HELLER AFFIRMED!

[hsmith]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Is it safe to dig up the guns in my back yard yet?:lol:

How do you unsink a boat?!

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Don't think it allows nukes.

Not unless you can "wear" a nuke... A sentence from the ruling determined adefinition of arms to be "anything a man can wear for his defence."

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

So, what I gather from this whole ruling and I haven't read every single page yet, is this...

Individual right - not tied to militia duty

Trigger locks and disassembly requirements = unconstitutional

A line to protect hunting by stating "for the porposes of killing game."

Heller may keep a gun in his home for personal protection.

Licensing and registration requirements are constitutional.

Banning entire classes of weapons is unconstitutional.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

It also mentions that sensitive areas may continue bans such as federal buildings, etc..

What about National Parks? That is not a sensitive area and is "federal property".

 

[hsmith]

imported post

From ARFCOM:

Wayne LaPierre in Fox Interview said suits will be filed today against Chicago for their Handgun Ban

 

[No NAU]

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

This is probably the most worrying part of the decision. Though it was not at issue, the court made a footnote resulting in stare decisis from its decision in Cruikshank and related cases:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

:what::banghead: So it is the Court's opinion, freely given, that this decision is only going to apply to D.C. and the Federal Government because the 2A does not apply to the States, even though all others except the 3rd Amendment have been incorporated since.

On the bright side of this it totally eviscerates any hope socialist Obama has of enacting a Federal CC ban I would think. My CHL allows me to OC in Oregon cities that have passed local ban ordinances so I'm glad now he can't touch it.

 

[DopaVash]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

So, what I gather from this whole ruling and I haven't read every single page yet, is this...

Individual right - not tied to militia duty

Trigger locks and disassembly requirements = unconstitutional

A line to protect hunting by stating "for the porposes of killing game."

Heller may keep a gun in his home for personal protection.

Licensing and registration requirements are constitutional.

Banning entire classes of weapons is unconstitutional.

This would mean the AWB is unconstitutional, right?

 

[Smurfologist]

imported post

DopaVash wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

So, what I gather from this whole ruling and I haven't read every single page yet, is this...

Individual right - not tied to militia duty

Trigger locks and disassembly requirements = unconstitutional

A line to protect hunting by stating "for the porposes of killing game."

Heller may keep a gun in his home for personal protection.

Licensing and registration requirements are constitutional.

Banning entire classes of weapons is unconstitutional.

This would mean the AWB is unconstitutional, right?

One would think so, but, I'm not a lawyer (smile)!

2nd Amendment...........Use it...........Or, lose it!!:X

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

DopaVash wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

So, what I gather from this whole ruling and I haven't read every single page yet, is this...

Individual right - not tied to militia duty

Trigger locks and disassembly requirements = unconstitutional

A line to protect hunting by stating "for the porposes of killing game."

Heller may keep a gun in his home for personal protection.

Licensing and registration requirements are constitutional.

Banning entire classes of weapons is unconstitutional.

This would mean the AWB is unconstitutional, right?

That's what I am hoping... My interpretation anyway..

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

From ARFCOM:

Wayne LaPierre in Fox Interview said suits will be filed today against Chicago for their Handgun Ban

Wow, that didn't take long... Sweet.

 

[Smurfologist]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

hsmith wrote:

From ARFCOM:

Wayne LaPierre in Fox Interview said suits will be filed today against Chicago for their Handgun Ban

Wow, that didn't take long... Sweet.

This will be a good thing and I am so looking forward to the outcome. I grew up in Chicago (lived there for 25 years). I look forward to the ruling whenever it comes!!

2nd Amendment............Use it...........Or, lose it!!:X

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

Hi, folks.This is my first post,sofirst, a little background.I live in Colorado Springs, andI found this website through one of the recent media articles about open carry. Now, on to the decision.

For those who don't know yet, Scalia wrote it. It doesn't go as far as Iwould like butman oh man, is it a thing of beauty!

[align=left]The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.[/align]


[align=left]

[/align]

[align=left][/align]

[align=left]Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.[/align]


[align=left]

[/align]

 

[Evil Ernie]

imported post

I'm only on page 19, but so far, Justice Stevens is getting lambasted!!!!! For a SCOTUS opinion of 157 pages, this is actually fun to read!!!
I think they did a great job defining "keeping arms" and "bearing arms". Good stuff.

 

[Liko81]

imported post

Antonin Scalia wrote:

[align=left]Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
[/align]
[align=left]

[/align]Eat that one, Bradys!

 

[Liko81]

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

I'm only on page 19, but so far, Justice Stevens is getting lambasted!!!!! For a SCOTUS opinion of 157 pages, this is actually fun to read!!!
I think they did a great job defining "keeping arms" and "bearing arms". Good stuff.

By the time you get to page 57, you'll be getting to the application of the Court's interpretation of the 2A to the case at hand. The majority opinion is only 65 pages; dissents start thereafter. Here's a fun bit of the opinion; the court notes that bans on the carry of weapons have been struck down on similar grounds by State courts:

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

(“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

:celebrate


Here's another, already mentioned:

Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.”

It's regrettable that respondent conceded the point, buthe did arguethat such licensing cannot be arbitrary or capricious (without apparent reason, impulsive) and the court agreed, saying the District MUST issue Heller a license to own and carry a firearm even if it's just in his home. To my only slightly educated sensibilities, that sounds like fertile ground for a challenge of may-issue licensing on a broader scale, such as FOIDs and may-issue CCW a la Hawaii, Maryland and New York.

And finally, Scalia's closing words:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

 

[Bflamante]

imported post

(“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

:celebrate

Thus no AWB. Perhaps a reversal of the MG regulation/ban of manufactur of MG parts.

