Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms; Update: Obama’s gun-grabber credentials revisited; Update: Obama supported D.C. ban in February?
posted at 10:19 am on June 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Just across at SCOTUS Blog. 5-4, which means Kennedy was the deciding vote — or, if you prefer, Alito was the deciding vote. Would O’Connor or Harriet Miers have voted the same way? If nothing else, Bush at least delivered this.
Stand by for the opinion.
Update: The first AP report says the right extends to “self-defense and hunting.” And here’s an update. Hmmm:
The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
Update: Here’s the opinion at SCOTUS Blog. They’re getting hammered by Drudge so e-mail us if you can’t access it there and I’ll upload it elsewhere.
Update: A key passage from the syllabus. If you had your eye on a machine gun, think again:
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.
Also from the syllabus: “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.”
Update: According to How Appealing, Scalia’s opinion cites no fewer than three law review articles written by Eugene Volokh.
Update: The first 50+ pages are devoted to historical analysis. Skip down to section III on page 54 for a discussion of limitations on the right. Here’s the whole thing, with citations omitted, for ease of reference:
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… 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… 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 of arms.
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.
So as I understand this, you have a right to own a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle or some other weapon you’d buy either for home defense or hunting, since that’s how a colonial-era militia operated. (Live by the originalist sword, die by the originalist sword.) I’ll have to check the regulations, but offhand I don’t think this is much different from how the system works now in New York City: As I recall, they make you pay a $500 fee but they won’t reject your handgun application unless they have some sort of good cause.
What about the boldfaced part having to do with concealed carry “in sensitive places,” though? Does that mean you have a right to carry in non-sensitive places?
Update: SCOTUS Blog notes that the opinion doesn’t explicitly say that this ruling applies to the states. The gun ban being challenged was from D.C., a federal jurisdiction, so in theory there’s now an open subsidiary question of whether the Second Amendment was “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against the states as well. Don’t expect anyone to make a big deal of it, though: Almost all other rights in the Bill of Rights have already been “incorporated” and the logic of the decision here doesn’t lend itself to any obvious distinction between the feds and the states.
Update: The obligatory applause from McCain:
Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Update: Here are the New York City gun regs. Scalia emphasizes on pages 58-59 that they’re not ruling on the D.C. licensing scheme; cities can still make you register after today, although there are bound to be lawsuits now challenging each distrinct’s licensing requirements. As I suspected, in NYC you can basically own a gun for home use as a matter of right if you provide a birth certificate, prove you’re a citizen, pay the fee, and have a (relatively) clean criminal record. If you want to carry or to keep a gun at the workplace, you have to show “necessity.” Whether that’s still constitutional will be determined at a later date, which is why Geraghty’s point about the importance of having conservative judges on the bench to fill in the blanks of this ruling going forward is important.
Update: I must be misreading the regs because this New York Sun piece from March says the NYPD has discretion to deny handgun licenses. In all cases, though? Even to a law-abiding citizen for home use? Not anymore, in any event.
Update: The quote of the day comes not from Scalia but from Stevens in dissent:
The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court 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, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
Yeah, that’s … the whole scheme of the Constitution, isn’t it? To limit the power of government? Or does that principle only apply to Article II anymore?
Update: Here’s a shrewd piece from TNR back in March predicting that the decision won’t make much of a difference except in the most gun-grabby districts. Quote: “For all but the hardest-core gun lovers, prudence and public safety ultimately limit libertarianism–and the justices don’t seem inclined to dive off a cliff and read the amendment so as to permit individual ownership of upper-end military hardware… Outside of Washington D.C., in other words, a revitalized Second Amendment would largely forbid what nobody was seriously contemplating anyway: bans on common weapons for the recreational and self-protective uses of law-abiding people.” Yeah, if even the laws in New York City are already (mostly) consonant with the decision, then it’s not some huge game-changer in practice — yet. With the coming blue tide in November, though, who knows? It’s nice to have it on the books before anyone gets any ideas.
