2nd Amendment LIVES!

[rouxroux]

5-4!! (shame on the 4).

[many944s]

Truly frightening that the vote was so close!

[campbellcj]

NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal

June 26, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

[Joeaksa]

Thank God! They finally did something right!

[jyl]

Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

[jyl]

Looks like in DC, an adult not otherwise disqualified has the right to obtain a handgun license and keep a functioning, unlocked handgun in his home.

Will presumably also invalidate handgun bans in a handful of other cities - NYC? (edit - I originally included SF, forgot that ban had already been struck down)

Unclear, so far, what impact on CCW, "assault rifle" bans, etc.

My feeling is, Heller decision means little or no change from status quo, except for residents of the few cities with total handgun bans. Even in states with restrictive gun laws, like California, I cannot think of any change that Heller will require.

[jyl]

Excerpts from majority opinion that I thought were interesting. My (quick and dirty) thoughts in the headings -

2nd Amend doesn't mean right to CCW

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues.

2nd Amend doesn't prohibit restrictions on felons, mentally ill, bans on guns in specific places, or regulation of gun industry.

nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.”

2nd Amend doesn't imply individual right to possess "military" weapons; no indication that NFA is unconstitutional

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.

Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

2nd Amend doesn't imply right to possess firearms not typically owned by lawful citizens, whatever that means

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.

Handgun possession specifically protected, long guns not a substitute.

I think Court's reliance on what is "popular" for self-defense might be argument against a ban targeted to semi-autos, or hi-cap magazines, etc.

The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible
to ban the possession of handguns so long as the
possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It
is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American
people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential
self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a
citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier
to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;
it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by
an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody
strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed
at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the
police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu-
lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the
home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

2nd Amend includes right to have the gun functional, loaded, and unlocked

We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally Posted by jyl

Excerpts from majority opinion that I thought were interesting. My (quick and dirty) thoughts in the headings -

2nd Amend doesn't imply individual right to possess "military" weapons; no indication that NFA is unconstitutional

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.

2nd Amend doesn't imply right to possess firearms not typically owned by lawful citizens, whatever that means

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.

M-16's have never been legal to possess. That is a fully automatic weapon.

I legally own/carry this...so much for banning "short-barreled" shotguns:



The U.S. just got a little safer today. Thank you, Supremes!

[jyl]

Citizens can legally possess full autos, just have to jump through the BATF hoops. Similarly your SB shotgun, I think.

BTW, that is a very cool little weapon, I love it. Can you post more about it? What is it like to shoot, what reliability, how many rounds does it hold, etc.

Originally Posted by Danny_Ocean

M-16's have never been legal to possess. That is a fully automatic weapon.

I legally own/carry this...so much for banning "short-barreled" shotguns:



The U.S. just got a little safer today. Thank you, Supremes!

[kstar]

I am also shocked that their are four people on the Supreme Court that voted against! That's really scary, almost unbelievable.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Danny_Ocean

M-16's have never been legal to possess. That is a fully automatic weapon.

Sorry but the above statement is not correct.

Fully auto weapons, along with suppressors and several other weapons ARE legal if you have the correct Class 3 license. I have several friends with full "rock n roll" weapons, M-16's among them.

[on2wheels52]

The SC decision sounds like a reason for a small celebration tonight.
Danny, I would think your Mossberg is as much a class III firearm as an M16, unless the barrel is longer then it appears in the picture.
Jim

[Rick Lee]

In reading the dissent, although it is very well-written and reasoned, it seems to me these four had made up their minds before the arguments were even made and were just looking for the words to justify their pre-existing positions.

BTW, I don't know why anyone gets their panties in a wad over machine guns. Even if the post-1986 manufacture ban were lifted and their prices came down from insane to just astronomical, the ammo costs are just prohibitively high. You can't burn $20 bills with a lighter as fast as you burn through $20 worth of ammo in a full-auto gun. They are just insanely expensive to buy and shoot, not exactly the kind of gun average folks would be able to afford even if they wanted them.

[The Gaijin]

Where did they ever find Souter? He was one of the dissenters. I think H.W. nominated that bozo.. See what happends when you play "nice" and try and find someone "middle of the road"??

[id10t]

on2wheels52 (et al) - there is a difference between full auto and a SBR or SBS or Destructive Device or silencer. All NFA items and subject to a tax stamp ($5 or $200, depending). Real big difference is that civilians can only buy full auto stuff registered as civilian transferrable prior to May '86.

[cashflyer]

...the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Does anybody else see a problem here, since the SC just allowed DC to limit his right to being exercised only within the home?

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Sorry but the above statement is not correct.

Fully auto weapons, along with suppressors and several other weapons ARE legal if you have the correct Class 3 license. I have several friends with full "rock n roll" weapons, M-16's among them.

You are taking my comment out-of-context. I am replying solely to the paragraph as posted by Jyl (M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned,.) The have always been "banned".

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

Does anybody else see a problem here, since the SC just allowed DC to limit his right to being exercised only within the home?

Many states have similar laws, California included (home & place of business...that's it).

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally Posted by on2wheels52

The SC decision sounds like a reason for a small celebration tonight.
Danny, I would think your Mossberg is as much a class III firearm as an M16, unless the barrel is longer then it appears in the picture.
Jim

Barrel is 6.5". Overall length 16". It isn't classified as Class III...it is an "AOW" weapon ($5 stamp).

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I am also shocked that their are four people on the Supreme Court that voted against! That's really scary, almost unbelievable.

That actually is a lot scarier than people would think. I wouldn't get too celebratory about this victory - it might be very short-lived if Obama gets one or two S.C. picks.

The SCOTUS has historically upheld past decisions that have been established for a period of time (such as Roe v. Wade). Once they've had time to "settle in" and become established precedent, it's harder (though not impossible) to justify reversing them later. You can bet your bottom dollar that Prez. Obama will make overturning this decision with a new S.C. one of his priorities, before it has time to "settle in" and become part of established legal doctrine.

Unfortunately this fight is far from over and the NannyState advocates have only been dealt a temporary setback. They ain't going away.