US Supreme Court and 2nd Amendment

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Vic
You could have done that with or without this decision.

We've been trying, the ruling is giving us more legal footing.

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
I read somewhere that a suit was filed this morning against the city.

This.

 

[GenHoth]

after 4 years in the city (Finally moved away) I'm glad this is happening

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: jonks
Of course some people won't be happy till high school kids are allowed to carry concealed.

And yet others won't be happy until all guns are banned forever.

Me? I'll be happy when any adult who is not a criminal or mentally defective is allowed to legally carry.

Being from IL, you must be ecstatic about this. It's pretty much just a scholarly interest to me here in Texas, but for you, this ruling will have real implications. That's exciting. Congratulations.

He even in Texas this is a big thing. Austin is over run with people from California, and there is a strong anti-gun crowd there. Luckily, they aren't the ones in the Senate.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: Nebor
Being from IL, you must be ecstatic about this. It's pretty much just a scholarly interest to me here in Texas, but for you, this ruling will have real implications. That's exciting. Congratulations.

I am very happy. Unfortunately I know that the laws will take a while to work their way through the pipes. First step is to get rid of the Chicago handgun ban, and then attempt to move on to state-wide CCW. It will be a while, but we'll make it eventually.

Would be nice to get rid of FOID as well.

I'm also from chicago.. This ruling kicks asssse. Can't wait till they get rid of the FOID. What a waste of time.

 

[Kelvrick]

Just sent a little donation to the NRA. I'll be going out to celebrate tonight with my NRA hat worn proudly.

This should help us a lot here in California.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Just sent a little donation to the NRA. I'll be going out to celebrate tonight with my NRA hat worn proudly.

This should help us a lot here in California.

how?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Just sent a little donation to the NRA. I'll be going out to celebrate tonight with my NRA hat worn proudly.

This should help us a lot here in California.

Make sure to wear your "I :heart: Wayne LaPierre" shirt.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: GenHoth
Chicago courts don't see eye to eye with anyone outside of city limits

I read somewhere that a suit was filed this morning against the city.

That is correct. We've also had our mayor on TV arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to municipalities and states so the handgun ban here is impervious to legal challenge.

That's wishful thinking on his part if I've ever seen it. Most of the legal minds consulted seem to agree that the ban won't stand up in court in light of the SC decision. It will take some time but it's going to fall.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Just sent a little donation to the NRA. I'll be going out to celebrate tonight with my NRA hat worn proudly.

This should help us a lot here in California.

how?

Not sure how laws are where you are, but three things I'm looking forward to HUGE reform or torn down outright are CCW licensing, ammunition restrictions and our CA "approved handgun list."

we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation

That should take care of the CCW problem, I haven't found much for the other two yet, but I haven't finished reading.

 

[lupi]

Just heard a news report where some official from DC was giving a press conference. He said instructions were now being assembled and sent out to the proper parties to begin acceptin gun registrations. Let the buying frenzy commence!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Just sent a little donation to the NRA. I'll be going out to celebrate tonight with my NRA hat worn proudly.

This should help us a lot here in California.

how?

Not sure how laws are where you are, but three things I'm looking forward to HUGE reform or torn down outright are CCW licensing, ammunition restrictions and our CA "approved handgun list."

we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation

That should take care of the CCW problem, I haven't found much for the other two yet, but I haven't finished reading.

What about your asinine AWB?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: lupi
Just heard a news report where some official from DC was giving a press conference. He said instructions were now being assembled and sent out to the proper parties to begin acceptin gun registrations. Let the buying frenzy commence!

There are no gun stores in DC. No place for the public to buy firearms. And it's unlawful for them to leave the district to buy them and bring them back. So all they'll be doing for a while is registering the previously illegal guns, owned by otherwise law abiding people who just want to do the right thing to defend themselves.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Nebor
There are no gun stores in DC. No place for the public to buy firearms. And it's unlawful for them to leave the district to buy them and bring them back. So all they'll be doing for a while is registering the previously illegal guns, owned by otherwise law abiding people who just want to do the right thing to defend themselves.

But I'm sure there's a few FFLs right? So people can buy guns online (i.e. gunbroker.com) or from private buyers have them shipped to the FFL and transfer them in.

