410 replies to this topic

[PPK]

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56
Sounds like we still have our work cut out for us

[45superman]

Based on this (from page 65), I take it that the level of scrutiny to apply was left unaddressed.

Quote

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential
point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level
of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions.

[EnjoyLife]

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

Im disapointed that scalia admits that certain bans on concealed weapons are probably lawful and they didnt strike down the fact that heller needed a permit to carry in his own home or the registration to own the gun...this could be bad news for us. Unless someone sues to overturn those statutes. Heller never directly challenged the permit system, he just wanted DC to issue him a permit, so that looks like another fight well have to deal with in the future.

Okay, I'll go with banning CC if we get Open carry.  What else would Bear Arms mean?  Unless it means that we can keep grizzly bear arms...

[Beezil]

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

Im disapointed that scalia admits that certain bans on concealed weapons are probably lawful and they didnt strike down the fact that heller needed a permit to carry in his own home or the registration to own the gun...this could be bad news for us. Unless someone sues to overturn those statutes. Heller never directly challenged the permit system, he just wanted DC to issue him a permit, so that looks like another fight well have to deal with in the future.

agreed.

there doesn't seem to be a clear cut provision for the constitutional right to "conceal carry"

but it does mean that chicago's handgun ban is directly addressed, so that is awesome news since we can at least start chipping away at totalitarianism.

and we get american citezenship used to, and comfortable with guns as a means to keep the peace and thwart crime, we'll be on to something!

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

so far it sounds good but I need to read over it in the next few days to be sure there is nothing in the fine print BUT if Scalia wrote it I feel alot better about it already.

As long as it all checks out I think one of the very last lines of checks and balances the founders gave us worked today!

I just hope we dont have to keep fighting this whole 20 rds vs 10 rds bs but we probobly will.  

[oneshot]

oh and that little bit in the Illinois Constitution that was amended to say "subject to police power"?

BUZZZZZZZZZ!!!  Thank you for playing.

[TTIN]

I for one am mostly dissapointed.

[oneshot]

Quote

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."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

SHALL...NOT...BE...INFRINGED

[45superman]

thetimeisnow, on Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

I for one am mostly dissapointed.

I think it would have been unrealistic to expect much more than we got today.  There was simply no way that Heller would kill the epidemic of gun laws--a bit of a setback was the best we could realistically hope to deal them.

[Gooch]

thetimeisnow, on Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

I for one am mostly dissapointed.

I suppose it could have been worse. However, count me in on the "dissapointed" crowd!

Gooch

[sticks]

It appears to me that the court only addressed what they had to . . . saying that it was an individual right to own a gun . . . striking down the D.C. gun ban.

That said . . . all other existing gun laws would remain as is . . . in that they were not addressed by the court. This is not saying that the court says other gun laws are legal or not . . . just that the court has not addressed them . . . so they have not been declared legal or illegal.

Correct ?

[oneshot]

All in all, this gives us a lot more ammunition for our fight than we had before.

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

reading over the syllabis (dont have time right now to read farther) I am disappointed by the language that does legitimize registration BUT that was not the source of the case but rather heller sued over not being granted a permit for a gun, he did not sue for not being able to own a gun without registration     


The silver lining does however look good in the language that says "guns commonly chosen by the people for self defense" so if everyone owns an AR they really cant ban it outright (alot of grey area but does give us a leg to stand on).


overall I have very mixed feeling because it still leaves us wide open for registration (as I can tell so far) BUT if the issue of registration came before this same court I think they may strike it down as well since they spoke of "right of the people" as it pertains to the 1st, 4th, & 9th amendment stating that it applied to the individual so they might strike down registration if the case came before them but it hasnt so we are still vulnerable right now to registration  

[45superman]

sticks, on Jun 26 2008, 09:51 AM, said:

It appears to me that the court only addressed what they had to . . . saying that it was an individual right to own a gun . . . striking down the D.C. gun ban.

