Court Gives Final Ruling on DC Gun Ban

[Value Pack]

I agree 100% with what you said.

What disapoints me is that a unanimous ruling might have helped to diminish at least some of the culture war that has been waged now for at least four decades between advocates of "gun rights" and "gun control," who have their own interests in demonizing their opponents. Instead, the Court fractured along an all-too-predictable 5-4 axis, with the five conservatives (bless their hearts-I sincerely mean that) supporting the rights of gun owners and the four liberals seemingly supporting the most extreme version of gun "control," which is outright prohibition.

Now all we will hear about is how close the vote came when in reality the vote should never have been that close.

What is ironic is that the strongest support for Scalia's position comes from acknowledging that the Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, has been dynamically interpreted and has taken on some quite different meanings from those it originally had.

Whatever might have been the case in 1787 with regard the linkage of guns to service in militias, (this part always makes me laugh) there can be almost no doubt that by the mid-19th century, an individual right to bear arms was widely accepted as a basic attribute of American citizenship.

All in all, a dishearting performance by the Supreme Court, whatever one thinks of the actual result. This decision should have been 9-0. Shame on the liberals.

[aft_lizard01]

SCOTUS Justices are indeed appointed for life and there is no method of removal.

That's another reason to be careful who you elect as president because they get to pick who will be on the court.

Oh they can be removed, the process is similar to impeaching a President. Heck one of the very first SCJ was impeached.

[banyon]

So, some of the justices dissented and refused to overrule a hundred year old precedent and because people disagree politically it's now time to remove them?

This is exactly why we have an independent judiciary.

To do otherwise is to emulate third world countries with tin-pot dictators who have a rubber stamp court that does what it is told.

[aft_lizard01]

So, some of the justices dissented and refused to overrule a hundred year old precedent and because people disagree politically it's now time to remove them?

This is exactly why we have an independent judiciary.

To do otherwise is to emulate third world countries with tin-pot dictators who have a rubber stamp court that does what it is told.

Mind naming that precedent that says their is no individual right? Or do you mind pointing out where the founders say there is no individual right like Stephens and Breyers claim?

When a justice declares that there is no evidence to what they claim, and their is ample evidence there is, then the only course of action is a complete and utter removal of them from the bench, they are showing a dereliction of duty in one of the highest and most important office in government and that should concern you to the highest degree.

[Highwayman]

So, some of the justices dissented and refused to overrule a hundred year old precedent and because people disagree politically it's now time to remove them?....

Are you referring to Miller as the dissenting justices did? Aside from Miller being a flawed decision, it addresses the issue of Congress being able to restrict certain weapons. In this case imposing a $200 tax on a $35 gun. You should attempt to study it sometime. It’s not at all what the gun control nuts claim it is.

Here’s some excerpts of what Scalia said about Miller in the opinion in response to Stevens’ dissent.

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

The Government’s Miller brief thus provided scant discussion of the history of the Second Amendment—and the Court was presented with no counterdiscussion. As for the text of the Court’s opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment.

Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case.

Scalia goes on. Read this real slow and let it soak in.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons 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.

Damn, does that mean my duck gun isn’t protected but my assault rifle is? Look out Daffy, your feathers are smoke! :oozie:

Now settle down, he qualifies it with this;

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.”

His comments do leave the door open for further discussion on other unchallenged gun laws being unconstitutional.

I also saw this;

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

It looks like the anti-gun folks can kiss those trigger lock and other so called “safe storage” laws good-by.

[Highwayman]

The gun control crowd is already distorting the Heller ruling. Tonight I heard a talking head on the TV claim that the court ruled other gun control laws Constitutional. I find no such thing in my reading of the opinion. Here’s what Scalia wrote;

III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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 ofarms.26

Scalia says the right is not unlimited and goes on to say that because the Court did not undertake an analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment that nothing in the opinion should cast doubt on other gun laws.

Other gun laws were not the subject of this hearing and the Court didn’t examine them. There can be no finding of Constitutionality one way or another because they didn’t look at those laws. To assert that the Court found laws Constitutional that the Court didn’t examine is absurd.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf

[Value Pack]

I find it simply amazing that seemingly intelligent people tend to rule out all logic, common sense and statistics and instead base their opinions off of personal fear and opinion on this subject.

[Made in the USA]

I find it simply amazing that seemingly intelligent people tend to rule out all logic, common sense and statistics and instead base their opinions off of personal fear and opinion on this subject.

Hey, that's the way of the USA today! :(

[Highwayman]

Unbelievable!

Dick Heller shows up to register his pistol and gets denied.

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns....

WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | DC Rejects Handgun Application

All bottom-loading weapons covers about every handgun except revolvers and single shot target guns. What BS! Scaila clearly said weapons in common use and a semi-auto pistol is the current industry standard.

Worst, look at page two, Sec 702 from the Metropolitan Police site…

District of Columbia: Metropolitan Police Department

They still want your gun unloaded and disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe or other device. That defeats the whole intent and goes against what Scalia wrote in his opinion.

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

DC officials are going to keep screwing around and end up getting more of their ridiculous laws struck down. The sooner the better.

See also…

NRA-ILA :: Legislation

[Value Pack]

DC is hoping that by the time this case gets back to the Supreme Court, Obama will have nominated some new justices to reverse the decision.

Can we let that happen?

Be that as it may, according to what I read, nobody trusted the cops there enough to take an actual gun along for registration due to published threats from the cops to prosecute ownership of a "machinegun" if it met their definition.

Make no mistake on the fact that what we consider a machinegun and the DC police consider a machinegun are oceans apart.

Single action revolvers or a single shot pistol is all that I can see will be allowed as I read it. A Colt Peacemaker might be alright.