US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST




 
--
US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
 
June 26th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 

Topic: US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST


US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST.
June 26th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
I bet your heart is in your throat right now.
June 26th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Ban was overturned, as I thought it would be. Its a 5-4 ruling with all conservative judges voting against and the libs-moderates for. Which means its not over as the case will certainly be brought up again in the near future the moment that a new Justice is seated, who will probably replace Conservative Kennedy (as he close to 90).

Scalia did say that the ruling only applies to homes and is not a universal right, things like CC can still be banned for example. He also said that the 2nd Amendment itself may be outmoded due to the fact thats it was based on 1789 society and not 2008.
--
US Supreme Court Rules on DC vs Heller (2nd Amendment Case) at 1000 HRS EST
June 26th, 2008  
Marinerhodes
 
 
This is the first time since 1791 that the 2nd amendment has been conclusively interpreted. I don't disagree with not owning assault weapons and weapons modified. Afterall who really needs fully automatic weapons? Even the US military no longer uses fully automatic assault rifles for general use. But to categorically deny an individual the right to bear arms is wrong.

As for a new justice standing in..somehow I don't doubt it. At the same time it depends on who is in office to do the appointing right?
June 26th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
I don't disagree with not owning assault weapons and weapons modified. Afterall who really needs fully automatic weapons? Even the US military no longer uses fully automatic assault rifles for general use. But to categorically deny an individual the right to bear arms is wrong.
Well put. I see no problem with letting people have handguns, but you don't need an M-60.
June 27th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 
I had already expressed my disappointment that a miserable 5 of 9 think our Bill of Rights is valid. It should have been unanimous. Also, the language I'd already seen makes it sound like the Supereme Court has GIVEN us a right, rather than simply confirming that a God Given Right was guaranteed clearly and obviously, in the 2nd Amendment. I was also concerned about language that seemed to qualify the right rather than simply confirm it.

Steve Bonta (PhD and brilliant schollar and journalist) has made a quick study of this decision and the facts are worse than I'd feared. Don't celebrate yet...
Here's what he (Dr. Bonta) has to say:

"I'm sure you've heard about the Supreme Court's "landmark" ruling today on the Second Amendment. LewRockwell.com, etc., are in full celebration mode, for example. However, the majority decision (much of which I've already read) effectively destroys the Second Amendment. I assume that sooner or later, somebody else is going to figure this out, but you heard it here first. First of all, the decision makes explicit (pp. 54-55, and also in the intro) that the Supremes do not see laws against firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill as in violation of the Second Amendment; nor do they oppose "laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Furthermore, after arguing earlier in the decision that the Second Amendment is NOT, as some detractors have argued, to be interpreted as only applying to weapons in existence at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Alito et al say this (p. 56): "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [the case under discussion] 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.... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the eighteenth century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.... but the fact that modern development have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." Translation: you still can't own the good stuff, only now, laws banning or severely limiting the right to own military firearms have the countenance of a Supreme Court decision.

A couple of other thoughts: Early in the document, the majority correctly note that the Second Amendment was held to protect a pre-existing right, not to bestow one. Yet only a few pages later, in summarizing their view of the amendment that informs the rest of the decision, they affirm that the Second Amendment "confers" an individual right to keep and bear arms. And while we're at it, a second very imnportant semantic point whihc sixty pages of quodlibetical argumentation ignores entirely: the entire thrust of the decision concerns whether the Second Amendment permits government to "prohibit" firearms ownership, when in point of fact, the Second Amendment uses the word "infringe." Infringement, of course, means legal interference or hindrance in any degree, up to and including, but by no means confined to, outright prohibition. Accordingly, the Supremes see the DC handgun ban as a clear violation, but have no problem with myriads of other infringements on the right, as the document makes explicit.

Scott, you may recall that I predicted this outcome several months back. In the short run, gun owners will rejoice, until it dawns on everybody what this decision really means. For the first time in U.S. history, we have a Supreme Court decision defending not the Second Amendment in its pristinity but the "right" of government to infringe on the 2nd Amendment pretty much at its pleasure, as long as it does not resort to blanket firearms bans and outright confiscation of entire classes of weapons that haven't been banned already. As for military firearms like fully-automatic weapons, high-capaity shotguns, RPGs and the like, that are already prohibited, this ruling strengthens rathers than weakens such laws.
June 27th, 2008  
major liability
 
 
Good news in the short term, but the fact that it's gotten this bad in the first place is a sure sign of how badly our rights have been eroded by politicians over the years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Scalia did say that the ruling only applies to homes and is not a universal right, things like CC can still be banned for example. He also said that the 2nd Amendment itself may be outmoded due to the fact thats it was based on 1789 society and not 2008.
Scalia thinks it only applies to homeowners?

Edit: What's so different about 2008? There are still criminals and people with ill-will in general, though certainly not as many as the media makes it seem. There are still wild animals in some places. I thought that it was supposed to be the duty and right of the people to fight any government that becomes tyrannical and disregards the Constitution. That was probably the main reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
June 27th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
It was but you know... times have changed. The government wants total control.
June 27th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
It was but you know... times have changed. The government wants total control.
And how is that any different from the monarchies of Europe in the 1780s?
June 27th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by major liability
Edit: What's so different about 2008? There are still criminals and people with ill-will in general, though certainly not as many as the media makes it seem. There are still wild animals in some places. I thought that it was supposed to be the duty and right of the people to fight any government that becomes tyrannical and disregards the Constitution. That was probably the main reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
I think his point is more about the level of firepower that can be purchased today vs that of 1780's. The idea that a 230 year old document is relevant today in anything more than spirit is perhaps what needs to be determined.

Lets face it 100+ years ago "motor vehicles" used to require someone walking ahead of them with a flag to notify on coming traffic of there presence I am sure most people see that while the spirit of the law was right it could no longer be applied to today's motor vehicles.
 


Similar Topics
Iraq Detention Case Heads To High Court
Col. Oliver North: Washington, D.C. 2nd Amendment case to be heard
For Justices, Another Day On Detainees
D.C. Circuit Court Hands Down Victory for Individual 2nd Amendment Rights!
Who Should Bush nominate for Supreme Court?