Let Freedom ring!

[Hogwash]

The ruling didn't go far enough and the descenting opinion was B.S.

If any one has read the Federalist papers, they will learn that the prevaling opinion of the founding fathers was that the population should be armed heavily with the best arms they could find. It is pure revisionism to suggest that they had any sort of limitations in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights and the idea that it might not be an individual right is preposterous.

All of the regulations going back to the NFA should be thrown out.

 

[cjpgeyer]

A tremendous day!


Let's drink!

 

[Ken44]

knife hunter, that clip was hillarious


edit- sending PM instead

 

[MVF]

This is indeed a good thing and cause for celebration!

I do find it very scary that the vote was 5-4 and hope everyone will remember this come election day.

 

[Ken44]

I do find it very scary that the vote was 5-4 and hope everyone will remember this come election day.

Me to!

+1 on election day

 

[Tony G]

-1 on election day

I love guns but it is going to take a lot more than that; this country has many other equally large fish to fry.

.
.

 

[Hogwash]

I like to fish the way Skunk does it, so we better keep our RKBA.

 

[JohnTheTexican]

No right under the Constitution is considered absolute, all are subject to a degree of regulation. Scalia equated the 2nd with the 1st in his ruling, which is to say any regulation will be subject to strict scrutiny. This was the best possible outcome we could have reasonably expected period. Pie in the sky could have us wishing for more, but remember this ruling would not have happened without Kennedy on board, and I'm rather surprised he signed onto such an expansive ruling.

Actually, what Justice Scalia said about the level of scrutiny was, "JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisdictional point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions." Op. at 62. Whether it will ultimately be strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis, remains an open question. The only thing we know for sure is that it's not Justice Breyer's proposed case-by-case interest-balancing approach.

And one might also note that whether the Second Amendment applies to the states remains an open question as well. See Op. at 48, n. 23. The Supreme Court's last word on this was that it doesn't apply to the states, but that was in 1894, long before the Incorporation Doctrine was invented. Since then, in determining whether rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine selectively. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that your Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases with at least $20 at issue does not apply to the states. So if you live in Chicago you're still out of luck, for the time being.

 

[Ban]

I was just finished reading a article about this. GREAT NEWS INDEED! :thumbup:

 

[fbusmc]

Whew WHOOOO! it is about time the second amendment was addressed, the court in 1934 totally screwed it up.. Now if we can take on the 1968 gun laws that were also wrong.. It's good timing considering who our choices are for next president that this came about when it did. NOW> the next step is to address the second half of the battle: What KIND OF FIREARMS are we allowed to possess. no single shot weapons for me: when the 2nd amendment was written, the soldier and the citizen had the same individual firepower= the musket. It would be nice to see class 3 weapons be available again at a decent price, and finally knock out all the idiocy about folding stocks, flashhiders, pistol grips, high cap mags and the evil Bayonety lug. I have taught the second amendment the right way in my Military history class even though it was not politically correct, now maybe we have a fighting chance of getting some of these liberal gun laws knocked out... Celebrated by ordering a Microtech MSR STG 556 limited edition today! I'm glad to know that my Busse Brothers are also my 2nd Amendment Brothers
and Yes, right in time for the 4th of July. NEXT:>>>> CALIFORNIA Gun Laws!~

 

[Ban]

that is a awesome vid brother! :thumbup:

See the South I live in is just south of DC.:barf:



THis is a glorious day!


Here's a President I could support

I am Denny Crane...LMAO!

this is good!:thumbup:




please mods if I did something wrong take it down. thanks

 

[HiramRanger]

Actually, what Justice Scalia said about the level of scrutiny was, "JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisdictional point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions." Op. at 62. Whether it will ultimately be strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis, remains an open question. The only thing we know for sure is that it's not Justice Breyer's proposed case-by-case interest-balancing approach.

And one might also note that whether the Second Amendment applies to the states remains an open question as well. See Op. at 48, n. 23. The Supreme Court's last word on this was that it doesn't apply to the states, but that was in 1894, long before the Incorporation Doctrine was invented. Since then, in determining whether rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine selectively. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that your Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases with at least $20 at issue does not apply to the states. So if you live in Chicago you're still out of luck, for the time being.

Borrowed from a thread I'm in on another forum

From the majority opinion:
"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."


From pages 55-56.


Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.”

From page 66

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different.

The level of review to be applied to the 2nd is the same as the 1st. Can anybody tell me what level of scrutiny we use when dealing with the 1st Amendment?

 

[JohnTheTexican]

Whew WHOOOO! it is about time the second amendment was addressed, the court in 1934 totally screwed it up.. Now if we can take on the 1968 gun laws that were also wrong.. It's good timing considering who our choices are for next president that this came about when it did. NOW> the next step is to address the second half of the battle: What KIND OF FIREARMS are we allowed to possess. no single shot weapons for me: when the 2nd amendment was written, the soldier and the citizen had the same individual firepower= the musket. It would be nice to see class 3 weapons be available again at a decent price, and finally knock out all the idiocy about folding stocks, flashhiders, pistol grips, high cap mags and the evil Bayonety lug. I have taught the second amendment the right way in my Military history class even though it was not politically correct, now maybe we have a fighting chance of getting some of these liberal gun laws knocked out... Celebrated by ordering a Microtech MSR STG 556 limited edition today! I'm glad to know that my Busse Brothers are also my 2nd Amendment Brothers
and Yes, right in time for the 4th of July. NEXT:>>>> CALIFORNIA Gun Laws!~

While the only type of firearms at issue were handguns, Scalia's opinion suggests that we're not going to be getting Class 3 stuff. It looks like they're only saying we can own the sort of guns decent, ordinary folk typically own, and scary stuff can stiill be banned.

