Posted on 06/26/2008 2:45:32 PM PDT by neverdem
If the title isn't the understatement of the day, please show it to me. The universal right to self defense as recognized by an individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment depended on Justice Anthony Kennedy in a 5 - 4 decision. I was disappoined in Ginsburg and Souter considering their opinions in Muscarello.
It was a clean decision. Fears that it would create new infringements were proven unfounded. All of D.C.'s infringemnts at issue were declared infringements, nothing more, nothing less, and struck down. D.C. was told to deal with it. "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered."
All of the other infringements around the country, licensing, registration, concealed carry bans, handgun prohibitions, de facto machinegun bans, felon and nutjob bans, etc., were left standing. We still have a long road to hoe. I expect the "open carry" movement to spread around the country, especially in places that prohibit concealed carry or have "may issue" concealed carry privileges. I also believe paying for licensing and registration will become an issue. You don't pay for a right.
Good God! The Lord works in mysterious ways. I didn't think it would be that close. If you are an atheist or agnostic, please reconsider. My prayers were answered.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER This pdf link is where I read the majority decision. It's the first 64 pages by their count, 67 pdf pages on my computer. The remainder are the minority decisions. The following are HTML links to the Syllabus of the decision and the majority decision, respectively.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Comment# 1 is a serial collection of excerpts of text, referenced blockquotes and footnotes that grabbed me. If you haven't read a Supreme Court decision, take a gander at my excerpts. The history is beautiful. (Pardon the spelling errors from words being fused in the translation from the pdf to HTML.)
The majority took the minority apart point by point, up close and personal! They took on by name Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer. Souter was mum. I'd like to see the minority impeached. They were supposed to defend the Constitution, not castrate it.
dcwusmc: “Our RIGHTS are not up for a vote by ANYONE.”
I see at least a few other FReepers recognize this for what it was. We literally came within one vote of losing a clearly defined right, one that isn’t theirs to decide in the first place. This 5-4 decision shows how close we literally teeter on the edge of absolute tyranny. Yes, that’s exactly what it is when five justices can write or rewrite our contract, the US Constitution, as they see fit.
I wonder just what Kennedy was thinking.
Sometimes you just have to take what you can get. The rest will fall in later.
Does it matter at this point? This is a huge turn around. We are making progress. Don't spit at it.
Worth repeating.
I didn't. I said prayers in thanksgiving. I believe you have me mixed up with someone else.
Considering what liberal asshats they were, it didn't surprise me. What blew me away was that Anthony Kennedy doesn't consider child rape to be that big a deal.
On the contrary; read the minority opinion. In an attempt to refute the "People" (same phrase used in the the first and second amendment) argument, he asserts that First amendment rights (such as the right to petition government) are collective as well. He is clearly a villain.
Fortunately, it is now an established fact of American constitutional law that "JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong".
Some cop lady was on TV this evening saying that DC residents could bring their “legal” firearms to the police department and register it. Who decides what is legal and who decides DC gets to keep a list of who has what firearm? Do the law abiding citizens of DC really have to report to the PD so some flunkie can write down a serial number next to their name and address?
Thanks for the ping!
LOL! I have no idea, but the DA for DC was on the "News Hour" on PBS tonight saying in effect that they were going to ban all semi-autos when they draft the new ordinance.
What I was trying to say, and perhaps you misunderstood, If Justice Kennedy voted the correct way don't question it. Thank God for it.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and one reason for that is the need for militias. (a clearer wording) Thanks neverdem.
Its not that Justice Scalia "failed to recognize" the right outside the home, but that the right outside the home wasn't even the issue in front of the Court at this time. For him to go beyond what was at issue in this particular case would have been the same kind of judicial activism which we decry from the other side.
In the decision of the Court the issues which were squarely in front of the Court, as part of the case at hand, it was a solid, convincing win. On other issues which were not part of Heller at all, Jutice Scalia's language is quite encouraging as to future rulings on those issues which Heller did not, and rightly, could not broach at this time...
the infowarrior
Semiautomatic handguns are in "common use" throughout the nation, so that won't survive a second under the clear language of Heller. They'll find themselves, once again, in court on a losing proposition, should they be so rash...
the infowarrior
Even in the shall issue states, you have to pay. Both for the license itself, and often for a "training" and "certification" course as well. Part of that course, or even most of it, will be on all the various infringements that go along with that "permit"/"license". The very words "permit" and "license" are incompatible with "shall not be infringed".
And it's not true that you can buy a handgun in any state without a state issued permit. In fact if you consider the instant background check as a very mild form of "permit" you can't do it in any state. In many states you must have a Firearms Owners Identification, to purchase a handgun, and sometimes to purchase any firearm at all. To get the FOID, you have apply to the state police or local sheriff. Some places you pay a "fee" for the privilege, in other places you don't.
That won't stop them. It's not like it's their money they are spending.
Funny we haven't heard from the Solicitor General or the BATFE. (The latter may be too busy raiding and seizing the full auto weapons of a local sheriff)
Corrections are always appreciated. Thank you!
In the Washington Post story of today, is this statement, “But the majority declined to set a level of scrutiny by which judges should evaluate the constitutionality of gun restrictions that governments may set.” This shows that the battle is still not over and if the liberals win the election they will nominate more liberal justices and gut this ruling of today, because the main battle is going to be in the court’s opinion of the level of scruting the courts (federal and state) must take of any law or bureaucratic ruling that seeks to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.
In other words, will a future Supreme Court case decide that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided based on the basis of (1) a “strict scrutiny,” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights in this area is automatically to be held inherently suspect annd unconstitutional unless something like grave national security is at stake or laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of race or spoken free speech; (2) or an “intermediate scrutiny” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights to keep and bear arms is to be held mostly suspect by the courts, with the government having to pass a high hurdle in order to restrict arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or symbolic free speech; (3) or an enhanced scrutiny meaning that governments have to face much less scrutiny and suspicion from the courts as they pass laws and regulations that restrict the right to keep and bear arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of age or commercial free speech.
“We the People” won half a loaf—recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms, but not the other half, which is the level of scrutiny by the courts over any attempt to restrict that individual right. Obviously, it should be a “strict scrutiny.” but if the liberals prevail in the presidency, Congress and eventually in the courts, they may set an individual level of scrutiny or even an enhanced level of scrutiny, thus allowing more and more restrictions by federal, state and local governments on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Jay Madham
5-4 is waaaaaay too close. I do not find comfort that 4 black roded tyrants tried to undo the Republic. But for the weekend I will celebrate our victory. God bless America!
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.