Supreme court ruled against DC gun ban
- Thread starter CEHollier
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
If it was a 5-4 vote then you can bet that the next President will be keeping the left wing loons on the court and Scalia types will no longer be acceptable. That's the most important part of this election is that maybe 4 supremes will retire in next 4 years. Neither Obama nor McCain could be trusted to put a Constitionalist on the court.
Today is a good day for gun owners.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/
Yeeee-ha
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
This will spark a new push from the Brady Brats for a constitutional amendment.
And Lord help us when Obama gets to submit nominations for the Supreme Court.
But for now .........yeeee-ha.
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
This will spark a new push from the Brady Brats for a constitutional amendment.
And Lord help us when Obama gets to submit nominations for the Supreme Court.
But for now .........yeeee-ha.
.
I haven't read the entire ruling, but there are two statements in there that seem to stand out to me:
1.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.
So to say CCW or OC is a constitutionally protected right seems to be void now.
2.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.
I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this as everyone else would, but it would seem to me that the act of arbitrarily licensing weapons (as I understand is the practice in places like NYC) would be deemed unconstitutional. I also wonder if this would carry over to those "may-issue" states with respect to CCW, though it's already been stated that CCW itself isn't a constitutionally protected right.
1.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.
So to say CCW or OC is a constitutionally protected right seems to be void now.
2.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.
I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this as everyone else would, but it would seem to me that the act of arbitrarily licensing weapons (as I understand is the practice in places like NYC) would be deemed unconstitutional. I also wonder if this would carry over to those "may-issue" states with respect to CCW, though it's already been stated that CCW itself isn't a constitutionally protected right.
There are a few red flags in their interpretation.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre*tation. 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, con*cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire*arms 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 traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Syllabus
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 thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi*trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis 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.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpre*tation. 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, con*cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire*arms 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 traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Syllabus
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 thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi*trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfyhis 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.
Yes, but they specifically note that licencing is not part of the scope of the decision, which implies that there can be another lawsuit to address unreasonable licencing restrictions, or to determine that licencing a constitutionally protected right is in itself unreasonable.
I finished reading the whole opinion. It is clearly a victory for the individual rights crowd (us). However, it leaves the door open for bans on machine guns (and possibly assault weapons) and it blesses licensing schemes that are not arbitrary and capricious. The opinion also fails to do two important things: First it does not declare that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. Second, it does not state the level of scrutiny to which a restrictive firearm law will be subject. i.e. strict scrutiny, medium scrutiny or rational basis.
We are not out of the woods yet.
Dan
We are not out of the woods yet.
Dan
Read the Brady response:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992
“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=992
“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.
They opened the door for further Registration, Limitation, and Licensing of firearms, and for courts/legislators to determine what firearms are acceptable and what aren't. They state "for self-defense and Hunting", this infringes on the right to bear arms as the founders intended, leaving it open for interpretation and determination by lawmakers.
This is actually a pretty terrible thing for us...consider the future federal administrations.
This is actually a pretty terrible thing for us...consider the future federal administrations.
...So to say CCW or OC is a constitutionally protected right seems to be void now...QUOTE]
it is a right granted by the state, it has always been that way and will most likely continue to be that way.
what a cop out decision. and to know that it was a 5 to 4 vote makes me sick to my stomach. i think this whole thing is ********. "Shall Not Be Infringed" why is that so hard to understand?????
Just watched the vid
The ruling will eliminate ban on handgun in home in DC
There are still "Reasonable restrictions".
Basically:
SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CHICAGO’S HANDGUN BAN
BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.
“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”
In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.
“Our goal,” Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.”
“The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded,” Sigale said. “It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right.”
“Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform,” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added.
Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.
“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”
He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Find out more by visiting: www.ChicagoGunCase.com
BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.
“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”
In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.
“Our goal,” Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.”
“The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded,” Sigale said. “It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right.”
“Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform,” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added.
Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.
“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”
He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Find out more by visiting: www.ChicagoGunCase.com
Members online
- Rovpilot337
- Speedtrucker
- longdude17
- JBP55
- dwhaley929
- Bigchillin83
- Savedbygrace
- cbbr
- Daspy
- T-boy
- Mallets42
- MichaelPopulus
- Kylelawrence318
- mikelee
- IlivnDaBoot!
- Scott5.0
- mickey
- Sixtop
- hotbiggun
- Wagpewpew
- guardcore80
- diligaf
- southerncanuck
- Leafbloer
- Mr_dees
- Kipp Castaing
- N4sir
- twinin
- EightySix
- Generalludd
- Nboazman1
- navops
- nomadicdread
- usmc-nav
- WhereIsIt?
- rheology1
- Sainte70
- 103M 95G
- Ejorso
- BillC
- gsneff
- Todd44
- bxr t0ny
- petingrass
- King Ranch Man
- Mel633
- Love2shoot
- BSGA
- k0k0m0
- Andyroonie
