Heller Decsision... +1 for the 2nd Ammendment!!!

[stillwater97]

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

[ehunter]

Great news thanks for the update I wish it was 9 zip instead of being so close in the vote.

Originally Posted by stillwater97

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

[stillwater97]

If you read Scalia's opinion you will smile... He essentially gave Justice Stevens an Arse whooping in prose and left him for dead at the side of the road...

[rimrock]

Vote 5-4, that was close!

[stillwater97]

Yes it was!

[SeanD]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Shouldn't we move this to LIG?

[Eagleclaw]

[jokester]

Originally Posted by SeanD

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Shouldn't we move this to LIG?

I vote NO...it'll just get turned into a whiny debate over there.

-jokester

[micah]

[Beamerfish]

Originally Posted by rimrock

Vote 5-4, that was close!

Scary close. Good thing for the horseshoes and hand grenades rule. Now that they've ruled, maybe they will leave it alone for the next 71 years.

[ommedia]

on the NRA website, they have several articles and are doing a live Sirius Radio broadcast!

check it out www.nra.com

[Snubber]

I 2nd the NO Vote to move. This is history you are witnessing and wanting to sweep under the rug already????
Hopefully this will ensure a shooting/hunting future and equally important the right to protect oneself and family.

[boatman]

I posted it in the lig allready. This is horseshoes and close does count. :app lause:

[westcoastsrt4]

Originally Posted by ehunter

Great news thanks for the update I wish it was 9 zip instead of being so close in the vote.

i agree, it was a little to close for me, but i'll take it for now

[SeanD]

Originally Posted by Snubber

I 2nd the NO Vote to move. This is history you are witnessing and wanting to sweep under the rug already????
Hopefully this will ensure a shooting/hunting future and equally important the right to protect oneself and family.

Yes it is historic. Why would you look at this historic decision as hunting issue? This is not a hunting issue, I dont see why so many dont see that!

Thanks for posting the news Stillwater!

[BlacktailBowhunter]

Too bad this won't make the mainstream media.

If this doesn't wake up a few people, I don't know what will. [Political comment removed]

Our troops fight for our safety, but we have to fight for our freedom in this country. We are in a modern day civil war and it is being fought in the legislature and courts.

[ehunter]

I think this is a win but remember with more judges this will be fought again so we need to keep our guard up.

[stillwater97]

Sean,

I would say that it is a Gun Rights issue that encompasses multiple sports including hunting, target shooting, shooting sports, firearms collecting, as well as self defense.

My concern with the ruling is that it made reference to firearms that are commonly held. What does that mean? It means different things to different people. Shotguns and bolt action rifles could be considered commonly held, but my semi-auto AR-15 and other weapons might fall into the "not commonly held category". This leaves a lot up to interpretation and makes me uneasy.

Its a victory for sure, but we have not won the war.

[SeanD]

I agree - mostly.

The ruling is not about protecting our gun sports, it is about protecting our pre-existing right to bear arms for self defense and protection including from tyranny. When we discuss this issue like it is about hunting and shooting sports we are just reinforcing the political position that many gun grabbers have - we only have rights for legitimate purposes (defined by them). Lets all stop making gun rights a hunting issue!

[stillwater97]

Sean,

I see where you are coming from and completely agree. For most of us, a gun is a tool that we use for a specific purpose (ex...hunting), which is why we associate firearms with them.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by stillwater97

My concern with the ruling is that it made reference to firearms that are commonly held. What does that mean? It means different things to different people. Shotguns and bolt action rifles could be considered commonly held, but my semi-auto AR-15 and other weapons might fall into the "not commonly held category". This leaves a lot up to interpretation and makes me uneasy. .

Not really, its not the model its the mechanism, semi auto, boly, single action, what ever. AR15's being semi auto would be "common" since there are tons of rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc that are semi auto.

[baltz526]

5 to 4. i find this disturbing, that 4 justises of the supreme court do not know how to read.

[Grantspastor]

Originally Posted by baltz526

5 to 4. i find this disturbing, that 4 justises of the supreme court do not know how to read.

baltz..I think they know how to read...but somehow think they are above the law on this matter

[baltz526]

4 want to legislate from the bench. this on it's face is unconstitutional. from our interpreters of the constitution. (the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed) 4 justices attempted to infring our rights. i find this very disturbing.

