Justice for DC

[rbbrock]

I just wanted to add my voice, that this is excellent news for us gun-owners. I won't take the time to read the opinion until this weekend, so I won't bother venturing any thoughts about how important or symbolic it is, but seeing as it found DC's blanket ban unconstitutional (when finding a law unconstitutional is always a "last resort") it can't be characterized as anything other than a win. :thumbs:

 

[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.

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.

If you think that this changes the landscape of the 2nd amendment in the U.S., you are wrong. This ruling will bring on more and more legislation and litigation and decades from now when 2nd amendment jurisprudence has been settled, we will be right back at the same place we are now. Gun ownership is a right of all US citizens, but one that is subject to reasonable restrictions (for which there can be a lot of).

It is symbolic because what did it do in the grand scheme of things? Most current gun laws will not be struck down based upon this ruling....it is simply too narrow to affect a large change. It is symbolic because the court said what everyone already knew. Even the Brady Center was calling this a victory! What was keeping the vast majority of current gun laws up was not the idea that there was no individual right, it was what the Court said in its ruling: the right is not limitless and may and can be reasonably restricted. Hell, the court didn't even say what level of scrutiny it will give to gun-control laws.

Both sides can and are claiming a sense of victory from the ruling. The only thing the ruling really does is to make sure that enormous amounts of time and money will be spent by both sides in the future to get as right back to where we are now.

 

[hydro-terp]

If you think that this changes the landscape of the 2nd amendment in the U.S., you are wrong. This ruling will bring on more and more legislation and litigation and decades from now when 2nd amendment jurisprudence has been settled, we will be right back at the same place we are now. Gun ownership is a right of all US citizens, but one that is subject to reasonable restrictions (for which there can be a lot of).

It is symbolic because what did it do in the grand scheme of things? Most current gun laws will not be struck down based upon this ruling....it is simply too narrow to affect a large change. It is symbolic because the court said what everyone already knew. Even the Brady Center was calling this a victory! What was keeping the vast majority of current gun laws up was not the idea that there was no individual right, it was what the Court said in its ruling: the right is not limitless and may and can be reasonably restricted. Hell, the court didn't even say what level of scrutiny it will give to gun-control laws.

Both sides can and are claiming a sense of victory from the ruling. The only thing the ruling really does is to make sure that enormous amounts of time and money will be spent by both sides in the future to get as right back to where we are now.

Too narrow in its decision? Tell that to the free speech and Roe V Wade supporters (I have no stake in the claim for the latter). Every challenge to every gun law since the NFA has been deflected because there has never been a decision on the meaning of the 2A. We have one now so game on.

I never said there wouldn’t be restrictions. In fact I specifically said there would be but that would have to be worked out under the same scrutiny as the other rights.

If the fact that the SCOTUS declared it an individual right is irrelevant then why did folks wait until today to go after Chicago’s similar law and others to follow?

“The court said what everybody already everyone knew?” You really think that carries some weight as to whether a law is constitutional or not? Come on…

As far as the Brady Bunch saying anything whatever comes out of there mouths is meaningless to me. Did you expect them to throw up their arms and say hey we’re wrong and stop sending us money?

I’ve read the ruling and what others above my pay grade have said about it. Its pretty bullet proof no matter what NPR and the dissenters say about it.

I’m crackin’ a beer and poppin’ some popcorn. Things are going to get interesting.

I hope the cigar you smoked yesterday was as tasty as mine.

 

[DrMike]

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

x2

 

[Mike33]

I'll try responding one at a time so maybe you can understand this....

Too narrow in its decision? Tell that to the free speech and Roe V Wade supporters (I have no stake in the claim for the latter). Every challenge to every gun law since the NFA has been deflected because there has never been a decision on the meaning of the 2A. We have one now so game on.

It is narrow, anyone who knows anything about constitutional law would see that immediately. Gun laws have been challenged extensively over the last several decades with mixed results...do you even know what you are talking about? The reason why the amendment had never been conclusively decided before the court until now was because no one cared until the last 30 or so years. Gun-control and gun-rights groups have made this issue what it is.

I never said there wouldn’t be restrictions. In fact I specifically said there would be but that would have to be worked out under the same scrutiny as the other rights.

Actually, the court never said what scrutiny it would give the 2nd amendment. And seeing how there is different scrutiny for different amendments and rights, how would it be the same?

If the fact that the SCOTUS declared it an individual right is irrelevant then why did folks wait until today to go after Chicago’s similar law and others to follow?

