Heller Affirmed

[Brian R. VanCise]

This is pretty much how I figured the ruling would come out and yes I am happy!

 

[Deaf Smith]

While I would have prefered it was 7-2 or 6-3, well 5-4 is still a win. On the bright side, the 5 judges who affirmed all signed the opinion (which means they all concurred, totaly, with the reasoning.)

Pretty weird the desenting opinion, Stevens I think, said the 'people' ment differnt things in different articles of the Bill of Rights. Talk about trying to re-write the constitution!

Now the fight has just begun. The next step will be feeling out just where ones rights end. Carry out side the house? Can simi-autos be banned? Can magazine capacity be restricted? Limit on how many you may own? Registration?

Those will be the next steps. It's going to be a long hard road. And some poor soul is going to have to be the guina pig who goes to court.

Join the NRA. We have just begun to fight!

Deaf.. NRA Endowed Member, Texas State Rifle Association Life Member.

 

[jks9199]

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.

Not exactly.

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.

There's a difference between a ruling and actions taken. Miranda could not stop coerced interrogations, only define the consequences at trial should a confession be found to be coerced.

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)

There is no "higher federal authority" than the US Supreme Court in the interpretation of law. There is no "higher federal authority" in the making of law than the Congress of the United States. There is no "higher federal authority" in the implementation and execution of law than the Office of the President and his executive officers. When all the branches do their job properly, this is the great strength of the United States Constitution. There are checks and balances on what each branch can do, and in what arenas they can act. When (as is very arguably currently the case vis a vis the Congress and the Presidency) the various branches allow another to usurp their powers... things can get messy. I refer you to Schoolhouse Rock for a great summary of the idea...

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.

Exactly. There are two ways that a US Supreme Court ruling may be changed. The Court may revisit it's opinion in another case (like Brown v The Board of Education did), or the Constitution may be amended. Despite today's ruling, were either the People or the Congress able to muster the political will and capital to draft an amendment reading something like "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is expressly limited to the duly constituted military and law enforcement bodies operating under the supervision of and with the authorization from the States or Federal Government respectively, and no person shall be permitted to keep or bear any firearm privately" -- today's ruling would be moot, and there'd be no private gun ownership. (I realize that's an extreme point; I made it so intentionally.) Or, were the amendment to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms privately shall not be infringed by the government in any way" -- then anything would go.

 

[tellner]

Now that I've read through the decision I find it remarkably, hmm, uninformative. It says there's an individual right. It overturns complete bans. It overturns the particular trigger lock law. But the language about reasonable gun control gives no guidance at all. It doesn't even say "local option". It just says "this and that and the other thing are obviously the sorts of things that are alright".

It's impossible to tell what the majority meant except that they were eager to send a message. It is, however, in line with other recent decisions by the Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas lock-step block - Affirm a right in general but allow pretty much any sort of restriction in particular. It's a first step, but it's a first step that doesn't really go very far. Chicago's effective prohibition will almost certainly pass muster for instance.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Now that I've read through the decision I find it remarkably, hmm, uninformative. It says there's an individual right. It overturns complete bans. It overturns the particular trigger lock law. But the language about reasonable gun control gives no guidance at all. It doesn't even say "local option". It just says "this and that and the other thing are obviously the sorts of things that are alright".

It's impossible to tell what the majority meant except that they were eager to send a message. It is, however, in line with other recent decisions by the Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas lock-step block - Affirm a right in general but allow pretty much any sort of restriction in particular. It's a first step, but it's a first step that doesn't really go very far. Chicago's effective prohibition will almost certainly pass muster for instance.

And that is why I say, join the NRA. We have a long long road ahead of us, but unlike the British, we do have a good road to follow.

Deaf

 

[CuongNhuka]

There is no "higher federal authority" than the US Supreme Court in the interpretation of law.

When I said "Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the Federal Level Executive Branch)" I did not mean interpriting the ruling, I mean inforcing it. And in this case (because it is a Federal District) the only ones who can force DC to follow this ruling is a federal officer. Which, you may note, is what I said.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And that is why I say, join the NRA. We have a long long road ahead of us, but unlike the British, we do have a good road to follow.

Deaf

Yes, unlike the Brits we DO have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms......now the fight is to define that right in the most liberty loving way possible!

I've seen much pessimistic handwringing about this decision not going far enough on the part of 2nd Amendment supporters.....but the reality is that this BATTLE was an utter DEFEAT for the gun-grabbers, and they know it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

When I said "Unless a higher govermental authority were to make them (Ie, an official of the Federal Level Executive Branch)" I did not mean interpriting the ruling, I mean inforcing it. And in this case (because it is a Federal District) the only ones who can force DC to follow this ruling is a federal officer. Which, you may note, is what I said.

Which basically consists of prosecuting any state or local entity who enforces an unconstitutional law criminally and/or suing them civily in federal court. DC can't just 'ignore' this......anymore than they could ignore Miranda or Tennessee v. Garner.

Specifically it opens the city coffers WIDE OPEN to federal lawsuit, and large sums of moneying being carried away.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Hmm.

Very happy.

Not perfect, and not finished by any means, but....


Hooah.

 

[tellner]

Sanford Levinson has a well-written piece in the Huffington Post. He takes a look at the legal and internal political divisions in the Court and finds both sides badly wanting.

the Court should remand the case back to the court below for reconsideration under a proper, somewhat looser, standard that would still have easily supported invalidating the ordinance. Unanimous acceptance of his sensible view might have helped to diminish at least some of the culture war that has been waged now for at least four decades

and

If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens were a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions are what is sometimes called "law-office history," in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions.

Oh, and just in case you want your head to spin around like that girl in The Exorcist take a look at James Jacob's column.

Proponents of gun owners' rights were called paranoid when they purported to see a gun control movement that aimed to make the U.S. gun free. However, the so-called paranoia started to look like political realism

and

[Heller] establishes what was for so long denied, that the Bill of Rights guarantees individual Americans a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is now recognized as protecting Americans from ever being disarmed by their (federal) government.