Update: Be sure to read Geraghty’s post about Obama’s history with gun control, before he was deciding that statements on the subject by his campaign were “inartful.” A lefty friend sent me the link to the ABC story this morning about that with a note saying, “Didn’t he sit on some gun-control organization’s board?” So he did.
Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.
During Obama’s tenure with the Joyce Foundation, donations to anti-gun groups increased dramatically. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the Violence Policy Center received $221,000 and $360,000 from the Foundation; those grants and donations increased to $1 million in 2000 and $800,000 in 2002. In all, during Obama’s tenure, the group received $15 million from the Joyce Foundation…
Lest anyone think I’m mischaracterizing their objective analysis, note that their web site touts themselves as “the most aggressive group in the gun control movement.” Also note studies like their one from 2000 entitled, “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” which declared the idea that the Constitution would forbid a national handgun ban a “pure myth.” Also note the organization’s subtly-titled book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.)
Update: Politico claims St. Barack’s reversal on the “inartful” statement his spokesman made last November about supporting the D.C. ban is more recent than thought. Ben Smith doesn’t offer a date but says this came around the time of the Potomac Primary, i.e. early February:
LH: One other issue that is of great importance to the people of the district here, is gun control. You said in Idaho here, recently, that “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
BO: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people – law-abiding citizens use if for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support. The problem is, that we’ve got a position, often times by the NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
The real problem is that these judges do not exist for this purpose. They are not employed to issue ‘rulings’. They are employed to interpret and apply law.
Why are we surprised when everything gets fucked up by people that were never authorised to dictate the meaning of the constitution in a super-legislative capacity?
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Ah the smell of gun powder in the air! I LOVE IT!!!! Liberty managed to creep through the halls of the Supreme Court.
Reaganite84 on June 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Relieved but wary.
As others have said 5-4 means this is just a burp for Thursday, June 26th, 2008.
Budget NOW. This ruling will not decrease pressures in the gun market. Even if you never take it out of the gun safe, buy one. I don’t expect to ever need my emergency tornado kits but I still keep two in widely separated places.
If you are a fatalist make sure you consider reloading equipment and supplies. Learn how to use them.
Paranoid has nothing to do with it.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I’m shocked we won this one, I thought the court would allow the D.C. ban because of the District clause that allows the Feds to do pretty much what they want in federal areas such as D.C., but I’m very glad I was wrong. It was a narrow victory, but a victory none the less. We’ll take it.
Thanks to our Lord for this one!!
Maxx on June 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
It appears that a person of standing in your particular state can petition via the court system to have a particular law overturned using this decision as legal precedent.
The decision today squashed a specific law in a specific municipality. You will, however, likely see a flurry of legal activity before the election to get more cases before the Supreme Court to shore up this decision and get more case law on the books. If the Supreme Court swings anymore to the Left, it’s likely they will attempt to limit the effect of this decision only to “District of Columbia v. Heller”.
Leftist Courts have little respect for the actual wording, intent or case law when it comes to Constitutional cases. But additional precedent would makes things much more difficult for them to reverse this decision. Even leftist judges want it to appear that they respect tradition and law, even if they actually do not.
Asher on June 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
A 5-4 vote, I guess after the election in November and a Democratic appointed justice, this will be reversed.
bnelson44 on June 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Not in DC. Scalia’s opinion makes clear that DC cannot enact any laws that have the functional effect of denying an individual’s right to keep and bear arms in his own home. It also speaks to any licensing law that is carried out arbitrarily and capriciously as being prohibited by this ruling. DC is just going to have to suck it up and start issuing permits.
I expect that some of the more anti-gun states like MA are going to declare that the decision does not aply to them because DC is a federal jurisdiction. People in those states are going to have to sue, and hopefully the federal courst will begin using Heller as precedent.
rockmom on June 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I like the McCain dig about the Chicago handgun law.
Wethal on June 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Do us all a favor. STOP commenting on the US Constitution. Your tragic interpretation is only matched by your cursory consideration of our first and second amendments.
Please just stop there. STEP AWAY FROM THE CONSTITUTION!