[Irish Pennant]

I'm not jumping up and down for joy, I want to know what's in the fine print and I want to know what back door they left open for future courts to come in and dictate from the bench. I'm sure it will take a few days for this ruling to get ferreted out, until then I'll hold my irrational exuberance.

[NeverGuess]

The best affirmation will be watching the violent crime rate in DC DROPPING! This will be an example on our own soil of how gun control laws do not work.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

I am in favor of this decision

But, anyone who believes that the issues were cut and dried does not understand the complexity of how the 2nd amendment came into being and how interpretation by a court and justices can have varying outcomes.
If you can follow along read the following link on the 2nd amendment. (it is not easy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

[Norm]

Originally Posted by baltz526

4 want to legislate from the bench. this on it's face is unconstitutional. from our interpreters of the constitution. (the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed) 4 justices attempted to infring our rights. i find this very disturbing.

5-4 is a very slim margin, the next president could easily tip the scales

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by Norm

5-4 is a very slim margin, the next president could easily tip the scales

Any president could tip the scales though, not just the next one. My concern is what jurisdictions are going to choose to ignore the ruling. For example, the Dolan's (who one A-Boy Plumbing and Electrical stores) took the City of Tigard to the Supreme Court and won, but may jurisdictions still have "takings laws" that are not consistent with the decision of Dolan v. Tigard; but no one is calling them on it. It seems that the bureaucracies get to pick and choose which laws they want to follow and which they want to ignore.

[happybrew]

Originally Posted by baltz526

4 want to legislate from the bench. this on it's face is unconstitutional. from our interpreters of the constitution. (the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed) 4 justices attempted to infring our rights. i find this very disturbing.

It is disturbing, but remember they started out as lawyers. Some lawyers want to protect people's rights, and some want to either fleece or enabled the fleecing of people. It has been that way since time immemorial.

[ehunter]

If you read what the 4 you disagreed wrote it is pretty telling they voted no in some caes because they did not want to upset the status que. They are trying to legistrate their personal feelings. Regarding what they feel is best not what the law is.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by ehunter

If you read what the 4 you disagreed wrote it is pretty telling they voted no in some caes because they did not want to upset the status que. They are trying to legistrate their personal feelings. Regarding what they feel is best not what the law is.

The best option is to read the dissenting opinions, I read one of them and it did not seem all gloom and doom. They have been dancing around the individual right for some time. I am glad we now have common law that says it is an individual right. I am pretty far right on this issue, from a libertarian point of view but I am OK on this descision. Personally I think the founder wanted us ta have any weapon avail that could be used to supress the people, meaning that every citizen should be able to have the latest and greatest of the day. Full auto 50 BMG's. Try to supress the people with that.

Many anti gun advocates have a deep held belief that people are all good under it all, and that people when not hindered will do the right thing. This is plain false, there are bad people, always have been, always will be, and the only way to deal with them is with force, if a government is bad, same thing. We can't have a Stalin like government here because we all have guns and it should stay that way.

[baltz526]

the correct term would be liberal socialists. this is not a political party (but a way of thinking) in the united states.

[Rauly]

Sorry guy's the politices end now. Get back on topic.

[Catch 22]

OK. Politics aside, Rob, do you hunt?

[rob allen]

I don't hunt my wife does.. i just fish.

[Yeti]

I wonder how the fact that this ruling was about the DC ban will affect its interpretation. I read on anotherblog that since DC was not a state any ruling about its laws may not apply to the states.

It scares me that four justices would vote no on such a basic constitutional right.

[Got One!]

The sad thing about this is that it fell on the "party" lines. It would seem to me that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution mean nothing to half of the Supreme Court Justices. They completely disreguard the spirit of the constitution, and go by personal opinion of what they want. If you do any research on documentation concerning the right to bear arms by the founders/signers of the Consitution, it is very clear in their personal writings that the personal right to bear arms was exactly what was on their minds when it was added. I know this information was included in the supreme court case and the 4 opposing justices chose to ignore it.

One more of them with that attitude and one less of the other and this country will be turned upside down.

[Joe Schwab]

Now I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar but I do know what "keep" means. If they had simply said we had the right to bear arms I would have to agree with the organized Militia concept. Although I have also heard it said that at the time of the writing "organized Militia" had a meaning of townspeople meeting to keep some semblance of organization. And there were no armories, so everyone was expected to "keep" their own arms.

I just find it odd that the antis are adamant about all the other rights being conferred to individuals and this one isn"t.

All in all a great decision.