Better Supreme Court Ruling today

I can't imagine living in DC without being able to own a gun... Even in your own house!!? It only took 32 years to fix it?
DC is the armpit of the universe... or at least one of the armpits of the universe.

The 2nd Amendment ruling isn't as strong as I would like it to be, but it does settle several issues, including the D.C. law which started the case & the 9th Circuit court of appeals' ruling that the right to keep & bear arms only applies to the "organized militia" i.e. Nat'l. Guard.

Do NOT go by what the "news" media tells you the ruling says, read it - it's *only* 157 pages: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

But below is the Syllabus & that pretty much covers the ruling:

(Slip Opinion)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. 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.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Thats why I live OUTSIDE Chicago just for that reason....King Daley most likely will now face the real possiblilty of losing some control over his city. Guys like him have always done whatever they wanted for "the good of the people"...Just like when he shut down Meigs field in the middle of the night & buldozed an X into its runway to make a park. Now the Chicago Tribune has called for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed. What a crock of sh*t. Handgun control inc. at this very moment is probably trying feverishly to find some way to have this Supreme court ruling nullified...Thats the way these guys play...."I'm takin my ball & bat & goin home"...I applaud the Supreme court decision & think it was a long time coming.....I never thought I'd see the day when there was a real possiblility for honest, hard working, law abiding citizens of the City of Chicago to own a handgun again. I anxiously await the day it is legal again because that means maybe now we will see if the previous BS law did any good (we know it didn't) based on the new statistics of handgun ownership thrown into the mix. All I can pray for now is that the Illinois House allows concealed carry.....Be afraid..be very afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing...

maybe they are just try'n to create a black market on guns like they did drugs:roflmao: and I really don't know what the big deal is, try not haveing a gun no matter what the law is, can't say I know what the constitution is, something about our rights as americans back along time ago, now it's just a piece of paper that gets switched and added and deleated from. as they say along with the other laws, your constitutional rights are not rights at all, they are mearlly privliges that the goverment and states get to decide what to do with, back to the guns, I could see making it eleagal for a convicted felon to loose there gun rights, ONLY in the event that there crime was a violent crime. So there you go into the money thing agian, you can get it back, if you pay, you can loose your driving privilege, you can get it back, if you pay. needless to say I like my america and have had enough bad experiences with goverment and state, so these kinda topics really put a bitter taste in my mouth, as my patch reads, FTW AND THE AZZHOLS WHO RUN IT

That's true, but when you see how court procedure works (it's one of my jobs to know), the court can only rule on the issue(s) brought up & petitioner Heller made the serious mistake of conceding the license issue:

"Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement."

Read the decision & you'll find that assessment is incorrect.

The high court struck down such requirements - read the decision & you'll see that. Excerpt from the Syllabus:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Again I say, do NOT go by what the "news" media tells you the decision says, read it yourself:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Daily I deal with people who tell me what they think this or that law, regulation, or court case says without ever having read them & wonder why they're in trouble with the law. I do look it up & I charge $$$ for doing it, although I show people how to do it themselves. But they won't because it's too time-consuming & I guarantee you it is time-consuming.

But the people are in trouble because they believed something in an e-mail, on a website, etc. & would not verify the claims made. That I have a major problem with, even if it does pay the bills. As I've said 1000 times, "Don't take my word for it, look it up."

Again I say, do NOT go by what the "news" media tells you the decision says, read it yourself:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
I read about 100 pages of the decision before I became bored with the dissenting argument. Dissenting justices quoted statistics that showed increases in crime after the handgun ban but insisted that we could not prove that the ^ was a result of the ban itself or that it may have contributed to it. I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist but sometimes I wonder about the people who make decisions. I gather from this decision that no government, Federal, State or Territorial can prevent us from owning and keeping an operational handgun for self-defence in our homes. I agree that that argument was the only thing addressed. I do look for more arguments concerning concealed- carry and gun registration in the near future. One thing is for certain, our next President may get to nominate new justices and depending on the elected official , we could be in for a country whose gov't dictates every fiber of our lives; what we drive , what we eat, where we go, what we see, what we read and what we say. That, good friends , scares the bejesus outta me.

The scary part of this ruling was how close it was. Those "justices" who dissented showed a blatant disregard for the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not really about guns, it is a statement that the God-given right of self-defense - against anyone trying to deny you your rights, be it criminals, invaders or our own government - will not be legally infringed upon by our government. And yet 4 of these jackasses disagree.