You can still benefit from its protection without having to assualt it anymore.
The Race Card on June 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Thanks for telling me about the petition. I signed it too.
txsurveyor on June 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Damn, that’s a home-run statement by McCain. Gets the “bitter” dig in at Obama too, and also the reminder that he had the balls to sign an amicus brief in support of Officer Heller. Excellent!!
rockmom on June 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
The dissenting opinion should be read to understand what future rulings will look like under a SC that is stacked with Obama or even possibly McCain appointees. I didn’t see too much to cheer about in this ruling. The court said we have an individual right to bear arms, provided that they’re not really applicable to defense against a tyrannical state, and the government is free to restrict use, location and ownership. The notion that we have partial rights is pernicious. We either have a constitutional right, or we don’t. It’s only the exercise of a right that endangers the public safety, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, that should be restricted. Owning “unusual” firearms does not endanger anyone. Spraying machine gun fire indiscriminately does. Possible misuse of a right should not be an argument against its applicability. It’s the exercise of rights that matter, not their theory. If we have a right, but are unable to exercise it, then the ruling doesn’t matter too much.
NNtrancer on June 26, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Great. John “Gun show loophole” McCain cheers. Whoopee.
MadisonConservative on June 26, 2008 at 11:16 AM
It doesn’t mention concealed carry in sensitive places, just carry.
But later on we have this:
That seems to lean in favor of open carry. But this is even more explicit:
Hello open carry.
Mark Jaquith on June 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Yikes, Bambi and the Left will go, well, let just say nuts, over that.
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM
That’s an extremely good point. It would be highly unsafe to assume that, if and when Obama stacks the court hard left, it will continue to follow prior precedents of restraint regarding the previous SCOTUS rulings. The current level of aggression in leftist thought suggests that this would almost certainly not be the case: an Obama court will almost certainly and eagerly re-visit, re-”interpret,” and reverse any and all existing decisions it can get its hands on that do not gibe with the prevalent socialist “progressive” agenda. It will be unlike anything this country has seen before.
Blacklake on June 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I hate to rain on everyones parade, but this looks like a pretty weak ruling, even a pretty bad one.
It overturns the DC gun ban. It fairly explicitly leaves all the other guns laws in place, including those in places like NYC.
It explicitly says that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Why not?
It says that the right to bear arms is limited to hunting and self-defence. Why? Expect to see new laws restricting gun ownership to single shot rifles and revolvers. That’s all anyone needs for hunting and self defence.
The part about “weapons in use at the time” is wierd and disturbing.
All in all, a depressing ruling. The best you can say is that it might have been even worse.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM
In fairness, he did file an amicus brief in favor of gun rights a while back. It’s not as if he simply jumped on the bandwagon after the fact.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Shorter Dave Rywall: Harrumph!
DrSteve on June 26, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Handguns cause gun violence????
Do liberals have their logic centers surgically removed?
MarkTheGreat on June 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Wonderful! Now I can carry my 1911 Govt. instead of this short barreled jumping billie. Lookout bad guys. My groups just got tighter.
Beto Ochoa on June 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM
We’re not sure. And even if McCain nominates total constitutionalists, he’d have severe trouble getting them past a presumably hostile Dem-controlled Senate. But what we DO know is that Obama will nominate activist Marxists, which is definitely completely unacceptable. So, yes, I’d rather take my chances with McCain. A moderate wild-card justice who has a modicum of respect for the Constitution is better than an activist leftist judge by any measure.
aero on June 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Nah. Just buy plenty of MilSurp.
pseudonominus on June 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
When was this?
MadisonConservative on June 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Nice comments from McCain. Exit question for him: As per what is highlighted above, how does your BCRA agree with this, Mav?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Given the Republicans track record at appointing justices it may be reversed regardless of who is the nexr president. Two of the four justice minority were appointed by Republicans.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Let Freedom ring its bell all day long,the right to bear arms,the only country on the planet,and you bet,rightly so!