Here's what he said on pages 52-53 (citations and footnotes omitted):

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons [United States v.] Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional ,machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militia men and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

And on 55-56:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

But, as explained on page 8, at least we know we're not limited to single shot muzzle loaders:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Ken44]

Obama did support the DC handgun bill, but Today he's dancing around the issue a bit.

Also while in Illinois legislature he backed a ban on all forms of Semi automatics.


OK, that's my one political statement for the year

Sorry, I usually never mention politics

 

[JohnTheTexican]

Borrowed from a thread I'm in on another forum



The level of review to be applied to the 2nd is the same as the 1st. Can anybody tell me what level of scrutiny we use when dealing with the 1st Amendment?

Context is everything. He's not saying that the same level of scrutiny will be applied in Second Amendment cases as First Amendment cases, just that Justice Breyer's "interest-balancing" approach could no more be applied to the Second Amendment than it could to the First.

And besides, the First Amendment isn't a strictly strict scrutiny deal. For instance, time, place and manner restrictions on speech are only subject to intermediate scrutiny. And it's the same for various types of commercial speech and content-neutral speech regulation.

Rather than pick a standard applicable to Second Amendment cases, Scalia just said (on page 56) that the DC ban would fail "nder any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights...." But we do at least know that it's not "rational basis," because, as Justice Scalia explained on pages 56-57 in footnote 27 (and I previously overlooked), that's not a standard the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights:

JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. … But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. … In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. … If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.

 

[HiramRanger]

Correct, Intermediate to Strict Scrutiny puts it on the same level as the first amendment which is the very best we could hope for.

I'll make a prediction now.

Local AWBs will fail when challenged because they ban an entire class of weapons commonly in use. Can you tell me what the most popular model firearm sold in the US is? Hint, they worship it at AR15.com.

State prohibitions on NFA items will be struck down on equal protection grounds. Machine guns have always been legal in the US, although regulated for quite some time. Outright bans will fall just like the DC ban fell. The NFA itself will be the reason the states are required to allow it. The federal government has acknolwdhed via the NFA for more than 70 years that machine guns and the like are LEGAL, but subject to regulation.

NFA registration and fees will stand as reasonable regulation.

CLEO sign-off will be thrown out as arbitrary.

The 86 ban will be thrown out because it is a de facto ban whereby a limited number of resources are available due to government restriction. Its not that the market won't produce them, its the government's refusal to allow them to which infringes on an individual's right. Say there are 500,000 legal machine guns and 500,001 people who want one, the 1 person's rights have been infringed by the inability to acquire one unless someone is willing to sell and forgo their rights.

 

[knife hunter]

Preach it brother!


Preach!


Amen!


!

Correct, Intermediate to Strict Scrutiny puts it on the same level as the first amendment which is the very best we could hope for.

I'll make a prediction now.

Local AWBs will fail when challenged because they ban an entire class of weapons commonly in use. Can you tell me what the most popular model firearm sold in the US is? Hint, they worship it at AR15.com.

State prohibitions on NFA items will be struck down on equal protection grounds. Machine guns have always been legal in the US, although regulated for quite some time. Outright bans will fall just like the DC ban fell. The NFA itself will be the reason the states are required to allow it. The federal government has acknolwdhed via the NFA for more than 70 years that machine guns and the like are LEGAL, but subject to regulation.

NFA registration and fees will stand as reasonable regulation.

CLEO sign-off will be thrown out as arbitrary.

The 86 ban will be thrown out because it is a de facto ban whereby a limited number of resources are available due to government restriction. Its not that the market won't produce them, its the government's refusal to allow them to which infringes on an individual's right. Say there are 500,000 legal machine guns and 500,001 people who want one, the 1 person's rights have been infringed by the inability to acquire one unless someone is willing to sell and forgo their rights.

 

[gcgcgc]

+1 on what Tony G said.

One thing to consider, with any 'standard of review' is that it always changes. As pure as any justice would him/herself presented to the world, very few "bright line rules" are actually bright line rules. That is, 500 judges could look at the same facts, and come to different conclusions under the same rule.

 

[Slaytanic]

AWESOME!! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[JohnTheTexican]

Correct, Intermediate to Strict Scrutiny puts it on the same level as the first amendment which is the very best we could hope for.

I'll make a prediction now.

Local AWBs will fail when challenged because they ban an entire class of weapons commonly in use. Can you tell me what the most popular model firearm sold in the US is? Hint, they worship it at AR15.com.

State prohibitions on NFA items will be struck down on equal protection grounds. Machine guns have always been legal in the US, although regulated for quite some time. Outright bans will fall just like the DC ban fell. The NFA itself will be the reason the states are required to allow it. The federal government has acknolwdhed via the NFA for more than 70 years that machine guns and the like are LEGAL, but subject to regulation.

NFA registration and fees will stand as reasonable regulation.

CLEO sign-off will be thrown out as arbitrary.

The 86 ban will be thrown out because it is a de facto ban whereby a limited number of resources are available due to government restriction. Its not that the market won't produce them, its the government's refusal to allow them to which infringes on an individual's right. Say there are 500,000 legal machine guns and 500,001 people who want one, the 1 person's rights have been infringed by the inability to acquire one unless someone is willing to sell and forgo their rights.

Now I'll make a prediction. I can see no plausible argum,ent why the right to keep and bear arms for self defense as stated by Scalia would not be inforporated by the 14th Amendment, so Chicago's handgun ban will be overturned. Local AWBs should be overturned if the court ultimately opts for strict scrutiny and might get overturned otherwise, but restrictions on Class III stuff won't. And that goes for Ronald Reagan's '86 machine gun ban too.

It may not be the way things ought to be, but that's the way it is.