in an organized militia. The right exists for otherwise lawful purposes, specifically noting that self defense is one of the bases for the right. The Court recognized the pre-existing nature of the right, as well.
2. Some restrictions of the RKBA are permissible. E.g., licensing is not forbidden by the 2A, but only when imposed in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. That would seem to disallow much of the discretion typically exercised by issuing officials in places like New York.
3. Outright bans of classes of arms in common use by the people are forbidden. This is a key point because it disposes of the frivolous argument that even if the 2A protects an individual right, it only protects the right to keep and bear arms of a type common in use during the 18th Century. In particular, the Court notes that handguns are in common use and overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense. In dicta, the Court noted that machineguns could possibly be banned. However, it left open the argument that the reason machineguns are not in common use is because they have been so heavily regulated since 1934.
4. The Court declined to specify a standard for review in 2A-based challenges to gun control laws. For example, it will leave the matter of whether gun control laws must pass rational basis or strict scrutiny to later challenges. This wasn't unexpected.
5. The Court did not explicitly incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. However, it did cite several state cases in its decision supporting the idea that the 2A protects an individual right. This leads me to believe that the Court would be open to incorporation in a future case where a state law is challenged, e.g., Chicago's handgun ban. Again, this isn't totally unexpected, since the D.C. law which was struck down was a Federal matter, not a state law. The Court tries to craft most decisions narrowly.
More comments later as I think of them.
1. The Court held that the 2A protects an individual right, one not dependent upon membership in an organized militia. The right exists for otherwise lawful purposes, specifically noting that self defense is one of the bases for the right. The Court recognized the pre-existing nature of the right, as well.
2. Some restrictions of the RKBA are permissible. E.g., licensing is not forbidden by the 2A, but only when imposed in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. That would seem to disallow much of the discretion typically exercised by issuing officials in places like New York.
3. Outright bans of classes of arms in common use by the people are forbidden. This is a key point because it disposes of the frivolous argument that even if the 2A protects an individual right, it only protects the right to keep and bear arms of a type common in use during the 18th Century. In particular, the Court notes that handguns are in common use and overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense. In dicta, the Court noted that machineguns could possibly be banned. However, it left open the argument that the reason machineguns are not in common use is because they have been so heavily regulated since 1934.
4. The Court declined to specify a standard for review in 2A-based challenges to gun control laws. For example, it will leave the matter of whether gun control laws must pass rational basis or strict scrutiny to later challenges. This wasn't unexpected.
5. The Court did not explicitly incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. However, it did cite several state cases in its decision supporting the idea that the 2A protects an individual right. This leads me to believe that the Court would be open to incorporation in a future case where a state law is challenged, e.g., Chicago's handgun ban. Again, this isn't totally unexpected, since the D.C. law which was struck down was a Federal matter, not a state law. The Court tries to craft most decisions narrowly.
More comments later as I think of them.
Titan6
member
McCain and Bush Reactions
Strong? I think so...
Limp wristed signs of approval?
Strong? I think so...
Limp wristed signs of approval?
What unsettles me is the 5-4 ruling. I thought that we would get 6-3 or 7-2. This just shows how we barely won.
Another thing, what does "shall not be infringed" mean to these people? How can you say that some regulations are alright if it says "shall not be infringed"?
Although it is a favorable ruling, the war is far from over. We need to see this for what it is and move forward.
Another thing, what does "shall not be infringed" mean to these people? How can you say that some regulations are alright if it says "shall not be infringed"?
Although it is a favorable ruling, the war is far from over. We need to see this for what it is and move forward.
10X
Member
It is a win, but not a total win.
Licensing, waiting periods, background checks can be required. New regulations can still be made. I don't think anyone realistically expected that all laws would be thrown out. But the antis still have plenty of ways to restrict us, if they are successful.
Licensing, waiting periods, background checks can be required. New regulations can still be made. I don't think anyone realistically expected that all laws would be thrown out. But the antis still have plenty of ways to restrict us, if they are successful.
bogie
Member
Probably a troll looking to get one of those "gun people" to say something racist...
Fun thing now is that DC can become a model city - a test case. Watch that crime rate plummet!
Fun thing now is that DC can become a model city - a test case. Watch that crime rate plummet!
armoredman
Member
Go Wayne!