This decision is akin to ramming it down the throats of
Liberals like packin down the gun powder in a musket!
canopfor on June 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Finally, the Supreme Court operates in the realm of common sense. What possible reason could there be for a DC gun ban? The Constitution was ratified years before DC was ever built, so any argument that DC should be gun-free because it’s the head of our government, a secular Vatican City f you will, is null and void. The security there is already unimaginably tight. I remember helicopters flying over the Lincoln Monument area through the National Mall that could detect any sort of weapon on the ground below. My only concern now? Cynthia McKinney, armed.
I think that it says somewhere in the Bill of Rights that the hump-bot is now obligatory.
MB007 on June 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Great reading on the Chicago part of this.
Why do I say it is great, by the end, I have no idea what side of the issue the writer is on, which is how it should be. All sides were put on the table. Kind of refreshing.
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I’m sure that if Carl Rowan were alive today, he would be relieved to know that if he shot a teenager breaking into his home, that he could do it with a LEGAL gun…
I remember when the shooting happened and how the Wash Times pretty much reported the event as it happened and the wash post wrapped itself into a knot trying to explain how Rowan was not a hypocrite…
rbb on June 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM
5- 4 ?
Are those 4 Constitutionally incontinent?
How can you raise a militia if the citizens are not armed?
At least two of those irrationalists should retire in shame.
If only to give the Constitution a fighting chance.
profitsbeard on June 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM
March.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Running for president as a Republican will do that to people. Even Rudy “The Gun Banner” Giuliani came out against the DC gun ban.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’m sure this has already been said here, but…
Wow! The United States Supreme Court finds Constitutional rights that are SPECIFICALLY outlined in the Constitution as rights to be, you know, Constitutional. So the real news here is that five of our current Supreme Court justices can read.
Rational Thought on June 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I am so pumped, I may listen to Rush for maybe the first time this year.
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM
No. He signed on to it, he did not file it.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM
So there’s no appellate jurisdiction in the SCOTUS? Huh. I dunno, I think that they interpreted the DC gun ban law, though it looks like nothing changes as a result of this law except the DC law gets shitcanned. I still have to enlist in a $300 NRA course to learn how to shoot the Smith I’ve owned for 30 years so’s I can carry it to church n’ such.
Akzed on June 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Where is this petition for open carry in Texas? I saw a news story on this the other day, but no other details.
This is a big deal people. Be happy! If you can’t be happy, at LEAST be cautiously optimistic?
God Bless America!
catmman on June 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM
People are really overstating what just happened. Nothing has changed for the better. Arguably this was a defeat for the Second Amendment.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM
[bnelson44 on June 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM]
I thought precedent was sacred? Isn’t the answer to the Dems litmus precedent question when grilling nominees supposed to be “Yes,
abortionprecedent is sacred.”Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM
My question is this: How will this affect colleges and schools that prohibit hand guns on campus. Virginia Tech has such a rule.
zerodamage on June 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
McCain voted against both the Brady Bill and an assault weapons ban in ‘94.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I wonder if there was any deal making, like, “Ok Kennedy, you can have no hanging rapists if you’ll give us no DC gun ban.”
Akzed on June 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I am saddened, when I read some of the comments, that the McCain Derangement Syndrome (MDS) has driven any semblance of logic from the minds of some of the “conservative” commenters. Conservative in in quotations, because they are like religeous zealots; only their kind of conservative thinking is real true conservative thinking. The really logical approach is that you think that McCain may appoint a liberal court justice, will probably appoint… However Obama most certainly will (not probably) appoint a liberal/socialist/communist judge. If all we have is the difference between may and most certainly will, go for the may. This is kind of an A is less than B thing.
Old Country Boy on June 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Beg pardon, he joined in the brief filed by Senators and the VP. That doesn’t take away from the fact he supported the pro-gun briefing that was filed.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Unless Kennedy or Scalia retires, Obama won’t have the chance to get this opinion reversed. I know Scalia wants to retire but he won’t if there is a Democratic president. The justices most likely to retire or die in the next 4 years are Stevens and Ginsburg. And they won’t retire either if McCain wins.
