Court Gives Final Ruling on DC Gun Ban

[Value Pack]

Heller affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

Way, way too close! I really thought that all of them would join in overturning this ban. I do believe that this ruling went more politics than law. Thank God for Kennedy. He must have been the key.

From the court website: Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

" 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."

The complete ruling is at: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/07-2901.pdf

This certainly is a Landmark ruling.

[Highwayman]

While I agree with the majority decision the fact that four Justices dissented is troubling. I skipped over the majority opinion and went directly to the dissenting opinions written by Justices Stevens and Breyer. There are several points that I could pick to comment on but I selected one that stands out above the rest.

This is from the dissenting opinions.

Justice Stevens

Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Justice Breyer

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18thcentury citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

As per Stevens, we have no Constitutionally protected right of self-defense under the Second Amendment.

Think about that and let it soak in.

NO RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES OR OUR FAMILES WITH A FIREARM.

Groveling and begging were not addressed.

[Value Pack]

I have thought about that Highwayman, and I am just as upset as you that 4 intelligent educated persons could read the 2nd Amendment that way. I am hoping that people will remember that and this this will come back to haunt them at their law reviews and tea parties. I certainly will be remembering the names of all four of them.

This also makes me realize we have to be careful who we elect President so as to make sure that no more persons are appointed to the Court that cannot not read what is clearly understood. I do worry about what 9 people could do to make 2 + 2 equal 5.

Think about it, if a majority of people in the U.S.A wanted the 2nd Amendment removed or altered then there is a way to do it:

Article 5 of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

1. Congress proposes amendments.

As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

2. The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process.

While I believe over 10,000 have been proposed, only 17 amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

There's the secret which the anti-rights folks do not want anyone to know about: they do not represent a majority in these United States.

If they were to even attempt to "edit" or "remove" the 2nd Amendment via the process outlined above, they would get their butts handed to them.

[jackknife]

This was a hot topic on the news here in California yesterday.

There has been a family in the news for a while here. Their son/nephew/relative was a promising young football star. He was a good student and a really good kid. He was outside his house and someone just gunned him down.

Yesterday, his family came out in favor of the citizen having rights to carry firearms. They were able to see that it wasn't the gun that killed their loved one but instead some sick individual. The aunt said something like "the bad people will always have guns. I sure would have like to have had a gun to protect my nephew the night he was shot."

I think so many times victim's families are looking for a reason or something to blame and guns seems to be the easiest target. Unfortunately, the aunt is right when she said that the bad guys will always have guns. It makes me kind of sick to think about not being able to do the same legally. Taking away a way to protect myself isn't going to make the streets safer.

[jeezeweeze]

When these "judges" are appointed, aren't they there for life ? How would they be ousted if needed ?

So what you guys are saying is we have to pay attention to Presidential elects to make sure they go by the constitution ?? I am really sorry that I didn't find politics as one of my interests until now and we all know that an old brain ain't the sponge it used to be. Its sorta like understanding the Bible. I am lost most of the time on these subjects.

I did copy this link for youse guys that know what your reading.

Supreme Court of the United States

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

When these "judges" are appointed, aren't they there for life ? How would they be ousted if needed ?

So what you guys are saying is we have to pay attention to Presidential elects to make sure they go by the constitution ?? I am really sorry that I didn't find politics as one of my interests until now and we all know that an old brain ain't the sponge it used to be. Its sorta like understanding the Bible. I am lost most of the time on these subjects.

I did copy this link for youse guys that know what your reading.

Supreme Court of the United States

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.

[KONQ RADIO]

Numerous time an Appointee has done a 180 after being seated...

[wordsmythe]

Also pelase note that this ruling does not mean anyone, any gun, anytime or any place.

This ruling means that the government can NOT enact any law that says NOBODY can have a gun.

The language of the decision basically says that restrictions and control are still permissible.

So they can't take all the guns away but it does mean there still can be laws controlling them. It's goign to take YEARS in the lower courts to find out what all this really means.

[Value Pack]

The good news is if you look at the 4 dissenting judges in Heller, to put it frankly they look decrepit. They are the ones up for replacement either due to retirement or natural death. So if Obama is elected, (please note if) he will be replacing liberals with liberals that have their own way of reading their version of the constitution.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Value Pack

The good news is if you look at the 4 dissenting judges in Heller, to put it frankly they look decrepit. They are the ones up for replacement either due to retirement or natural death. So if Obama is elected, (please note if) he will be replacing liberals with liberals that have their own way of reading their version of the constitution.

True enough VP, but any of them could be subject to unexpected health issues or even an auto accident. Heller reminds us that we are only one Justice away from having our world turned upside down. I’ve observed and aided in the passing of CCW laws in various states over the last twenty years and it’s been a long uphill battle to get where we are today. CCW laws have been proven to enhance public safety and they were based on the premise that we have a personal right of self-defense. Reading the dissent in Heller tells us that we were one Justice away from having the rug pulled out from under twenty years of hard work.

In the arena of gun rights, we have one presidential candidate that joined other Senators in filing a friend of the court brief in favor of overturning the DC ban. The other candidate previously said he believed the ban was Constitutional and said in a candidate questionnaire a few years ago that he favored banning all handguns. While neither has an outstanding record on gun rights, one is clearly favored over the other.

It has been argued on this board that the President has little to do with gun rights as he can only sign or veto laws written by Congress. Nothing is further from the truth. (At the risk of bring up…) Clinton arm twisted Congressmen to change their votes and got the AWB passed the House by one vote. That worthless law had no effect on crime and its expiration didn’t change anything either. The President also selects judges for nomination to the courts. A President can affect our rights for years to come.

Yeah, this election matters.