 

[DopaVash]

imported post

Bflamante wrote:

(“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

:celebrate

Thus no AWB. Perhaps a reversal of the MG regulation/ban of manufactur of MG parts.

I believe that they specifically mentioned MG's to not be covered by that.

 

[Liko81]

imported post

Bflamante wrote:

(“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

:celebrate

Thus no AWB. Perhaps a reversal of the MG regulation/ban of manufactur of MG parts.

Not sure I'd make those leaps. Instituting a 10-round limit on handguns and banning certain long arms still leaves the average citizen with many choices. Dunno if I quoted this already, but...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

In short, Heller is upholding the interpretation of Miller that fully-automatic weapons are not of a type that would be expected to be commonly used by civilians, even if they are the foremost armament of the military and thus exceedingly useful in that capacity. The Second Amendment protects the types of weapons a civilian would ordinarily be expected to have for his own defense, that he could bring to the defense of his nation.

To be sure, that DOES include evil black rifles such as AKs, ARs, tac shotties, and "sniper rifles" in the mode of the Model 700 and counterparts. In households with multiple guns, at leastone of these weapons is in the collection, and they are used for home defense (the Mossberg Persuader riot shotgun is MARKETED for that purpose). Whether .50 cal rifles are something a civilian would be expected to have and use on a daily basis is quite frankly debatable, as are full-auto rifles and pistols.Similarly, emplaceable weapons such as LMGs and mortars would be questioned as to their efficacy for any other purpose than being on-call as the militia. Even the policedon't use M60s to quell a riot.

This is nowthe definitive interpretation of the weapons to be protected under the 2A, so any challenge toany class offull-auto weapons restricted by theMG ban would have to provide strong evidence that such weapons are unpopular for some reason other than the restrictions already in place. That may be possible with automaticrifles; get sales figures of their semi-auto counterparts and pollowners of such guns as to whether they'd have bought the full-auto version if they could get it. that could be used to extrapolate the common ownershipof full-auto firearms if they weren't capped. I would be willing to bet money that the number of "neutered"AKs/ARs/MP5s etc.is ten times the number of registered NFA weapons of the same model, and that almost to a man their owners would have bought a full-auto model if they were freely available and thus similar in price. The fact that NFA weapons are so expensive (40 or 50 times their original retail, sometimes 100 times or more,adjusting for inflation)is itself evidence of a shortage in the market.

 

[Smurfologist]

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

Bflamante wrote:

(“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

:celebrate

Thus no AWB. Perhaps a reversal of the MG regulation/ban of manufactur of MG parts.

Not sure I'd make those leaps. Instituting a 10-round limit on handguns and banning certain long arms still leaves the average citizen with many choices. Dunno if I quoted this already, but...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

In short, Heller is upholding the interpretation of Miller that fully-automatic weapons are not of a type that would be expected to be commonly used by civilians, even if they are the foremost armament of the military and thus exceedingly useful in that capacity. The Second Amendment protects the types of weapons a civilian would ordinarily be expected to have for his own defense, that he could bring to the defense of his nation.

To be sure, that DOES include evil black rifles such as AKs, ARs, tac shotties, and "sniper rifles" in the mode of the Model 700 and counterparts. In households with multiple guns, at leastone of these weapons is in the collection, and they are used for home defense (the Mossberg Persuader riot shotgun is MARKETED for that purpose). Whether .50 cal rifles are something a civilian would be expected to have and use on a daily basis is quite frankly debatable, as are full-auto rifles and pistols.Similarly, emplaceable weapons such as LMGs and mortars would be questioned as to their efficacy for any other purpose than being on-call as the militia. Even the policedon't use M60s to quell a riot.

This is nowthe definitive interpretation of the weapons to be protected under the 2A, so any challenge toany class offull-auto weapons restricted by theMG ban would have to provide strong evidence that such weapons are unpopular for some reason other than the restrictions already in place. That may be possible with automaticrifles; get sales figures of their semi-auto counterparts and pollowners of such guns as to whether they'd have bought the full-auto version if they could get it. that could be used to extrapolate the common ownershipof full-auto firearms if they weren't capped. I would be willing to bet money that the number of "neutered"AKs/ARs/MP5s etc.is ten times the number of registered NFA weapons of the same model, and that almost to a man their owners would have bought a full-auto model if they were freely available and thus similar in price. The fact that NFA weapons are so expensive (40 or 50 times their original retail, sometimes 100 times or more,adjusting for inflation)is itself evidence of a shortage in the market.

Interesting perspective!

2nd Amendment.........Use it..........Or, lose it!!:X

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

I will say this. I am as pleased as anyone regarding the outcome of teh Heller decision, but I think that we are all going overboard on the celebrations.

The simple fact of the matter is, the opinion was specifically worded so as not to be applicable to other "longstanding" regulations. while I could possibly see this ruling to be used on a new AWB, I personally don't see any chance that we will get a reversal of NFA, GCA, or of the 86 ban. Simply put there was too much riding on this to allow a possibility to sneak in.

the opinion specifically mentioned that the ban wouldn't affect anything in the GCA ( prohibited persons, etc.) and it specifically mentioned "longstanding laws". This was a compromise measure and nothing else. This was done because the Justices knew the backlash that would come by ruling for the DC ban, and they also knew the supposed "pandora's box" that could be opened were they to open up an avenue to allow MGs in teh hands of Law abiding citizens (the streets will run red with blood and all that nonsense) so they were very careful in the ruling. the Heller decision will allow us to keep guns unlocked and assembled, and nothing else. one small victory, but if we want what ya'll are talking about, then we need to start on the next victory. Maybe see if teh court will take Olofsons case, as that would be more beneficial for an NFA free world....