I don’t see a big change in the Supreme Court either way. We are going to have 5-4 decisions for years to come.
rockmom on June 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Just in time……….
Now when the Gitmo “detainees” are walking the streets after being released on bail, they just might think twice about which red blooded, patriotic, American Citizen walking amoung them just might take offense to their terrorism and blow thier f*#$ing head off.
Seven Percent Solution on June 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Or, rather, Bush delivered after enough of us threw a fit over his initial nomination of Miers.
clark smith on June 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Given Fred Thompson vetting our judges, you make the case for seeing to it that McCain gets elected. Though McCain may not be worth the effort, WE ARE WORTH THE EFFORT!
Even on amnesty, I just don’t see McCain going lightly on outside infiltrating communists and fascists. Given our own homegrown variety with whom he allies via freedom of speech he’s Mr.NiceGuy when he ought to have consistently and strictly held himself to international matters. As POTUS he’d better let his VP handle domestic issues. Terrorism, to be defeated, must have any leader’s full attention. During the 20th Century World Wars, nothing was happening on the home front other than dedicated war effort, REQUIRED FOR VICTORY. That’s the only way he’ll come out smelling like a rose.
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Here is the petition I signed. I hope it gets Gov. Perry’s attention.
http://www.petitiononline.com/texasoc/petition.html
txsurveyor on June 26, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Yes, the more I read, the more this seems like a compromise, you can’t outright ban them, but go ahead and regulate everything to your heart’s desire. Also the obsession with home use versus carrying on their person is very very troubling. The Second Amendment doesn’t restrict self defense as to where on can defend oneself, property rights should dictate that.
I have to continue to read the rest of the ruling to find out if that bittersweet to bitter taste in my mouth is justified.
LevStrauss on June 26, 2008 at 11:37 AM
My questions are what is the operative law in DC as of this moment. Can people walk around carrying a gun? Can a resident go to Virginia, pick up their handgun at their vacation cottage and bring it into DC? Lastly, will revised regulation, permit law include grandfathering?
Probably dumb ones, I guess. I don’t follow the issue closely and don’t own, but I’m just as ardent about preserving this liberty as if I did follow it and own.
Dusty on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
It’s past time that the conservative wing got excited about preventing Obama from getting elected. No matter what.
bnelson44 on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Sure it is a split opinion Dave. I mean only 73% of Americans think it is an individual right. We are so split… NOT!
Dawnsblood on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
“Hi guy who considers himself to be really smart. Your opinion is grotesque. See ya tomorrow.”
http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2008/06/grotesque.html
EduardoOTI on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
To clarify - they do not exist to ‘rule’ us by dictating the meaning of the constitution. They do not have the authority to ’strike down’ law. To believe that they do implies they they are a super-legislative entity with veto powers over another branch of government. This could not be further from the constitutional vision of the Founders.
Sure, the SCOTUS can ‘rule’ with respect to judgements made by inferior courts - that is its constitutional territory. It is also a judicial principle that is rooted in ancient english judicial convention and alive and well today.
Only juries have the power to effectively nullify law within the judiciary.
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Chip in anytime with your own opinion. I’m sure everyone would love to know exactly what your interpretation of Constitutional Law is.
Based on your posting history, though, I doubt you can construct a coherent argument anyway, though. Most of your responses seem to be simple-minded playground attacks on whatever ideas you happen to disagree with at the time.
So I’m rubber, you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. And “assualt” is spelled assault.
Asshat is spelled asshat, but I’m sure you are very familiar with that term.
Asher on June 26, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Tolerance: Liberal Blogger Calls for Scalia to Be Killed Over Heller Decision.
Progressive!
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:39 AM
*whew*
Tanya on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
It is pretty sad that this was a 5-4 ruling. It should have been 9-0. It is sad that this even had to be litigated.
One more liberal judge and you can kiss off “the bill of rights.”
Dasher on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Why? How many of the sitting Justices were appointed by democrats?