And WHY? Gun control is proven statistically as a complete failure. Is it to make people feel safer (without being safer) or to allow those with weapons to rule absolutely?

Me too, drillsarge & that's exactly where we're headed. And Red Rider's point about how close the decision was is crucial too - just 5 people kept rights secured by the 2nd Amendment from being swept away. There is no such thing as a "constitutional right" as the Constitution didn't create any & the Bill of Rights merely recognized those which already existed, charging the newly-created federal Gov't. with securing those rights.

It is interesting that the new chief justice picked Scalia to write the majority opinion (chief justice chooses), as Scalia is considered a staunch "Constitutionalist". However, Clarence Thomas is even more so & I respect him the most. But I also have Apprendi v. New Jersey decided in June, 2000 & Scalia blasts Breyer, writing in part, "Justice Breyer proceeds on the erroneous and all-too-common assumption that the Constitution means what we think it ought to mean. It does not; it means what it says."

Yes it does, but a major problem we've got today is people with Master's Degrees & Ph.D's & especially most lawyers & judges can't read on the level the "Founding Fathers" wrote. I've seen comments that the Founders were just "plain farmers" but that's not true - they knew history very well & were fluent in French & Latin as well as the "King's English". I've got the Definitive Treaty of Peace which officially ended the Revolutionary War & it was signed in Paris, France (1783). Signers from the U.S. were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin & John Jay, who became the 1st chief justice of the U.S. supreme court.

The Founders' writings are so far above what's taught in schools it's not funny & notice the decision in this case breaks down the 2nd Amendment, studies the context & the history behind it. College professors aren't very good @ that but thankfully Scalia is & so is Thomas. Stevens' opinion is just plain wrong & shows that the dissenters "cherry picked" what they wanted to make a point they had already decided on - based on what they think the 2nd Amendment ought to say, rather than what it actually says & means.

That's very dangerous & I see it all the time. Another case which shows that is one "We The People" foundation filed on the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the right to petition the Gov't. for redress of grievances. The U.S. court of appeals (2nd Circuit) held that although you have a right to petition the Gov't. for redress of grievances, the Gov't. is not obligated to respond or answer specific points & the supreme court declined to take that case. How much sense does that make? Why would that right be specified if it could not be enforced by the people?

And one of the clearly stated purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to be the last "check & balance" - if the Gov't. gets out of control, the people have the power to take it back. And we do - we just won't use it.

Art, if I ever make the Maggie Valley run, I would like to sit down and jaw-jack over a good cup a Army stout coffee. I believe it would be a beneficial conversation. I took US history thru 1865 last fall semester and came away with the idea that our founding fathers new precisely what they were saying and intending. I also found that then as now there were and are people who would have the gov't be the absolute power and would have us live in fear. My last unit in Germany had the motto " Semper Paratus" meaning " Always Prepared"; I think that is how we should be now.

You & I would get along famously, drillsarge & I should run over to Maggie Valley (about 2 hrs. away) to visit friends over that way. And you'd like a friend of mine in Charlotte, even though he doesn't ride. He's a "walking textbook" on the "War of Federal Aggression" (called the "Civil War") & we've both written legal briefs on the effect of the 14th Amendment & the "Reconstruction Acts", circa 1868-1872. The Constitutional Republic our forefathers designed was unceremoniously buried during that time. With respect to other comments, the term "democracy" is not found anywhere in the Constitution, but it is found in the Federalist Papers, where the whole concept is blasted as one that never worked on a large scale & can't.

I don't have the distinguished service you do, but when I enlisted in the USMC (only served a short time) I took the same Oath you did. I meant it then & I mean it now - to protect & defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign & domestic. Enemies I see are in Washington, D.C. (District of Criminals). We certainly should know we've got a problem when police officers, sheriffs & military personnel say wait just a damn minute - I didn't sign on to turn citizens into slaves.

Not true...I was a cop for 10 years....I believe in concealed carry for those who are able to complete a hangun competency course licensed by the state...Its politicians who don't want you to carry.....In Chicago, Daley has his own armed guards & of course aldermen are exempt from the law & are allowed to own a handgun.....So their constituants aren't allowed to carry but they are....They dont see the hipocracy in it.