Supreme Court issues Heller opinion

Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
1,551
From the syllabus (unofficial summary) of the opinion:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I have not read the entire opinion, but this is good news for firearm owners.

Eric
 
This means it would be impossible to ban handguns and most rifles:thumbup:

What remains to be tested before the court is can local and state gov't ban stuff like semi auto pistols or rifles??

All in all a good ruling for gun owners:thumbup:
 
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago



The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
 
Good to hear.

The antis just lost their main crutch- the ludicrous argument that the second amendment applies to state militias and not individuals.
 
An important victory indeed. Theys still didn't appear to deal with the "infringed' aspect of the 2nd ammendment however. More to be done, but a day of grace for sure!

Tom
 
I am unhappy about the implication that military-style weapons seem to be excluded as they are not in the group "unconnected with service in a militia."
I have always viewed the second amendment as a guarantee that hte people would be armed in case they ever needed to defend themselves against invasion or against their own government. To me, the second amendment really only protects our right to own military weapons.
 
This is a day of celebration. While the decision didn't cover everything I had hoped for, it is an important step in the right direction.

Remember, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
 
Nancy Pelosi, this morning, immediately after the SC's ruling in favor of an individuals right to own guns in DC made a statement about how DC could get around that ruling.

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/26/pelosi-says-dc-should-continue-gun-regulation/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
 
I am unhappy about the implication that military-style weapons seem to be excluded as they are not in the group "unconnected with service in a militia."

I read it the opposite way. It means you cannot be forbidden to own such on the basis of you NOT belonging to a state militia. I think the reading of the ruling bears that out.
 
It could have been 5-4 against. I spent childhood ducking under a school desk when the siren sounded the impending nuclear attack drill. Much of my adult life has been with a tether tied to my freedom- would this justice system remove the Second Amendment as an individual right? They did not, and I am joyous. But I remember those who voted against, who thought their democratic party choices would not matter, that the newest gun ban would be 'locked up in committee," so their vote didnt' count. Well, votes count. Four of our esteemed justices could find no legal reason for the ruling. Four men educated and at the top of their profession to interprete the constitution could not find a constitutional intent for individual ownership of arms. Remember that. That's how close it was, and this fight aint over. The Brady bunch and Obama himself said today that now the restrictions can begin.

Votes count. I hate to think what would have happened had the Court ruled against us. This nation would not be owned by the citizen statemen any longer- it would be owned by the aparatus and apparachiks. The Second amendment, more than the first amendment, acknowledges ownership of the nation.

God Bless the USA.


munk
 
. . .Four of our esteemed justices could find no legal reason for the ruling. Four men educated and at the top of their profession to interprete the constitution could not find a constitutional intent for individual ownership of arms. . . .

No, it means the decision doesn't fit in their political worldview that people must have every aspect of their lives controlled. Doesn't mean it was based on actual research or educated opinion.
 
thank God, a step in the right direction.

the liberals of course do not understand the word 'no', to them it just means they have not explained themselves well enough, so must try another way to the same goal. they know in their hearts that they are right no matter what the constitution says, and all it'll take is one 'yes' to override all previous 'no' decisions. bit like date rape, we keep saying NO, but to them it just means 'try harder', we obviously don't really understand or mean it. it's for our own good after all. again, like date rape, once we've been raped, it's gonna be awful difficult to go back to being un-raped.

dems will 'find a way around' the constitution by appeals, by imposing restrictions and delays until another long drawn out legal battle goes to a more favourable supreme court after they get a chance to load the court with their own. once they do, it'll relegate the constitution to just a policy paper open to interpretation based on political expediency.
 
Last edited:
Kronckew,
couldnt agree with you more. i started reading a new book by Jonah Goldberg, called liberal fascism. i must say that it is well worth it and one of the books that i have been waiting for all my life. it brings my understanding to a level that i wasnt able to articulate with much consternation.

ryan
 
Kronckew,
couldnt agree with you more. i started reading a new book by Jonah Goldberg, called liberal fascism. i must say that it is well worth it and one of the books that i have been waiting for all my life. it brings my understanding to a level that i wasnt able to articulate with much consternation.

ryan

I heard an interview with the author. He's right.
 
Back
Top