Wade on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Whoever has the talent for YouTube, it’s high time to re-view some retro TV episodes: Gunsmoke, Maverick (james garner!), Branded, HAVE GUN WILL TRAVEL!
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I have not read the ruling myself, but the above comment seems to run counter to what has been posted by others. From AP in this post:
“SCOTUS Blog notes that the opinion doesn’t explicitly say that this ruling applies to the states.”
I read that to mean that the court did not comment one way or the other on how this ruling may apply to the states.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Getting a license in MA is not has hard or restrictive as many people think although it does depend on the town or city. I only know one person denied a license and it was because she is a multiple DUI offender. Both my wife and I had no problems getting a Class A license that states specifically “for all legal purposes” which allows us to buy large caliber, large capacity handguns and carry them concealed if we so desire.
jmarcure on June 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The man certainly does have a way with words.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I’m just stunned.
This is the 2ND Ammendment. I cannot believe that it is not Clear as a Bell to ALL of the justices on the high court.
I’m not a lawyer, but I do understand the constitution and our history and what my Rights are (should be).
I just can’t get over it. These are highly educated judges, are they not?
I’ve read their dissension twice now, and all I can think, is that everyone is afraid of Islam infiltrating this country….how about many other countries(nationalities,philosophies,)..UNAmerican..sleeper..cells…
Okay, scratch that. I sound like an unhinged kook.
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I’ve not had time to read through all previous comments as yet, but I will to appreciate the knowledge I will find in them. But just heard this news and had to add my voice…..Hooray!! I’ve been fully anticipating SCOTUS to obliterate the contstitution today. They have surprised and pleased me. Seems there might just still be a chance to hold on to this country and way of government after all. THANK YOU!
dustoffmom on June 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
So,I’m sure the anti-gun,think of the children,
gun-free-zone liberal lefty’s are probably stunned,
mortified,and really p!ssed off over this decision!
How will the Lefty MSM stick handle this great news,
–Will Obama come out and say he agrees with the decision!
–Because of the ruling,how many Liberal’s will be thrown
under the bus!
–What colourful pant suit will Hilrod wear,when giving her
opinion,(just a wild guess,probably symbolic black no
doubt!)
– What will the most powerful women in all the universe
say,Speaker Nancy Pelosi!(besides the usual comment of
“were dissappointed”)
– will code pink do something desperate!
Its a great day for America,however,not so much for the
caring,Liberals!———————————–:)
canopfor on June 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
bnelson44 on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Effort makes you PC uncomfortable?
You’re too smart to be diligent?
No one has the monopoly on campaign fatigue.
“Past time” occurs at 7pm election day.
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
And 5 of the 5 in the majority were appointed by Republicans. Five out of seven (OK, four minus Kennedy) is better than the strictly activist justices a President Obama would appoint.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM
flenser - it does not explicitly say that the ruling does not apply to states. DC is not a state and the ruling applies only to the DC law which was challenged by Heller. However, Scalia gives some pretty broad hints that the ruling will be the same if any state or city gun bans like DC’s are challenged.
rockmom on June 26, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Ok, so we can keep arms, but can we bear them? What good is a right I can only excerise at home?
Akzed on June 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Heller will have very little direct on gun owners outside of the District of Columbia, so I’d strongly advise against doing anything out of the ordinary with your hardware until the smoke clears. Municipal, state and federal restrictions still apply.
AP, NYC has a de facto ban: They technically have a provision that allows people to apply for a permit, but unless you are connected in some way, the permits simply aren’t issued.
Because they provide an opportunity to apply for a handgun permit, NYC’s laws should be unaffected by Heller.
Chicago’s is a full ban like D.C.’s, and is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Bob Owens on June 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
In Israel everyone is required to bear arms.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Sounds like a terroristic threat to me!
becki51758 on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
This is a big deal. Because of the very wierd way the 2nd Amendment is written, they could have found ‘no individual right, only a collective right’ and still claimed a strict construction. That would have been a huge loss, and it was not outside the realm of possible outcomes today.
