SCOTUS affirms gun rights in historic decision

[raptor10]

[Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.]

~George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

 

[MasterBates]

How are you prepared? Mentally?

Provisions. Lots of them.

 

[Picaroon]

I'm a little confused about this ruling. It seems that it has to do more with a handgun ban than a gun ban.

I'm for letting citizens have handguns. How else can a responsible citizen legally carry a gun concealed? If you don't give citizens handguns then the only armed people in public will be criminals.

However, that's my personal opinion. Clearly under current Constitutional law there are some limits as to what arms private citizens may own--we can't have a .50 machine gun or an RPG. So while I would not personally support a ban on handguns, I don't see why that isn't a local voter issue rather than a purely Constitutional issue. DC isn't banning all guns, just a specific type.

The provision for forcing people to keep other guns locked up and unloaded seems much more unconstitutional.

I don't want to piss everyone off. I'm just looking for your input on this, as the AirWarriors guys do tend to know their sh!t on these issues

 

[hornsfan]

I think the issue is more whether or not the 2nd amendment protects the gun ownership rights of individuals, or whether it was relates purely to the formation of the "militia" - which something of an outdated idea

 

[Flugelman]

I'm a little confused about this ruling. It seems that it has to do more with a handgun ban than a gun ban.

I'm for letting citizens have handguns. How else can a responsible citizen legally carry a gun concealed? If you don't give citizens handguns then the only armed people in public will be criminals.

However, that's my personal opinion. Clearly under current Constitutional law there are some limits as to what arms private citizens may own--we can't have a .50 machine gun or an RPG. So while I would not personally support a ban on handguns, I don't see why that isn't a local voter issue rather than a purely Constitutional issue. DC isn't banning all guns, just a specific type.

The provision for forcing people to keep other guns locked up and unloaded seems much more unconstitutional.

I don't want to piss everyone off. I'm just looking for your input on this, as the AirWarriors guys do tend to know their sh!t on these issues

Yes, the type that is most likely to keep you alive in a home invasion scenario...

 

[Picaroon]

Yes, the type that is most likely to keep you alive in a home invasion scenario...

Agreed. And let's face it--any criminal can get his hands on a handgun no problem if he wants one. On the cheap probably. It'll just be black market. If that criminal has the handgun, and he knows the home owner is forced by law to lock up his rifles and shotguns and keep them unloaded, the criminal knows he just got a huge advantage.
Which is why, as I said, I think such a ban is stupid and counter-productive.

That doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional though... I guess I'll just have to read the court opinions or a summarized version of them.

 

[Zissou]

The Heller decision is pure Constitutional interpretation, it truly means to answer one question:


"The second amendment is or is not an individual right."

If you're bored: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

 

[Fly Navy]

I'm a little confused about this ruling. It seems that it has to do more with a handgun ban than a gun ban.

If the ruling comes in favor of the individual's right to keep and bear arms, in other words, the individual right to defend yourself, then the handgun ban is unconstitutional. Why? The handgun is the great equalizer. What else can give an 80 year old woman the ability to defend herself against a 21 year old aggressor? That's just one of many examples (see: LA Riots; New Orleans post Katrina). The DC law effectively bans handguns without outright banning them. What it did was say, "you must register your handguns by this date. After said date, no more handguns can be registered". This was in the 70's. That's a ban by any other word. What the law basically did was turn law abiding citizens, who are interested in defending themselves in one of the most dangerous cities in the country, into common criminals. There have been many cases where someone defends their life against a home invasion, only to be charged themselves with an "illegal handgun".

I'm for letting citizens have handguns. How else can a responsible citizen legally carry a gun concealed? If you don't give citizens handguns then the only armed people in public will be criminals.

Exactly. Taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens removes their ability to "level the playing field" with the criminal of today. For those good citizens that choose not to comply, it just made them criminals.

However, that's my personal opinion. Clearly under current Constitutional law there are some limits as to what arms private citizens may own--we can't have a .50 machine gun or an RPG.

Wrong and wrong. You sure can own a .50 BMG machine-gun. You can own grenades. You can own sound suppressors. It just depends on the state you live in AND more importantly, how much money you have (it's unbelievably expensive).

So while I would not personally support a ban on handguns, I don't see why that isn't a local voter issue rather than a purely Constitutional issue. DC isn't banning all guns, just a specific type.

The provision for forcing people to keep other guns locked up and unloaded seems much more unconstitutional.

This is a landmark ruling. The SCOTUS has specifically denied seeing ANY cases related to the 2nd Amendment for decades. Striking down the DC ban could possibly (hopefully) strike down bans in other states, that would be equally unconstitutional. A more sinister problem lays in states like NY. Believe it or not, you can get a concealed carry permit in NY City. You can only get it if you are famous or connected. So, it's "legal" to get a permit, but for Joe Average, there is a 99% chance he's getting denied.

 

[Flugelman]

A Prime Example

This from the Dallas Morning News today.

This is why I carry.

A statement by one of the lowlifes...

Mr. Broadnax said he began the night expecting to take a life.
"Somebody was going to get hit any way it went," he said.
He scoffed when asked if he was sorry. "Do it look like I got remorse?" he said. :icon_rage:icon_rage:icon_rage

 

[A4sForever]

It's always worthwhile noting what the enemy thinks. And in this case, I mean the enemy ....

For example this linked op-ed piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution was penned by the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin (r-i-i-i-i-i-ight ). Also contributing to this column were such anti-gun rights stalwarts as Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee; Manuel A. Diaz, mayor of Miami; Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco; Greg Nickels, mayor of Seattle; and Douglas H. Palmer, mayor of Trenton, N.J.

Cities will pay a heavy price if handgun ban is overturned

*edit* another link (below) to an analysis from the CATO Institute originally appearing in 2007 on what questions are being considered in the DC case and some of the legal thinking that will probably form the basis of the final decision:

D.C. Gun Ban: Supreme Court Preview

 

[snake020]

A more sinister problem lays in states like NY. Believe it or not, you can get a concealed carry permit in NY City. You can only get it if you are famous or connected. So, it's "legal" to get a permit, but for Joe Average, there is a 99% chance he's getting denied.

Same goes with the counties in California with larger populations. I love how Senator Feinstein is anti-gun yet she gets to have a CCW when she returns home to San Francisco. There is supposedly litigation pending that claims that what the sheriffs in the big metro counties are doing in granting CCW permits only to the rich and famous violates the 14th amendment.

Believe it or not, most of the rural counties in CA are de facto "shall issue". Depends on who the sheriff is.

 

[Fly Navy]

Believe it or not, most of the rural counties in CA are de facto "shall issue". Depends on who the sheriff is.

Not Kings County, or so says a deputy I asked.

 

[snake020]

Not Kings County, or so says a deputy I asked.

I'm talking really rural like Shasta and Siskiyou, that region that wants to become its own state.

 

[Flugelman]

I'm talking really rural like Shasta and Siskiyou, that region that wants to become its own state.

My wife is from the San Joaquin Valley area of California. I was pleasantly surprised to find out how conservative most of the folks in the rural areas are there.

 

[statesman]

Some good news:
http://dcist.com/2008/06/25/supreme_court.php

If Scalia is writing the opinion its likely in favor of the pro-gun crowd, as he is known for a literal strict-contructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

I can only hope there are enough votes in favor of the 2nd Amendment such that Scalia would be allowed to write the opinion. If its a 5 to 4 with the number 5 being on the fence, Scalia is likely not going to be writing the opinion rather it is the fence sitter who gets that honor.

It also depends on Roberts and how he would feel about Scalia getting to write the opinion. We can always hope.