Titan6
member
IMO- Why they lost
Following this logic one can find a reason to exclude guns just about everywhere for any reason, as the band does err.... did. They seem to have focused a little too much on limiting the freedom of city dwellers in support of a failed government policy and not looked at this as a civil rights issue. Well it is now a recognized civil right and the United States remains the most free nation on Earth... for now.
Following this logic one can find a reason to exclude guns just about everywhere for any reason, as the band does err.... did. They seem to have focused a little too much on limiting the freedom of city dwellers in support of a failed government policy and not looked at this as a civil rights issue. Well it is now a recognized civil right and the United States remains the most free nation on Earth... for now.
Deanimator
Member
I don't know why HE did, but let ME explain why I would.
As far as I'm concerned, they did the equivalent of arguing AGAINST Brown v. Board of Education. It's like them arguing IN FAVOR of segregation, Jim Crow and lynching.
I think the esteemed Mr. Simpson said it best:
WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!
Can't add much else that hasn't been said... Great news, very happy, still a long fight ahead of us, don't rest on our laurels, sad but not surprised that it was 5-4, maybe we'll all be issued machineguns someday, screw you Obama, try and take our guns now! ....
Heading off to read the brady, vpc and huffington reactions. Definitely going shooting after work if the weather allows. May even bump fire some.
Its a GREAT day for America!!!!!!!!
WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!
Can't add much else that hasn't been said... Great news, very happy, still a long fight ahead of us, don't rest on our laurels, sad but not surprised that it was 5-4, maybe we'll all be issued machineguns someday, screw you Obama, try and take our guns now! ....
Heading off to read the brady, vpc and huffington reactions. Definitely going shooting after work if the weather allows. May even bump fire some.
Its a GREAT day for America!!!!!!!!
Bubbles
Member
Question: How does this affect areas like the Ninth Circuit, which has "collective rights" rulings? Can cases like the CA Roberti-Roos challenge now be refiled?
ProguninTN
Member
Breyer
Of course, Breyer thinks guns should be banned where they are most necessary for defensive purposes. The words bleeding heart liberal come to mind.
Of course, Breyer thinks guns should be banned where they are most necessary for defensive purposes.
The words bleeding heart liberal come to mind.Great News - Now on to Other Things
I'm thrilled about the decision. I own guns, carry, and think the court got it right.
But, I think that this decision may be the end of guns as a wedge issue. In other words, the Right won. If this one crucial issue goes away as a key to mobilizing conservatives who might otherwise vote their pocketbook, I expect Democrats will do much better. In other words, as gun control laws are overturned and atrophy, many people who would like things like universal health care, major environmental legislation, a change in the tax code, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Democrats because of their stance on guns, might slowly be able to do so as guns recede as a wedge issue. Not everyone, of course, but enough to perhaps make a difference.
I'm thrilled about the decision. I own guns, carry, and think the court got it right.
But, I think that this decision may be the end of guns as a wedge issue. In other words, the Right won. If this one crucial issue goes away as a key to mobilizing conservatives who might otherwise vote their pocketbook, I expect Democrats will do much better. In other words, as gun control laws are overturned and atrophy, many people who would like things like universal health care, major environmental legislation, a change in the tax code, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Democrats because of their stance on guns, might slowly be able to do so as guns recede as a wedge issue. Not everyone, of course, but enough to perhaps make a difference.
Seancass
Member
well rollship up there dove right into the forum for this one. he better get over to the newb section and introduce himself.
armoredman
Member
Bear, interesting point.
Carry Big Stick
Member
Awesome!!!
We won this battle today but the war is still far from over.
We won the battle to Keep arms now we need to fight the battle to be allowed to Bear these arms.
I'm sure the framers that wrote our great Constitution left the house everyday just as we do. Why should the means of self defense not be able to go with us? It is the right to keep and bear arms. Not the right to keep and bear arms only at home.
After all self defense was mentioned as a lawful use in the ruling. Why make it exclusive to in the home?
We won this battle today but the war is still far from over.
We won the battle to Keep arms now we need to fight the battle to be allowed to Bear these arms.
I'm sure the framers that wrote our great Constitution left the house everyday just as we do. Why should the means of self defense not be able to go with us? It is the right to keep and bear arms. Not the right to keep and bear arms only at home.
After all self defense was mentioned as a lawful use in the ruling. Why make it exclusive to in the home?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