Still, many above are right that, once you get by the ‘individual right’ part, which is a big deal, the opinion leaves lots of room to future courts to limit that right. Perhaps the opinion could have been stronger in this regard, but with Scalia being an originalist, and tieing his decision to the full language of the amendment and to historic understandings of the text, there were bound to be limits to how far he could go. Again, the text of the amendment being what it is.
james23 on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Allah thanks for ALL the updates!
When I saw this on Fox this morning, I actually got up with my cup of coffee in my hand and started dancing in the middle of my living room! YAY!
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM
SCOTUS Blog:
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Sorry, will try this again.
Dont most of these cases go to the SCOTUS because they infringe on our Constitutional rights?
So, according to Stevens, we can take our cases to the SCOTUS because our feelings were hurt?
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM
ps–very strong follow up by McCAin. Unusually good for him. He should continue shoving this one down Obambi’s throat in all his appearances today and tomorrow.
james23 on June 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Also note, even if the Senate is 60% Democrat while McCain is President, the Senate can’t confirm a Supreme Court justice that was not first appointed by the President. McCain can keep appointing originalists, and the Senate can keep denying them confirmation, but that’s much better than the alternative. The alternative is that Obama nominates activist justices, and the Democrat Senate rubber stamps them. McCain’s worst case is gridlock.
RBMN on June 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Weird? What kind of english comprehension skills do we teach in America? It’s a straightforward sentence.
LimeyGeek on June 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Talk to your state reps. Get laws passed. Move to Texas. While we don’t have a strap em on law we do have to right to shoot an aggressor COMING OR GOING. We have the right to keep a weapon in a car, or a business (as long as THAT property owner allows guns on their premisis). Why is everyone looking to the Feds on this? Man-up your state reps.
Seriously, look to your state. I’ve got a hunch that in my state more law enforcement officers would HELP you hide your weapons then confiscate them, no matter what the Feds say.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM
I’m just surprised it was so close. It’s the Second Amendment.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
The justices appointed by Republicans came to the forefront during the era when Republicans at least thought in terms of “balance”–not imagining how the progressives would take the inch and run the marathon. Anyway, that wast then. This is now. What appeared to be unreasonable to expect has occured; the ubertards must be stopped at all costs. Hence, elect McCain out of self interest. The ride is already bumpy, and we’re already entering the TwilightZone regardless. The concept of allowing the opposition more rope absolutely lacks any sense of self preservation at this point.
maverick muse on June 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM
In Israel everyone is required to bear arms.
NotCoach on June 26,2008 at 11:48PM.
NotCoach:I know its mandatory three years in the Military,
but for some reason I didn’t think of Israel,
I thought it was a given,but I wasn’t sure!
Okay,smart pants,( im kidding):).
canopfor on June 26, 2008 at 11:58 AM
HAPPY DAY!
I just had to say that!
wildweasel on June 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Same in Switzerland.
Limerick on June 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I think there’s a difference between having the right to bear arms…and being required to bear arms. Freedom.
bridgetown on June 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM
It is a little bit weird, as it provides the rationale for the right in addition to defining the right itself. If the “preamble” portion about militias had simply been left off in favor of a simple, straightforward declaration of the right, the left wouldn’t have so much room to play “interpretation” games.
Blacklake on June 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I’m sure everyone is waiting with baited breath to hear your brilliant dissertation, Judge. But I can’t seem to recall you ever leaving a solid take on any topic here at Hot Air. It’s very possible you are just a trolling blog-traffic generating algorithm that’s stuck in the ON position.
Poorly-written, but effective.
Asher on June 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Guess they don’t read old books. Old English just throws everyone off.
upinak on June 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
No matter how many lies Obama uses to distort his definite anti-gun position, it is not possible for anyone but a brainwashed liberal to believe otherwise.
volsense on June 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Maybe so. But if you put all the people of Israel in a city like DC but they kept all their own laws I would feel much safer walking around in an Israely DC than the DC we have now.
NotCoach on June 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
This ruling very explicitly applies only to the DC law. It still permits de facto gun bans as used in the big cities.
flenser on June 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »