SCOTUSblog has the details.
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 handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
Jonn, if you’ve became a little rusty, come on down to the ranch.
ALRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew that our Supreme Court who always rules for the majority of Americans, (snicker, ha ha, LOL), would protect our right to keep and arm bears. Makes my latest design all the more correct, check out my feelings at: http://www.cafepress.com/frankopinions/5606158
What a surprise. I had hoped,,,,,,,,,, but in spasms of reality, I doubted that this would be the outcome. Is the temperature falling that fast in hell?
nuf sed
I had to do (gasp) work this morning – and the first place I read this was here and this me now. But, I’ve never been out of practice, Danny – I stayed within the letter of the law. Maybe not the spirit, but the letter.
From what I’ve read of the decision it’s apparent that I don’t understand it. They basically said I have the right to own a gun, but NOT to carry it. To me the bear arms means the right to carry.
It essentially says it is an individual right, but like all rights (freedom of speech for instance) there are some things you can’t do. Reading that part now, but it looks to me you can carry it, just not concealed, and not into protected areas like schools.
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Also:
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.
The most important part of the decision in my opinion is;
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
That’ll shut up some of those Leftist gun-grabbing wienies.
There are several things that are not covered in the opinion, and all of them are critical.
First, since D.C. is, by virtue of Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17, an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, the opinion’s lack of addressing directly the “incorporation” issue of the 14th Amendment is a bit troubling. The opinion certainly implies that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right of citizenship, but the opinion did not actually state that the right was applicable to the states via the incorporation clause.
Second, the Court expressly declined to state what level of scrutiny would be applied to firearms laws. The most severe is “strict scrutiny,” which means that there must be a COMPELLING government need to justify the intrusion into the rights protected. The “intermediate scrutiny” means that a law encroaching on the right must have some important justification. The “rational basis” test is simply whether there is a rational basis for passing a law that touches upon the rights. Existing federal firearms statutes are all “rational basis” statutes, but this is hardly any protection at all from a gun-grabbing Congress or Supreme Court.
Third, and its related to the Second issue above, the Court has not defined the scope of weapons protected under the Second Amendment. The Bills of Rights were demanded by the Antifederalists, NOT the Federalists, and were meant to serve as a bulwark against a tyrannical federal government that exceeded the exercise of the powers granted to it under the Constitution. The weapons possessed by ordinary citizens at the time of ratification of the Constitution were equivalent in all ways to the standard military arms possessed by soldiers of that era. What we would generally consider to be crew-served weapons today were specialty items possessed by the community militia. Hence, theoretically, modern citizens should have access to M-4 carbines, but not SAWs and higher.
Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction, but it is only the beginning of the journey.
Finally, as to “open carry,” the decision does NOT authorize that at all, although it suggests it. This decision will be parsed into its bare bones. Don’t do anything foolish by reading more into it than is there.
509th bob:
You suck.
You are stealing my thunder on a post I was gonna do. However:
1: Thinking 14th will apply it back, but it is unstated.
2: Reading through it, looks like Strict, but depends on how froggy Kennedy is on any given day.
3: There was a lengthy discussion of that actually. I would have to find the page, but essentially, yeah, what you said. I think HotAir had the specific exerpt. Right now, still wading through the Stevens stuff.
“Finally, as to “open carry,” the decision does NOT authorize that at all, although it suggests it.”
No, because the issue was not before the court. However, it is obliquely discussed. And if anyone is looking to me for legal advice, my advice to you would be to seek mental health professionals, because relying on a guy named TSO is almost never a good idea.
Until the day should ever come where the SCOTUS consists of 9 judges whose sole purpose is to interpret the constitution and do so w/o political prejudice the battle may be won but the war will continue.I really do not believe when the founding fathers came up with the idea of the Supreme Court they envisioned a day where politics not common sense would rule it.Cling to your bibles and guns because the real battle is yet to come.
TSO / 509,
Great points for a future discussion. I think the 14th will ultimately become the anchor point of the gun grabbers.
I realize that we don’t want the court writing law but when key issues are “obliquely discussed”, it does little more than muddy the water.
It does appear that the court finally killed the “Regulated Militia” arguemnt, which is a good thing. I think the rub is “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Until that “right” is clearly defined then determining an “infringement” is impossible. For instance, 509’s point about M4’s and crew served weapons is valid logic but so could restricting the arm to the 1763 French Charleville musket.
This is good news but it’s far from over.
“I realize that we don’t want the court writing law but when key issues are “obliquely discussed”, it does little more than muddy the water.”
True, but the court deals with the issue before it. And we get pissy when they completely leave the reservation. The opinion is ludicrously long, but very non-lawyer friendly if you care to read it. Those looking for clearer water won’t find it here. Even 509th’s point about the level of scrutiny wasn’t answered. I am assuming Strict, but I may just be compensation my hope for my reading comprehension. They spoke about what the state can do (ban machine guns) and what they can’t (ban handguns fully) and there’s abuot 17 square miles to roam around in between those.
DC Mayor at press confrence: States semi auto hand guns are still ILLEGAL in DC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj2L8OhR4ak
Jonn wrote: It’s cute how he said “automatic or semi-automatic handguns” to mask his plan.
Fenty (the D.C. mayor) is Just Like Pelosi (the traitoress Speaker of the House of Representatives). Semi-auto handguns are illegal? Based upon what legal rationale? Spell it out Fenty! YOU (Fenty) are going to what, BAN an entire class of LEGAL category of firearms because you Personally Don’t LIKE them? What is your authority? You, and your SORRY Office, only exists because Democrats WANT you there. Spell it out Jerk-Off!
You (Fenty) Can’t. Explain it to us, moron! You can’t. You (Fenty) don’t have a CLUE about Constitutional History.
Go drive your city-paid-for (i.e., federally taxpayer paid-for) “Smart Car” around, and make stupid statements, just like that absurd Jack-Ass Nancy Pelosi.
Sorry for keeping your blog “PG-13” Jonn.
Jonn and COB6, are you getting massive traffic?
Also, sorry TSO, but I read the opinion as soon as it was released, and, because I’ve studied this issue for several years, I recognized the flaws and limitations in the majority opinion.
I’m on record (where I work) for predicting that the Supremes would find an individual right (they literally could not have found otherwise, based upon historical precedence), but would do everything to preserve existing federal gun laws (which mostly make sense). If the choice is “intermediate scrutiny” and “rational basis,” then I think the decision should, and MUST come down at “intermediate scrutiny.”
Some laws, like the prohibition against private (and registered) ownership of machine-guns, which have NEVER been used in the commission of an actual crime, will not survive “intermediate scrutiny.” I do not address the financial factor of trying to “feed” a machine-gun, but left-wing fruit-cakes will attempt to seize upon this issue for demonizing the concept of private and lawful ownership of machine-guns because they fear ALL guns (because they never fired one, and don’t understand anything about firearms). It’s rather hard to be “Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others” when the “others” have a means to dis-prove that theory.
Like I’ve said before, I’ve been responsible for more deaths (defendant Daniel Lee, Arkansas) as a federal prosecutor than I EVER was as a private gun-owning citizen.
“Jonn and COB6, are you getting massive traffic?”
Actually, I think Yahoo is having server problems. I’ve been messing with the WordPress portion of the blog since last night and I can’t find anything wrong with it – I wish it was a bump in traffic.