Heller Struck Down

[Good Luck]

This is a great decision. Now that SCOTUS had made it plain that "well regulated militia" and "the people" are one and the same, we can go after the other phrases, such as "shall not be infringed."

Of course there will be the tired, old "fire in a crowded theater" argument, defending the "necessity" to regulate firearms and prevent citizens from obtaining them as much as possible. But that argument will not go well, I think. Yelling fire (when there is none) in a crowd poses a clear and present danger to others by creating panic in a crowd. There is no associated clear and present danger in the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

From this point, (if played appropriately by 2nd amendment supporters) each gun control law should be made to bear a burden of proof that it does not infringe on lawful ownership without showing just cause. (ie: protects the public from a demonstrable danger.) Since it is easy to show that most restriction on legal ownership have zero effect on gun crime (ie: controlling danger to the public) when coupled with the acknowledgment that the right to bear arms is intended for the people, most current gun control laws can be shown to be in violation of the constitution according to this new decision.

 

[Good Luck]

My suspicion is that many people who agree that living in a free society does not necessarliy mean you will live in a overly safe society. When we use that logic to speak about wiretapping and holding people without due process then you get lots of agreement but the minute you point out that it also means that minority of people will use guns illegally then THIS decision is horrible.

Absolutely. I find it fascinating, and not a little concerning, how the extremes of both political philosophies will defend their own excuses for violating constitutional protections. This is why we have a bill of rights in the first place. The anti-federalists made sure we put them there, as they had a clear understanding that a democratic type of society is far more likely to lose their freedom to themselves than any outside invader.

I do not know for sure who said this, but he was very wise in pointing it out. (This is not an exact quote, but reasonably close)

I do not support throwing off one tyrant over seas, only to be ruled by 100 tyrants here at home.

I am a military man, so I admit my mind set comes from a lifetime of thinking about the need to defend the country and our Constitution. But IMO, the 2nd amendment is the most important of all the bill of rights. As long as the people have the ability in arms to actively revolt if needed, then that need is unlikely to come. But if our ability to move against a totalitarian government is diminished to protest signs, then it will only be a few generations (if that long) before the ability to use protest signs is also taken from us.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In his Opinion of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that this ruling does not affect other state and city restrictions on machine guns, carrying in "sensitive places" like schools, etc. But he did not say the ruling affirmed them. He basically left those issues open to be defined by subsequent cases. Good for him.

My favorite part of the Opinion, was where he said that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had NO EFFECT on the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). He explicitly pointed out that the first part was merely an explanation, and neither restricted nor expanded the second part, which was a COMMAND.

In other words, he has finally put to rest the hysterical claims of the anti-gun-rights folks, that the 2nd only protects military weapons, or people who are in a militia or other military group.

He has done more than simply state that the DC gun law was unconstitutional. He has laid the groundwork for challenging nearly every so-called "gun control" law in the country. The significance of this cannot be overestimated.

This ruling does not invalidate any of those other laws singlehandedly. It is careful to invalidate only the one law in DC.

But in subsequent cases, pro-gun-rights people can now point to a Supreme Court precedent that says the 2nd amendment means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away or restricted. Period. No more silly talk about militias, or military membership, or even a "sporting purpose" test, which Scalia also shot down elsewhere in his Opinion.

Though it technically affects only one law in one locality, it is a landmark ruling. And it signals the beginning of the end for the unconstitutional "gun control" laws that have disarmed innocent citizens while leaving lawbreakers armed, for decades.

 

[Epicurus]

In his Opinion of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that this ruling does not affect other state and city restrictions on machine guns, carrying in "sensitive places" like schools, etc. But he did not say the ruling affirmed them. He basically left those issues open to be defined by subsequent cases. Good for him.

My favorite part of the Opinion, was where he said that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had NO EFFECT on the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). He explicitly pointed out that the first part was merely an explanation, and neither restricted nor expanded the second part, which was a COMMAND.

In other words, he has finally put to rest the hysterical claims of the anti-gun-rights folks, that the 2nd only protects military weapons, or people who are in a militia or other military group.

He has done more than simply state that the DC gun law was unconstitutional. He has laid the groundwork for challenging nearly every so-called "gun control" law in the country. The significance of this cannot be overestimated.

This ruling does not invalidate any of those other laws singlehandedly. It is careful to invalidate only the one law in DC.

But in subsequent cases, pro-gun-rights people can now point to a Supreme Court precedent that says the 2nd amendment means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away or restricted. Period. No more silly talk about militias, or military membership, or even a "sporting purpose" test, which Scalia also shot down elsewhere in his Opinion.

Though it technically affects only one law in one locality, it is a landmark ruling. And it signals the beginning of the end for the unconstitutional "gun control" laws that have disarmed innocent citizens while leaving lawbreakers armed, for decades.

Well said

 

[Damocles]

Ok now that that silliness is out of the way. Damo be patient. Several of us gun nut lawyers met today and discussed the next series of challanges to laws that restrict our rights to keep and bear arms. Guns in cars was discussed, certain aspects of the VAWA restrictions were discussed and we will be talking to some other lawyers in other states in the next couple of weeks. This was the decision we were waiting for.

Excellent. I think many cities will find that their laws will begin running foul of an individual right...

 

[Bonestorm]

In his Opinion of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that this ruling does not affect other state and city restrictions on machine guns, carrying in "sensitive places" like schools, etc. But he did not say the ruling affirmed them. He basically left those issues open to be defined by subsequent cases. Good for him.

My favorite part of the Opinion, was where he said that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had NO EFFECT on the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). He explicitly pointed out that the first part was merely an explanation, and neither restricted nor expanded the second part, which was a COMMAND.

In other words, he has finally put to rest the hysterical claims of the anti-gun-rights folks, that the 2nd only protects military weapons, or people who are in a militia or other military group.

He has done more than simply state that the DC gun law was unconstitutional. He has laid the groundwork for challenging nearly every so-called "gun control" law in the country. The significance of this cannot be overestimated.

This ruling does not invalidate any of those other laws singlehandedly. It is careful to invalidate only the one law in DC.

But in subsequent cases, pro-gun-rights people can now point to a Supreme Court precedent that says the 2nd amendment means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away or restricted. Period. No more silly talk about militias, or military membership, or even a "sporting purpose" test, which Scalia also shot down elsewhere in his Opinion.

Though it technically affects only one law in one locality, it is a landmark ruling. And it signals the beginning of the end for the unconstitutional "gun control" laws that have disarmed innocent citizens while leaving lawbreakers armed, for decades.

The bolded above is an enormous overstatement. As I have said previously, save a few random localities here and there, this ruling will leave intact most gun control regulations on the books. Of course, they will be challenged and the ruling is indeed a significant one as far as recognizing the individual right to own weapons, but like all rights, that right is subject to reasonable regulations.

Furthermore, I don't believe the Court ruled on whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore restricts state action. D.C. is unique in that it is a federal, not state jurisdiction.