Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

[Goobieman]

Havent seen a link to the opinion...

Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns | Reuters

Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

 

[Ikari]

High court strikes down gun ban

High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

Kinda disappointed that it was 5-4, but they did make the right call on this one. Though they allow for certain infrigments, they'll probably allow many of the automatic weapons bans and other infringements to our rights to keep and bear arms that should rightfully be done away with. But at least they are willing to draw the line somewhere. I don't know what sort of impact this will have on places like Chicago. I'm sure there are troops of lawyers now gearing up and taking cases to all sorts of different cities over a wide variety of bans and restrictions. But with the string of decisions coming out of the SCOTUS lately, this is one in which I think most of us can agree on.

 

[Goobieman]

Link to the decision.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

These seems contradictory:

“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.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

And this may not bode well:

“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.”

 

[Indy]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Yeah, its a bit hard to see how a universal gun ban does not violate the second amendment. Assault weapons and such should definitely be banned IMO but handguns? If they want to do that they should work on changing the constitution first, otherwise its a lost cause.

 

[shuamort]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Here's the decision.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationmilitia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f)
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2.
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 castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons 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 traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3.
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. 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 satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.


Good decision.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Good decision?


This is a BLOW to anti-liberty lunatic fringe idiots.

. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationmilitia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

This is the first time in US history that SCOTUS put to paper that it is an individual right.


The collective right fools just sang thier swan song.



VICTORY


I see though the 4 treasounous judges are still at thier old prohibitionist tricks.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Yeah, its a bit hard to see how a universal gun ban does not violate the second amendment. Assault weapons and such should definitely be banned IMO but handguns? If they want to do that they should work on changing the constitution first, otherwise its a lost cause.

What is an assault weapon? :roll:


Did you read the decision? You are wrong.

 

[Ikari]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Yeah, its a bit hard to see how a universal gun ban does not violate the second amendment. Assault weapons and such should definitely be banned IMO but handguns? If they want to do that they should work on changing the constitution first, otherwise its a lost cause.

What's an assault weapon?

edit: damned you Reverend_Hellh0und, you beat me to it!

 

[Goobieman]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Yeah, its a bit hard to see how a universal gun ban does not violate the second amendment. Assault weapons and such should definitely be banned IMO but handguns?

How do 'assault weapons' not fit under this decision?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

What's an assault weapon?

edit: damned you Reverend_Hellh0und, you beat me to it!

:lol:


This is probably one of the best decisions EVER by SCOTUS. Way to uphold the constitution.


I have a particular bottle of scotch for this! :mrgreen:

 

[Goobieman]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Good decision?
This is a BLOW to anti-liberty lunatic fringe idiots.

Except...

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 satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Sounds to me that the court would allow licenseing and registration, so long as they are shall-issue.

 

[Gill]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

:rock I'm doing backflips for joy !! I've been waiting for this ruling for many years. It's a good thing Bush put two good judges in place or this would have gone the other way.

I only wish the Court had banned the requirement to register guns, but they didn't. At least they did away with the gun lock requirements. What good is a gun for protection if you have to find a key and unlock it while some drug crazed lunatic is beating down your door?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Except...



Sounds to me that the court would allow licenseing and registration, so long as they are shall-issue.

This is actually good as well. NJ is a "shall-issue" state that does not issue CCW to anyone but those connected to the dems or judges.

This I think tells the state that "shall-issue" means "shall-issue".

 

[Ikari]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

To be honest, I don't think the decision went far enough. I am happy that they went on the side of the second amendment this time. But fully automatic weapons are still banned, there's still all sorts of infringments I think should be removed. I mean, ok maybe surface to air missiles are out, but guns are guns. I think all guns should be allowed to the people. Well ok, there are probably some that are right out so one can't quite make such a wide statement as that. But all I know is that I really think I should have that AA-12 (fully automatic assault shotgun) cause...no other reason than I want it.

There is still some work to do to fully restore our second amendment rights, but this is a step in the right direction.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

To be honest, I don't think the decision went far enough. I am happy that they went on the side of the second amendment this time. But fully automatic weapons are still banned, there's still all sorts of infringments I think should be removed. I mean, ok maybe surface to air missiles are out, but guns are guns. I think all guns should be allowed to the people. Well ok, there are probably some that are right out so one can't quite make such a wide statement as that. But all I know is that I really think I should have that AA-12 (fully automatic assault shotgun) cause...no other reason than I want it.

There is still some work to do to fully restore our second amendment rights, but this is a step in the right direction.

They went further than every other ruling combined. Light years.


However you are right, there is still more to go.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Funny how no longer is the supreme court filled with Activist judges.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Funny how no longer is the supreme court filled with Activist judges.

Funny how that's your first comment...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Funny how no longer is the supreme court filled with Activist judges.

Nope it still is, just not enough of them to monkey with the constitution this time.



Face it, the left lost on this one and the constitution was restored a little bit here.

 

[disneydude]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

:rock I only wish the Court had banned the requirement to register guns...

Why would you be against the requirement to register guns?

I cannot think of any good argument for that.

As for the ruling, I'm not particularly disturbed by it. Although I personally wouldn't keep a gun in my house, I think people should be able to. I would like to see less guns around (especially here in Los Angeles).

I do believe that there need to be restrictions on the type of weapons that people are allowed to own, I support a waiting period to purchase a gun...and I definitely support gun registration.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Funny how that's your first comment...

I like the hypocrisy of the thread. It's the first thing that struck me. How 3/5 posters have been on record complaining about SCOTUS as recently as a month ago. I could care less about this ruling TBH. Just thought it was funny how SCOTUS is only filled with activist judges when it comes to giving terrorist rights or abortion.

 

[aps]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

I'm actually happy with this outcome. Had they ruled the other way, I honestly think it would have had a negative impact on Obama come this November. So we needed this result. Otherwise, for whatever reason, I couldn't care less about this subject matter.

 

[disneydude]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Funny how no longer is the supreme court filled with Activist judges.

The term "Activist Judge" is simply used by the right-wing to refer to decisions they disagree with....nothing more.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Breyer's dissent is pathetic-from his demand for an interest balancing approach meaning the right might exist in one locality but not another to his dismissal of army officers Amicus saying soldiers with prior handgun training are better soldiers-(he said people could rent places to store guns outside the district)

I think the four dissenters should be precluded from having armed protection from criminals

 

[Goobieman]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Why would you be against the requirement to register guns?
I cannot think of any good argument for that.

Funny... I cant think of any good argument TO register them.

I do believe that there need to be restrictions on the type of weapons that people are allowed to own

There are. People may only own "arms" as the term is used in the amendment.

 

[Ikari]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

I like the hypocrisy of the thread. It's the first thing that struck me. How 3/5 posters have been on record complaining about SCOTUS as recently as a month ago. I could care less about this ruling TBH. Just thought it was funny how SCOTUS is only filled with activist judges when it comes to giving terrorist rights or abortion.

what about me?