Justice for DC

[Breedy]

Just saw this when I logged on

Linky

 

[uptown_isy]

Great to hear that WE gun owners are able to keep our guns! This will have ramifications for the whole country, as other cities (other than DC) have instituted a ban an handguns. We scored a MAJOR victory today!

 

[Mike33]

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

 

[Devil Doc]

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

It changes everything! This is the first time the Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

Doc.

 

[BlindedByScience]

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

Mike, respectfully, I think you're wrong here. This is notable as the SCOTUS has clearly, unambiguously, affirmed the right of private citizens to own handguns for self defense. Federal laws regulating the purchase of weapons won't change, but it pretty clearly says blanket bans are unconstitutional. Another good write up on this important issue can be found here.

Regards - B.B.S.

Edit - Doc made the point better than I did - This ruling affirms that the 2nd amendment bestows an individual right, not a 'collective' right as the anti-gun folks have tried to interpret it. This is huge, and a great day for law abiding gun owners in the US.

 

[Mike33]

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

It changes everything! This is the first time the Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

Doc.

In a practical sense, it doesn't. Yes it is the first time the court has found the 2nd amendment to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership, but this announcement was expected from the court and it is ingrained in the culture of this country that there is an individual right to own a gun. It is largely a symbolic ruling.

It is symbolic because Scalia's opinion specifically said the ruling does not affect conceal/carry restrictions, felon/mentally ill restrictions, specific weapons bans (e.g. assault weapons), and current licensing restrictions. All it said was DC went to far in its restriction and that it will strike down any future law that goes too far. This ruling was in a sense a victory for both sides of the debate.

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

Mike, respectfully, I think you're wrong here. This is notable as the SCOTUS has clearly, unambiguously, affirmed the right of private citizens to own handguns for self defense. Federal laws regulating the purchase of weapons won't change, but it pretty clearly says blanket bans are unconstitutional. Another good write up on this important issue can be found here.

Regards - B.B.S.

Edit - Doc made the point better than I did - This ruling affirms that the 2nd amendment bestows an individual right, not a 'collective' right as the anti-gun folks have tried to interpret it. This is huge, and a great day for law abiding gun owners in the US.

I agree completely that it was a big deal from a constitutional law point of view, but it really doesn't change too much in a real world sense. I had hoped the justices would go further in defining what specifically can and cannot be restricted, but they never do. Scalia mentions towards the end of his opinion that the opinion only provides a framework of the meaning of the amendment. Rather than ending the debate, I feel this ruling will keep the debate going.

 

[BlindedByScience]

In a practical sense, it doesn't. Yes it is the first time the court has found the 2nd amendment to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership, but this announcement was expected from the court and it is ingrained in the culture of this country that there is an individual right to own a gun. It is largely a symbolic ruling.

There's nothing symbolic about declaring blanket bans unconstitutional. Several other large cities have headed in this direction and this stops those restrictions, cold.

 

[Mike33]

In a practical sense, it doesn't. Yes it is the first time the court has found the 2nd amendment to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership, but this announcement was expected from the court and it is ingrained in the culture of this country that there is an individual right to own a gun. It is largely a symbolic ruling.

There's nothing symbolic about declaring blanket bans unconstitutional. Several other large cities have headed in this direction and this stops those restrictions, cold.

LARGELY is the key word. Like I said, it was pretty clear that a blanket ban was going to be unconstitutional....I don't think anyone expected anything different from the ruling today.

 

[Breedy]

If nothing else, as stated above, it does affirm an individuals right to own a weapon. Many gun law nuts have agrued that one person does not make up a collective militia and that owners are not well trained and therefor are not protected under the 2nd.

Does it do away with all federal or local gun laws, no. Does it give those in DC and in other similiar situations the right to protect themselves, yes.

Well it keep the antiguns nuts at bay, perhaps for a short time. Not to be political (as a newb I know this is a no-no :thumbs: ), but ulitmately who we elect as presidents and senators and such will decide this issue in the future. As a whole, gun owners are easy to marginialize. Must people can not fathom why some one would want to own a machine gun or 20, but that is the face the anti-gun lobby puts out; A bunch of crazies running around with assualt rifles gunning down people in the streets.

So what are we to do, act in the same responsible manner that 95% of gun owners do. Make sure you research your canidates views (who ever he/she maybe) on gun control and educate those around you. But in thruth I am not telling anyone here that which the didn't already know.

Brandon

 

[bpj87]

"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, 'In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.'"

Justice Breyer, a crime-ridden urban area is precisely the community in which I'd most desire a handgun in my home for self defense purposes. Where is the logic in keeping the innocent unarmed and vulnerable to attack?

 

[tigger]

It's a pretty narrow ruling that comes down largely on the side of freedom. In that sense, it's a very positive step.

The discouraging thing for me is that 4 out of 9 Justices dissented.

 

[markmarksman]

This is a HUGE win for the law abiding citizens across America.

 

[Boomer52]

While I believe this is a victory, it is a very thin one. It was a 5 to 4 ruling that was split very decisively between the liberal and conservative justices and one swing vote Weather or not these types of rulings continue will be greatly impacted by the next new justice that is appointed.

It is expected that at least one new justice, possibly two, will be appointed within the next eight years. Without getting political, (hard to tiptoe around this topic without getting political) the next president, assuming two terms, will appoint these justices. What kind of justices do you think each candidate would appoint? Our gun rights hinge on these appointments.

