Posted on 06/26/2008 7:24:53 AM PDT by Bob Leibowitz
In an eagerly anticipated and strongly worded decision, Justice Antonin Scalia this morning led the Supreme Court to discover and define the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual's right to own firearms.
In a stunning but narrow 5-4 rebuke to liberal dogma of the past 30 years, where penumbras carried more weight than words, SCOTUS has confirmed what is known as the standard view of the amendment, that it means what it says.
While the decision does not automatically expand Second Amendment protections and prohibitions to affect state laws, it will immediately change the terms by which those restrictions are debated. In the long run, it is likely that some future case will arise where the issue of "incorporation" will be decided by the Court under either the 14th Amendment or the Privilege Clause, thereby bringing the Second Amendment to a level with the First and Fourth.
The case, which reached the Court as Heller vs. The District, is a special tribute to the foresight and conviction of one man, Robert Levy. Mr. Levy, who has never owned a gun, structured and financed the case, selected the plaintiffs, recruited the lawyers and developed the strategies that led to today's decision. At leaset initially, he did so against the wishes of the pro-Scond Amendment establishment, much of which believed at the beginning of the case, before the elevation of Roberts and Alito to the Court, that the risks as too large.
As Heller gained traction, particularly after an unambiguous decision by the Appellate court overturning D.C.'s handgun ban based on a finding that it was unconstitutional, the arguments and briefs filed by the opposing camps became a treasure trove of Second Amendment scholarship that will be studied by constitutional scholars for a century.
Justice Scalia, widely regarded as the shootingest Justice, was obviously enthusiastic in his writing, defining for history the Constitution's protection of the individual's right to keep and bear arms.
RELATED LINKS: Heller Will Win in June. How Big? has a complete review of the case and more than a dozen links to its history.
OUTSTANDING!!!
Praise God! Now how about the rest of our trampled rights?
So all DC has to do is not issue licenses? I was reading another article that the ruling did not strike down license requirements, laws on felons and the mentally retarded...
Looks like we dodged a bullet! ;-)
Oh happy day. On so many levels.
Why in the world would you post a link to your own blog site containing nothing more than the text you posted on FR?
Is it extreme vanity, silliness, or cognitive impairment?
Bravo, they got it right.
A freedom medal for Mr. Robert Levy and a hearty thank you on behalf of my relatives who gave their lives on April 19, 1775 so we could all enjoy that right.
You're a true American patriot in my book.
Someone needs to challenge the Sullivan Act and the other crap like Chicago’s ban.
Even the requirement to have a CCH to carry concealed is crap IMO.
The SC: freeing terrorists but at least leaving the 2nd Amendment intact so we can defend ourselves.
I agree; thank God.
“liberal dogma of the past 30 years, where penumbras carried more weight than words”
Truer words never spoken.
Even though today’s ruling turned out the way we wanted, I confess to a great deal of unease over waiting to hear what my rights are from a black robed oligarchy.
Yesterday’s ruling on child rapists proves my point.
I had serious doubts about the outcome. So glad to see I was wrong. A stronger majority would have been nice. But hey I’ll take this.
A link to the 157 page “Slip” (preliminary text) Opinion is at:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
The first 67 pages are Scalia and are a masterful and complete analysis of the issue.
They can't take everything all at once and risk revolution. They will be back later to confiscate the guns. For that you can be sure and for certain.
The reason to link is that I will be updating the analysis as I go through the opinion.
From your comment, it appears you may not value that much.
OK by me.
Thanks for your quick and timely analysis, Bob.
Yup...but a 5-4 decision just shows how FUBAR the 4 dissenting justice's are. We have more work to do to get the SCOTUS back on track.
If the decision is carried to its logical conclusion,
it would appear that this strikes down restrictions
against purchasing and possessing (by non felons non
mentally ill), “assault weapon” bans, and “may issue”
or “non issue” CCW policies.
NRA needs to begin challenging all the various magazine
restrictions, AWBs, .50cal bans, and all the rest of the
crap laws enacted by the Feinstein/Don Perata/Corzine/Bloomberg/Schumer cabal.
Is it me or does this prove how radically socialist and totalitarian the left wing members of SCOTUS are?
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
WTF...damn straight Justice Paul!
Four justices believe the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says.
Sort of like terrorist detainees.
After these rulings you have to think twice about bringing these vermin in for trial. Just kill their sorry butts. Then you don’t need worry about some p.o.s. judge letting them go.
You saw that too, did you? Scary, very scary! See my post mere seconds after yours.
Hooray! That’s a big relief, and a decision that is long overdue. I’m more than a little concerned that there are four judges seated on the highest court of the land that do not agree.
So, when will the ACLU take their first case supporting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms? (I’m not holding my breath!)
The man hits the nail on the head -- and STILL comes down on the wrong side!
Thank you for your reporting, sir. I asked earlier whether this was a small step or a giant leap and I fear it’s only a small step - an important one, but nevertheless the progress is fragile. Watch for aggressive regulation and a liberal interpretation of what is considered an unusual weapon (aligned with the court’s interpretation of unusual punishment in the child rape case) to keep a lid on things ... awaiting a reversal of the slim supporting majority in this case. The 4+1 liberal side of the court has already shown that precedent can be cast aside on a whim.
“5-4 in our favor, we weren’t just lucky, this was divine intervention of a near disaster. “
Damn straight! We live to fight on!
Freedom is not free!
Looks like they did too.
Masochists in search of sadists never have to stand in line.
I hope Doctor Scalia’s prescriptive writing is powerful beyond my morning’s imagination, for while a happy morning to all, including me — I have given my dire cautions on the live thread.
I have to send a letter to my congresswoman(NY 4th), one of the real anti-gun proponents in the house.
Scary, isn’t it? Stevens should be impeached for his utter disregard of the basic purpose and meaning of the bill of rights, which was ALWAYS about limiting the “tools” government has to “regulate” the citizenry.
“Bravo, they got it right. “
Yes, but scary by how close. But Scalia has now firmly established the gravitas and extended the precedent for the 21st century.
And the libs/marxists can go suck eggs.
“Is it me or does this prove how radically socialist and totalitarian the left wing members of SCOTUS are? “
No, I had the exact reaction as you. And I don’t even own or plan to own a gun.
But I absolutely defend the right to do so.
No, all the decisions have been following a consistent theme, the government has to follow the rules.
It’s just that some rules we like more than others.
Anyway, if he is splitting these votes to make both sides happy, we need to thank God he threw this one to our way.
Well, yes Justice Stevens, that is exactly what our framers intended.
Reading some of Stevens’ dissent pisses me off mainly the part about the framers 200 years ago wanted to keep tools to restrict civilian gun ownership. Amazing some people cannot read black and white.
However - do not be surprised if Obama wins the presidency - that he will stack the Court. He will say there is a need to have 11 justices for some reason or another and then pack it wilt liberal-leftists until he has a majority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.