DC loses... Heller wins!

[Broadside]

Originally Posted by switchfoot

The mayor of DC just did a press conference and said basically that no handguns that were bought prior to today would be permitted, and also that the ban on AUTOMATIC and SEMI-AUTOMATIC handguns still stands. I wonder if he is an idiot, or if he knows what he is talking about? Banning semi-automatic handguns would mean the only handgun DC residents could own would be revolvers.

I don't think he knows what he is talking about based on the rulling. It was pretty clear and didn't define the type of weapons they could limit at all.

[Prometheus]

Today is an acceptable day. Definitely not a great day and honestly not really a good one either.

64 PAGES of reading to do before some of kiddies should even think about wetting your pants.

From the excepts I've read so far, the USSC says you can still LICENSE gun owners, regulate certain types...

This is most definitely a double edged sword. Don't get all giddy.

I'm certain none of you have read the 64 pages yet. I haven't, I've got a job after all. I will read through it later however.

It definitely could have been a lot worse, but it's no where near acknowledging the 2A as it's written.

[robin48]

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 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.

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.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed

[Ishpeck]

Dude, DC's mayor is a retard. He's just covering his ears and shouting "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" When the SCOTUS rules in a way he doesn't like.

Mr. Mayor, pretending you're an idiot doesn't alleviate you the responsibility of OBEYING THE ****ING LAW!

[Texas-Gun-Man]

I going throw back a couple in celebration.

[trik396]

To a person living in DC, it is a great day. To myself and my family living in Chicago, it is a great day. I know we haven't won the war. I'm not stupid. But for someone who cannot even possess a handgun in my home, it's a great day. And to hear Mayor Daley on tv today spewing his stupidity, I'm glad to know the NRA is going to take him to court and make his life a bit more miserable. Some of you who have the freedoms I cannot even imagine probably don't know where I'm coming from. Most on this site are allowed to carry a handgun. To a guy that cannot own one legally, this is a great day, make no mistake about it. Think about others before yourself once and awhile.

[retired]

This close 5-4 decision should be a wake up call for those here who intend to vote for Obama. If he gets in, he will more than likely be able to appoint a few Supreme Ct. Justices. Undoubtedly, he will nominate more liberals like him who support his views not only on other issues, but his views against semi-auto weapons and ccws.

Do you really want someone who will definitely have the opportunity to influence our gun laws for many years to come, serve as our President.

I'm not totally enamored with McCain, especially with his illegal alien views, but he is certainly the better of the two IMHO. 8yrs. of Obama or 4 of him, then 4 of Clinton is too scary to even imagine.

I know there are other important issues besides guns in choosing a President, but, this is a gun forum and it is hard to understand how someone here could vote for someone who is determined to make our gun rights more restrictive. I have a ccw because I'm retired le and will probably be able to keep it if he got in, but I don't know about the rest of you if he gets his way.

As Scalia said, they didn't decide on all of the ramifications of the 2nd A. With the Heller decision, there will be numerous future lawsuits; especially here in Ca. and Chicago. We need the type of judges McCain will nominate, not the ones Obama would.

I would really hope that those who voiced their decision to vote for Obama will reconsider and vote for McCain.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by retired

This close 5-4 decision should be a wake up call for those here who intend to vote for Obama. If he gets in, he will more than likely be able to appoint a few Supreme Ct. Justices. Undoubtedly, he will nominate more liberals like him who support his views not only on other issues, but his views against semi-auto weapons and ccws.

Do you really want someone who will definitely have the opportunity to influence our gun laws for many years to come, serve as our President.

Exactly why I can't support mcAmensty either. While obviously not AS bad a obamma, he isn't much better.

Keep in mind that two of the justices voting AGAINST Heller were appointed by republicans. Don't have any illusions that somehow republicans are some sort of infinitely better choice.

Considering the democrat AND republican track records of the two doofuses we need to find someone who will actually support our Rights. Certainly neither obamma or mcAmnesty can be trusted to do so. Should the r's or d's win in novemember we are going to completely screwed.

Much thanks to the NRgAy for adding into hellers brief the licensing scheme the GOA had fought hard to prevent being used. We now have supreme court SANCTIONED licenses and by default REGISTRATION of gun owners. Once again the nra has screwed gun owners first by trying to prevent Heller vs DC and later by making sure language like this was used. Heller should have stuck withe GOA and not jumped ship the nra. Had he today would have been a MUCH better day.

This is honestly like hitler registering the Jews in the late 30's... like the Jews, most gun owners have no idea whats in store for them.

[Edubya]

I was hoping for a unanimous decisions from the Court. While today’s decision was 5-4, it was actually unanimous on one point: there is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. The split came over the right and whether the D.C. law itself was constitutional, but the individual-right prevailed over a collective- or states-right interpretation.

I thank God for whoever selected, appointed and ratified Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Yes I left off Kennedy! He is ever-so-wishy-washy that we never know if he is going to support the "originalists" or not.

I rue the day that a liberal muslim, with a liberal majority gets to select a Justice! I'll vote for anybody but obama!!!

[Pharmakon]

Originally Posted by bigun

No it's a good day, a great day would have been a total assumation of the wording of the 2nd to include carrying a weapon not just the keeping a weapon. But it's a start. The split amongst the courts still follow party lines however which doesnt bode well for us if Obama gets to choose the next judge or 2.

IMO it already says that: keep and bear arms. I think most of these anti-gun people probably know it too.