That said . . . all other existing gun laws would remain as is . . . in that they were not addressed by the court. This is not saying that the court says other gun laws are legal or not . . . just that the court has not addressed them . . . so they have not been declared legal or illegal.

Correct ?

That's my take on it, Sticks, and as I have said over and over again, to expect any more was to set oneself up for disappointment.

[oneshot]

YASLIFF, on Jun 26 2008, 09:46 AM, said:

If we knew that.... the police could dump the 911 phone system and start calling the physic hotline.  

Hilarious!  

[w00dc4ip]

Ragerding Carry...

Quote

Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.

Quote

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

[RancidWannaRiot]

Why do i have a feeling, that the vast majority of people that identify as "anti gun," probably have no clue this was just ruled. While the vast majority of people that identify as "pro gun rights" do?

Anyway

so, should we pass out some beers?

[w00dc4ip]

Found my favorite paragraph in the ruling so far...

Quote

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16

[cowboyflyfisher]

RancidWannaRiot, on Jun 26 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

Why do i have a feeling, that the vast majority of people that identify as "anti gun," probably have no clue this was just rules. While the fact majority of people that identify as "pro gun rights" do?

Anyway

so, should we pass out some beers?

Guinness for everyone!!  

[johnyt101]

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." That might give us the right to open carry in a future case seeing as concealed carry was often seen as taboo...I think this decision could strike down the 86 MG ban and the $200 tax. The court ruled against poll taxes for voting as an undue burden on the right to vote, so how is a special tax on a firearm not an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms? Also if the amendment protects firearms in common use, if someone makes the argument that MGs aren't in common use because of the ban, and they probably would be if there was no ban...we know Alito is in favor of overturing the MG ban from a dissenting decision he made on the appellate court. Registration was directly addressed here so it will be another battle, and so is the permit for carrying in the home. I dont see how that could survive under a 4th amendment review.

[TTIN]

w00dc4ip, on Jun 26 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

Found my favorite paragraph in the ruling so far...

Quote

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16

Thanks for that post,woodc4ip,I hadn't seen that.That paragraph gives me a little more confidence in our situation,and I am sure,more legislative ammunition.

[flagtag]

cowboyflyfisher, on Jun 26 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

RancidWannaRiot, on Jun 26 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

Why do i have a feeling, that the vast majority of people that identify as "anti gun," probably have no clue this was just rules. While the fact majority of people that identify as "pro gun rights" do?

Anyway

so, should we pass out some beers?

Guinness for everyone!!  

"CELEBRATE, CELEBRATE, Dance to the Music"!  I'm celebrating and dancing right now!     Yep! This IS       

[Matt H]

i am watching CLTV and they have an attorney named walter maksyn on the phone who is in the process right now of filing a suit against the city of chicago.

[johnyt101]

Scalia said that incorporation via 14th amendment was not an issue here and it will be decided by a future case (perhaps GOA/NRA v. Chicago?). I cant see how it wont be incorporated if it is an individual right.

[gravyboy77]

cowboyflyfisher, on Jun 26 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

RancidWannaRiot, on Jun 26 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

Why do i have a feeling, that the vast majority of people that identify as "anti gun," probably have no clue this was just rules. While the fact majority of people that identify as "pro gun rights" do?

Anyway

so, should we pass out some beers?

Guinness for everyone!!  

Yuk! Guinness tastes like coffee grounds.

I'll take a MGD please.

[johnyt101]

Wayne LaPeire is on Fox News announcing that the NRA is filing lawsuits in Chicago and the suburbs that ban handguns today!!!!!

[Slappy]

Hey all... just woke up... did anything happen?





THIS IS SO HUGE!!!!  I guess the Second Amendment really does mean what we think it does....  who'da thunk it?

[w00dc4ip]

LaPierre just announced, "NRA is announcing today that the NRA is filing lawsuits in Chicago, Morton Grove, Winnetka, ....."