DFW Mustang Forums banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
UNFUCKWITHABLE
Joined
·
12,482 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hot off the bench :D :cool:


From live SCOTUS blog:




10:12 Heller affirmed.

10:13 The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.


10:13 Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.




Opinion details inbound.


I guess Montana won't have to secede just yet.



Background for the unaware:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller


District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, is a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to expressly interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to possess firearms for private use.[1]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
It's about DAMN TIME!!!
 

·
UNFUCKWITHABLE
Joined
·
12,482 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
10:23 Today's opinion by Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is now available HERE.


10:24 Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.






This morning is a bit slow... I'm going to skim through the 157 page opinion. BRB :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
That_Is_My_El_Camino said:
I wonder how hard it would be to use this to tell the assault weapons banners to fuck off.
It shouldn't be very hard, seeing as the second part says "...shall not be infringed."
My translation, Individuals have the right to own guns, and that right shall not be infringed.

How is that flexible at all?
 

·
UNFUCKWITHABLE
Joined
·
12,482 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
That_Is_My_El_Camino said:
I wonder how hard it would be to use this to tell the assault weapons banners to fuck off.
Good question.



From the majority opinion:

(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 individual-rights
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



The first highlighted portion makes me think yes, the AWB crowd would have to FOAD. My AR15 is used for the exact same lawful purposes as their single shot .22LR rifle.


But the second highlighted portion seems a bit vague. Not enough to give legislators free reign to ban whatever they want, but just enough to not explicitly say they can't ban stuff.

Shit, I don't know. With the outcome of Heller if there is another AWB I would bet there's another appeal like this that would eventually make it's way to SCOTUS.




EDIT:Oh, and the last highlighed section... because none of this changes the Miller case ruling you just know the soccer moms will keep trying to ban the "shoulder things that go up." :rolleyes:
 

·
UNFUCKWITHABLE
Joined
·
12,482 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
That_Is_My_El_Camino said:
The fact that the end of the second paragraph mentions "dangerous...weapons" worries me. :(
See my edit. We wre thinking the same thing at the same time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
I got up early to see the decision



Needless to say I am quite pleased with it
 

·
UNFUCKWITHABLE
Joined
·
12,482 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
The opinion is entertaining if you can get past some of the legal jargon.

Scalia is the fuckin' man! lol

From a footnote:

And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that
the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.”

This one actually made me laugh out loud.

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.

But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999).

Worse still, the phrase keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,194 Posts
Im glad this reaffirms that the 2nd is an individual right.

I just wish they would have ended it all here and quit with the fucking loseness of terms.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
From page 70 of the opinion, From the Dissent:

“The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons”

Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it? I believe that is the first problem: Congress thinks they have the power to do whatever they want. Our government is too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are no longer a democracy. We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.
 

·
UNFUCKWITHABLE
Joined
·
12,482 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
slow06 said:
From page 70 of the opinion, From the Dissent:

“The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons”

Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it? I believe that is the first problem: Congress thinks they have the power to do whatever they want. Our government is too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We are no longer a democracy. We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.


Look in the majority opinion though. It may have been 5-4, but you can't take back a SCOTUS ruling. A win is a win.


We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights
.



They (the majority) understand, to put it bluntly, that, as the saying goes, "An armed populace are called citizens. An unarmed populace are called subjects."
 

·
#4 Best QB Ever
Joined
·
29,339 Posts
slow06 said:
Anyone notice the implied idea that Congress has the power to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it?
...but doesn't Congress have the power to make laws to regulate anything they want, unless a law strictly prohibits it?
 

·
Worship me
Joined
·
34,345 Posts
slow06 said:
We may have a vote, but our leaders do whatever they want and very soon we will not have a voice.

Rant over.
Welcome to 30 years ago.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top