Read what I wrote earlier, more litigation and legislation and the same result. Challenges to existing laws by the gun-rights groups, lobbying and getting new laws passed by the gun-control groups. Not that hard to figure out what was going to happen after the decision.....big shocker

“The court said what everybody already everyone knew?” You really think that carries some weight as to whether a law is constitutional or not? Come on…

Once again, you obviously can't understand some things. I never said that in relation to the constitutionality of the issue, I said that making the point that everyone knew what this ruling was going to be (it was expected for several years) and that the vast majority of people in this country have thought this way for along time.

As far as the Brady Bunch saying anything whatever comes out of there mouths is meaningless to me. Did you expect them to throw up their arms and say hey we’re wrong and stop sending us money?

(sigh)....there is no right and wrong in this issue, as painful and as hard as that might be for you to comprehend. 5-4 ruling, over 200 years of court decisions to get us to this point, and some of the best legal minds in the world in both camps....and you are going to boil it down to "I'm right and you're wrong?" Lol.....yea, ok.

I’ve read the ruling and what others above my pay grade have said about it. Its pretty bullet proof no matter what NPR and the dissenters say about it.

I don't even know what this means. Bulletproof? What are you talking about? I haven't read what the NPR, the NRA, or the Brady Center have said about this...I like to read things for myself and read from people who are objective and give both sides.

I’m crackin’ a beer and poppin’ some popcorn. Things are going to get interesting.

I hope the cigar you smoked yesterday was as tasty as mine.

Lol....once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. My '05 Cohiba Esplendido was pretty tasty though, thanks for asking.

Not sure what else I can say other than this ruling was about as sensible as it gets. Reaffirms the right to have firearms for sport and self-protection, while placing important restrictions on that right. However, the reasonable people will try to be shouted down by both sides who can't find a compromise.

 

[Devil Doc]

Every appellate court that has ruled in similar cases, except one, has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a collective right. That no longer can happen, because the Supreme Court said it's an individual right. That's a big deal and a substantial victory. All our rights have limitations. You can't yell fire in a theater. You can't libel and slander people. You can't smoke pot because your religion considers it a sacrament.

Doc.

 

[Seanholio]

You can't smoke pot because your religion considers it a sacrament.

Doc.

A better analogy I heard on the radio was "You can't sacrifice virgins."

 

[hydro-terp]

Quote 7: This was my attempt at lightening the mood in this discussion and it seems to have missed its mark.
I’m tired of typing and I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree here.

Good day

 

[Breedy]

Devil Doc hit the nail squarely on the head. This decision by the SCotUS defined the right to own a gun as an individaul right not as a collective group. What I find whole ironic about the whole thing is that even if the founders (given that we had just won our independence with weapons owned by individuals) thought that state militia's should be the only ones allowed to have weapons, where would those said militias keep their weapon?At home of course.

There scary part is that every other article in the bill of rights is extended to individuals with out question. Can you imagine a world where your freedom of religion could be denied by a local or state law. Or perhaps your the right against illegal search and seizure of some ISOM's from your Humidor because your local officials passed a law. The fact is people would never stand for those type of actions, however, the court made it clear that gun owners are still fair game.

What I mean is, many have stated that the decision was a already made and would be on the sign of gun owners. However, the court rule 5-4, pretty much down party lines. That is the scary part, that 4 judges felt that your rights were not that important compared to polictial agendas or personal ideologies. If justices are supposed to be fair and impartial then how could the decision have been so close.

Further, listen politicians are saying. Yes some local mayors have spoken out against the decision, but the vast majority of national canidates have been fairly nuetral on the topic, giving the impression that they are against increase gun legislation. I would caution you not to be fooled (not that I actually believe those as well educated on such topics would be) this is just election year rhetoric and some canidates are afraid of disgruntled voters.

So in closing, does the decision change things, yes. The court has no put gun owners "in the right", to change the verdict will be more difficult. On a day to day basis, it basically means the the local powers can not come in and take away your right to own a weapon to protect your home.

 

[sonuvabum]

The only thing I would add here is that many have expressed the sentiment that this favorable decision was a foregone conclusion but I would have to disagree. I would consider this a razor thin margin and one that could just have easily gone 5-4 the other way.

I believe the affirmation of individual rights portion of the decision is likely bigger than the gun owners rights aspects but who really has a crystal ball to see what the future holds.

What I do know for sure, is that the fallout will be most interesting to watch in the coming years.