Heller Affirmed

[KenpoTex]

The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The opinion was released about 5 minutes ago...details to follow as they become available.

Here's a link to the live SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

 

[Grenadier]

Woo hoo!!!!

Drinks are on me, if any of y'all are in my area! :drinkbeer

 

[Grenadier]

As I suspected, a 5-4 vote, with Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy voting correctly, to uphold the Bill of Rights.

Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, voted against the Bill of Rights.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

Rumors Tuesday, were that Scalia was to deliver the court's majority decision, and when that happened, I started having that feeling of the warm fuzzies.

Had this decision been taken up a few years ago, I suspect that the decision would have been 4-5, instead, with Day-O'Connor voting against the Bill of Rights.

 

[jkembry]

See...the system does work...sometimes!

They did the right thing.

 

[CuongNhuka]

to uphold the Bill of Rights.

Wasn't the whole case about the part were it says "a well regulated militia". My understanding was the debate was not "whether or not to keep the Second Ammendment" but "does the Second Ammendment apply to individuals or a militia only".

 

[allenjp]

The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The opinion was released about 5 minutes ago...details to follow as they become available.

Here's a link to the live SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

YAY!!!!! Should I re-apply for a ccw now???

 

[Kreth]

I was surprised not to find a thread about this yet...

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

Full article

 

[MA-Caver]

Beat me to it. (glad I checked first )
This is good news of course for us gun lovers and gun-rights supporters. This snippet I think helps say it all.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Still how long before THIS is over-turned? How long before some idjit shoots someone and lawmakers go up in arms saying we need stricter enforcement and less ownership. How long before a legit gun-owner uses his firearm in defense of his home causes lawmakers and anti-gun advocates to go nuts and demand changes which would shred the Constitution even further?

Still a red-letter day none the less. Lets hope/pray that it'll last.

 

[stone_dragone]

Can I get a WOO-HOO?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Can anyone but the SC overturn a SC decision?

 

[CoryKS]

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Criminey, people can't even shoot a gun without talking on a cell phone.

 

[tellner]

MA-Caver, there will always be people who want more restrictive gun laws. They aren't any more likely to be idjits than gunnies are.

The decision went the right way, but it's not nearly as expansive as it might have been. The Court still said that "common sense" gun laws are acceptable. Common sense can cover just about anything less than complete prohibition.

You will note that the last two times Scalia and Clarence "Uncle" Thomas were in the minority they railed and ranted and called the majority everything but traitors for daring to defy them. The minority in this case was civil and professional. Scalia and his hand puppet are still thugs, but they're thugs who happened to rule the right way for a change.

Restrictive States will continue to restrict, but the language they'll use will be more guarded. I'm thinking that there will be challenges to things like fees and sole law enforcement discretion for gun ownership. The argument will be similar to the ones against poll taxes and licensing journalists.

Congress won't do anything, not now and not under a Democratic Legislature with a Democratic President. They understand that it's national political suicide. If they can't even raise their hands in a querulous voice to ask if maybe it would be OK to not go along with the Republicans even once there's no chance they'll take a risk like thing for at least ten or twenty years.

This won't mean much to anyone outside of DC and maybe Chicago for a while. It may not even make a difference to them for years. There will have to be studies and impact statements and plans for how the proles will be allowed to exercise their rights. Look for fees, very restrictive background checks, no licenses for gun dealers and so on.

 

[Empty Hands]

Clarence "Uncle" Thomas

That was ugly and unnecessary. There are better ways to express disdain than trafficking in repulsive racial images.

 

[Empty Hands]

I do believe that this was the correct ruling. However, the number of high profile cases in the last few years decided by 5-4 votes along political lines is troubling. It makes more clear the fact that what drives the Supreme Court is political beliefs as much if not more than an academic understanding of the law.

 

[Kacey]

Moderator Note:

Two threads, Heller Affirmed and Supreme Court overturns DC gun ban, have been merged into a single thread because they both dealt with the same topic. Because "Heller Affirmed" was posted first, they have been merged under that title.

Karen Cohn
MT Senior Moderator

 

[tellner]

Ugly and unnecessary? Possibly, even probably. But Thomas is the sorriest excuse for a Supreme Court Justice in at least the last half century. He is, by his own admission, unfit to sit on the bench. I have nothing but contempt for him. It has nothing to do with his conservatism and everything to do with his stated disrespect for the Law in general and the Consitution in particular.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Can anyone but the SC overturn a SC decision?

Sorta. The Supreme Court is only branch that can officialy overrule a Supreme Court decision (for example, Brown v Board overturned an earlier ruling that said 'seperate but equal' is ok). However, there is no law saying that D.C.s ban cann't simply be resent. Infact, the Districs Legislature could keep passing it, and keep having it denied, until the Supreme Court simply gives up, and overturns it's earlier ruling. I cannot sight an incident of that happening, but I do know that Congress/Senate does it every know and then, so it wouldn't surprise me if D.C. could too.

And here is where things get anonnying. Only Congress/Senate can write the Law (by actually passing it), only the Court can interpirt it, and only the Executive can inforce it. Meaning, as long as the decision is simply ignored, DC could get away with that law even if the Supreme Court says they cann't. An example was during the Civil War Lincoln was taken to the Supreme Court because someone decied that his war time powers did not include taking Habeous Corpous (which Lincoln had suspended in order to allow him to inprison people for speaking out against him/the War). The Court ruled against Lincoln, but he simply ignored the decision, and kept on doing what he was doing.

Again, I cannot sight Case Law of a non-federal branch doing this, but I imagine that the principle holds. Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the federal level Executive Branch)

 

[cdunn]

Can anyone but the SC overturn a SC decision?

Yes - The Constitution is amendable - Witness the 16th Amendment. It is generally easier to wait until the court has been packed in the other direction and go for a reversal.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actual 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.


More on this:

Your Rights Online: Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals



Posted by timothy on Thursday June 26, @01:37PM
from the founders'-rolling-speed-reduced-slightly dept.
Now.Imperfect writes "In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns." This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle.

• Read More...

 

[KenpoTex]

Thanks to everyone for posting the updates...I had to get to sleep this morning but I knew I had to wait until the decision had been made

From what I've heard, Wayne LaPierre (NRA) stated that the NRA will be filing lawsuits in Chicago and SF very soon.

While the decision wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination (there is plenty of room for the liberals to keep meddling), it definately beats what would have happened if it had gone the other way.