Nuf said. Don’t want to cross the “Political” line. I apologize if I already have.

 

[Peekay]

Quick question, I live in Chicago, which bans handguns, how long before I can own a handgun legally? If the mayor has his way never.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1026348...n062608.article

 

[Breedy]

Quick question, I live in Chicago, which bans handguns, how long before I can own a handgun legally? If the mayor has his way never.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1026348...n062608.article

Well now that the Supreme Court has ruled that bans such as DCs and possible yours in Chi town are unconstitutional it is only a matter of time till some one challenges the Law and then there will be appeals and such. So in theory it could be a week or year.


"Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis today said that 75 percent of Chicago’s murders involve firearms. So far this year, Chicago Police have responded to 15,000 “man with a gun” calls and 27,000 calls of “shots fired.”

Seems to be a fair amount of guns in Chi town already, the ban is definately working. Roguhly half way through the year and 15,000 calls makes like 80 day. Probably the same guy who was grandfathered in.

Brandon

edit to add quotes

 

[tigger]

Quick question, I live in Chicago, which bans handguns, how long before I can own a handgun legally? If the mayor has his way never.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1026348...n062608.article

I expect that eventually you'll be able to own a handgun, but that it will take some time. I believe Heller was first filed in US District Court around 2003. These things can take some time.

May be a lot quicker, as well. Or longer.

It's my understanding (I'm not an attorney) that technically, right now the Heller decision only applies to Washington D.C. A case will need to make it to the Supreme Court about applying Heller to the states.

I believe the Illinois State Rifle Association filed a suit yesterday to get the Chicago ban overturned.

 

[flamchop]

I'm just glad our US Supreme Court was able to make a ruling to SUPPORT and DEFEND the constitution. Only good things can happen when our constitution is held as paramount to anything else.

If this had gone the other way it could have started a very bad snowballing for the future of what we consider our guaranteed rights in this country. Those rights need to always remain paramount to anything else that may come along in this country.

edited for clarity lol

 

[billbaker3]

Quick question, I live in Chicago, which bans handguns, how long before I can own a handgun legally? If the mayor has his way never.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1026348...n062608.article

The NRA and other gun rights groups have already started the process of filling suit against Chicago, San Fran and some Chicago suburbs.

 

[bpj87]

"Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis today said that 75 percent of Chicago's murders involve firearms. So far this year, Chicago Police have responded to 15,000 "man with a gun" calls and 27,000 calls of "shots fired."

Seems to be a fair amount of guns in Chi town already, the ban is definately working. Roguhly half way through the year and 15,000 calls makes like 80 day. Probably the same guy who was grandfathered in.

Brandon

Spot on, Brandon. :whistling: It seems like these disarmed cities are great places to safely commit crime. ???

 

[hydro-terp]

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

It changes everything! This is the first time the Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

Doc.

In a practical sense, it doesn't. Yes it is the first time the court has found the 2nd amendment to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership, but this announcement was expected from the court and it is ingrained in the culture of this country that there is an individual right to own a gun. It is largely a symbolic ruling.

It is symbolic because Scalia's opinion specifically said the ruling does not affect conceal/carry restrictions, felon/mentally ill restrictions, specific weapons bans (e.g. assault weapons), and current licensing restrictions. All it said was DC went to far in its restriction and that it will strike down any future law that goes too far. This ruling was in a sense a victory for both sides of the debate.

This really did not change anything. The court struck down the D.C. law that overreached by banning handguns in the home; this was expected for a long time. The ruling still allows governments to regulate and restrict gun ownership as long as it does not go too far, which the D.C. ban obviously did. There will be a lot of lawsuits filed to strike down other bans in the coming months, but I imagine they will find out that this ruling does not dramatically alter the 2nd amendment landscape.

Mike, respectfully, I think you're wrong here. This is notable as the SCOTUS has clearly, unambiguously, affirmed the right of private citizens to own handguns for self defense. Federal laws regulating the purchase of weapons won't change, but it pretty clearly says blanket bans are unconstitutional. Another good write up on this important issue can be found here.

Regards - B.B.S.

Edit - Doc made the point better than I did - This ruling affirms that the 2nd amendment bestows an individual right, not a 'collective' right as the anti-gun folks have tried to interpret it. This is huge, and a great day for law abiding gun owners in the US.

I agree completely that it was a big deal from a constitutional law point of view, but it really doesn't change too much in a real world sense. I had hoped the justices would go further in defining what specifically can and cannot be restricted, but they never do. Scalia mentions towards the end of his opinion that the opinion only provides a framework of the meaning of the amendment. Rather than ending the debate, I feel this ruling will keep the debate going.

Im afraid I dont share your interpretation.

This is the first time it has been affirmed by the highest court in the land that its an individual right and not a collective right. In my view, and apparently the SCOTUS, this places it in the same catagory as the first ammendment and thus similar application. So yes there will be restrictions and the "reasonableness" of them will be hashed out.

I cant see how in any stretch of the imagination it is a "symbolic ruling". Blanket bans are off the table completely and every gun law since NFA is now open to revisitation with this new ruling that the 2nd is an individual right and not a collective right. The whole structure holding all of them up was that it wasnt an individual right. One only has to look at how freedom of speach is applied and "regulated" to see where this is going. Dont like it? Get a constitutional convention together and go at it. Let me know how that works out.

I wonder if the ACLU will change their position now that it has been established that its basically a civil right?

Too bad Mr Heston couldnt stick around long enough to see it go down yesterday.