*LIVE THREAD* DC vs Heller decision due at 10:00 EST (2nd Amendment)

SCOTUS Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity

[RKBA Democrat]

Today is the day.

The folks at SCOTUS blog will be providing a live blog to follow developments as quickly as possible.

[Victory Rocks]

I hope Keith Olbermann has a meltdown and wets his pants because of this decision.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Of course, not only does he say he’ll appoint justices who will interpret the constitution, like those who voted against this decision and in the majority of the death penalty case yesterday that OBama disagreed with,

But Obama also voted AGAINST the judges who he supposedly agrees with on those two cases. So the judges he rejected rule the way they should (even according to Obama), while the judges he admires and would clone on the bench rule the wrong way (even according to Obama).

Pretty bad President, can’t even support judges who he agrees rule correctly.

[epow]

The District of Columbia isn’t a state, so it’s regulated by the feds. Does this mean that the state and local governments can still make any law they want that restricts our Second Amendment rights?

The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the 14th by the SCOTUS, so I don't believe this decision is binding on the states or on local governments outside the D.C. However the mere fact that the SCOTUS has upheld the originalist view that the amendment guarantees an individual right should have some weight with state and local judges in future gun law cases.

I would like to have seen a decision that would have given the 2nd the same broad application as the 1st, but at least we finally have a SCOTUS ruling that the amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and bear arms instead of merely a state's right to maintain an armed militia as the anti-gunners have claimed for the last 7 or 8 decades. It will still be a long and hard fought battle to get all of the oppressive gun laws repealed or declared unconstitutional, but this decision should give our pro-gun state and local representives and legal eagles a good weapon to fight with.

[2nd amendment mama]

you can go to the Second Amendment Sister's site here

SCOTUS Decision

[stand watie]

actually, have you READ "Miller" from 1939?

despite the LIES told by the media & the LEFT, "Miller" protects the right to be ARMED with "Militia Weapons".

otoh, "crudely sawed-off 16 guage shotguns" are NOT militia weapons (according to Miller, those weapons which are "suitable for defense of self, home, state & nation".), but "rather criminal instrumentalities, suitable to rob a liquor store".

thus a M-16, M-14, M-4, pump/automatic shotgun, 9mm pistol, .45 ACP pistol and other similar "police & military" type weapons), etc are MILITIA WEAPONS, the ownership/use of which are PROTECTED by the BOR!!

free dixie,sw

[bvw]

An aspirin helps a headache, and morphine helps a wound. Yet aspirin leaves the tumor, and morphine leaves the gangrene. The core issue has been sidestepped -- the Court rules on things it has no authority to and none to stop it, yet all submit.

As the Court's 2003 Texas v Lawrence struck down clear precedents of multiple millennia, and it's own clear ruling about privacy rights in 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick so too is this ruling good only until cancelled, and it may be cancelled at whimsy.

[Domandred]

Came in late because I was up too late last night. Before I read the decision and the thread 5-4 is kind of a letdown, but we’ll see what it looks like.

[TexanToTheCore]

I forgot to mention.....

Hurray! We won!

[Redbob]

"Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that."

So, Stevens is once again making stuff up out whole cloth?
Surprise, surprise...

[DoughtyOne]

How does any sane person come away from the amendments and conclude that the second is the only one that doesn’t grant rights to all individual citizens?

[andy58-in-nh]

CCW regs will continue to be Constitutional insofar as they are reasonably related to the protection of a valid state interest (protecting school children, preventing panic in crowded public areas) in regulating where and in what manner an individual might carry a gun outside of his or her property. That does not change.

Where the bar has been significantly raised is with regard to a state or locality's attempt to "balance" its interests with gun ownership rights.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The brief further says that the ban of a whole class of firearms is unconstitutional. Then it goes on to say that MODERN WEAPONS are protected by the 2A just like modern media devices.

I believe that THIS will end any attempts in instituting a new AWB and is probably grounds for overturning the 1986 machine gun ban!

Let’s see, what type of machine gun do I want. Hmmmm...... pistol caliber or rifle caliber..... decisions, decisions....

[Outraged At FLA]

I like Scalias thoughts here when he basically says that everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, “The Peoples Rights” equates to individual rights and therefore the argument that “Except for #2” is bogus.

Obviously nobody wrote the Bill of Rights for militias, police, and armies.

Reading the opinion is a bit tedious but well worth it..

[Redbob]

"How dare you bring up any opposition or question in any way he-whose-full-name-must-not-be-spoken?"

Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein! Hussein!

[mickey finn]

“Want a reason to vote for McCain? 5-4 is reason enough for me. Our only hope (not certainty) to keep 5-4 or expand it is McCain. We can’t give the socialists the opportunity to add to their scum on the court.”

The Messiah must not be given power! I don't like McCain but the choice is clear.

[TonyInOhio]

We have four out of control Supreme Court Justices who have no regard for the 2nd Amendment whatsoever - they are a national disgrace and should be removed from office.

Never forget - those four are analogs for their constituency; that is, they simply represent the views of some 40% of America.

We are not One people.

[Still Thinking]

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.”

Earth to Your Alzheimers-ness: That's just about all they did for the whole Constitution, limit the tools available to elected officials. That's what the entire freakin' thing is ABOUT! Why would this be any different. AND, if by some truly bizarre chance it turned out that the Founders were a bunch of statist tyrants who wanted the goobermint to have every advantage over their employers, SHOULDN'T we be setting that right?

[SeaHawkFan]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.26"

In a number of states, legislatures have passed laws barring t he possession of firearms by men (mostly) who have been convicted of even the slightest form of domestic violence (misdemeanors; and no use of a fire arm); many because of plea bargains when there was actually no violation because of the threat of a year in prison.

It appears to me that this ruling could be used to toss out those provisions, which I think are just a socialist attempt to take guns out of the hands of some citizens.>

What do you think?

[Obadiah]

Watch all the network news media (and CNN) report this in the most dour, ominous manner possible. Also, look for them to point out that “a deeply divided court”... They will also pejoratively point out how Republican appointees were the ones who voted in the majority to uphold gun ownership and how things would change under an Obama administration. Of course you'll see a bunch of on camera sound bites from liberals denouncing this decision.

[TexasGunLover]

But we didn't. We had 3 candidates. And none of them were acceptable to all the different types of conservatives.

Which is how it works... if McCain can win without those conservatives, I wish him the best of luck. This conservative, and many others, won't be supporting the liberal scum. And no, a "no" vote for McCain is not a "yes" vote for Hussein. I only vote "for" candidates.