 

[Craig234]

Regardless of my opinion on gun issues, I think this ruling is blatantly wrong, with the political right-wing judges ignoring the law to do what they want.

If you read the dissent, the situation is clear.

The legitimate purposes of the 2nd amendment are met by long guns, and handguns meet no legitimate purpose the 2nd amendment protects that long guns don't meet.

Scalia's rhetoric is disengenuous and selective, but he's the guy who gave us Bush v. Gore, a decision so solid that the court said its reasoning can't be used in any other case.

But I suspect we'll see the gun folks not too conerned with whether the decision is legally correct, and just celebrate that it agrees with the position they want.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Just sent a little donation to the NRA. I'll be going out to celebrate tonight with my NRA hat worn proudly.

This should help us a lot here in California.

how?

Not sure how laws are where you are, but three things I'm looking forward to HUGE reform or torn down outright are CCW licensing, ammunition restrictions and our CA "approved handgun list."

we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation

That should take care of the CCW problem, I haven't found much for the other two yet, but I haven't finished reading.

I live in CA also. The analysis of this case as far as I've seen seem to say that it most gun regulation will survive this ruling.

Here's a useful quote from Scalia's opinion.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. ... 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.

Seems like the ruling goes out of its way to say that continued restrictions on CCW, types of weapons, etc. are all still kosher.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
5-4, yikes

Only 5-4 is somewhat dissapointing.

I agree. This should have been 7-2 or better. Way too close. I need to read the dissent before I comment further.

But proves a point that presidential elections matter, and the right to nominate SC justices with the right philosophy is extremely important to our freedoms. Yet despite this, only ~ 42 - 47% of the public votes. Really sad.

The 5-4 ruling was way too close on this one.

There have been a couple of recent 5-4 rulings that I didn't agree with, Guantanamo & death penalty for child rapists come to mind. The nominating of SC justices will definitely be a deciding factor for me in the presidential election. With a ruling this close, I'd hate to think what could've happened if there were even one more liberal justice on the court.

Your logic sucks.

I support this ruling from the gun rights perspective, but some of you (perhaps in over exuberance) don't realize that this ruling was about more than just gun rights or the liberal/conservative debate. For example, states rights just took another bad hit.

Big picture, people, big picture. Try it some time. Consider that even in the unlikely event that gun ownership were banned in the US, the number of guns and gun owners would probably go up (much like drugs and drug usage). Hell, we'd probably get that revolution the otherwise pro-establishment conservatives like to brag about.

Your logic fails on States Rights. 1st of all, DC claimed their ban was not unconstitutional because DC is not a state and thus the constitution doesn't apply to them.
Secondly, The US Constitution is the ultimate law in the land. It is the frame work for which all other laws in the land are granted their power. Saying it is a hit against state rights is like saying allowing free speech is against States rights because a state instituted a law that proclaimed that people could not peaceably assemble.

 

[351Cleveland]

I was reading the article at cnn.com... this is my favorite line:

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

So... aside from the legal questions, it doesnt appear that handgun law did jack didly squat. Just something I noticed. Move on

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Regardless of my opinion on gun issues, I think this ruling is blatantly wrong, with the political right-wing judges ignoring the law to do what they want.

If you read the dissent, the situation is clear.

The legitimate purposes of the 2nd amendment are met by long guns, and handguns meet no legitimate purpose the 2nd amendment protects that long guns don't meet.

Scalia's rhetoric is disengenuous and selective, but he's the guy who gave us Bush v. Gore, a decision so solid that the court said its reasoning can't be used in any other case.

But I suspect we'll see the gun folks not too conerned with whether the decision is legally correct, and just celebrate that it agrees with the position they want.

Wow, so no soldier carried a pistol back in the colonial days?

The decision is legally correct. It defined what the meaning of ARMS is and what the meaning of PEOPLE is. ARMS=the common weapons in use, and PEOPLE meaning AMERICANS.
It is your complete distaste for guns that has fogged over your ability to see the truth and reasoning behind the SCOTUS ruling.

BTW I will be buying a new gun today to Honor this historic day.

Now, what should I get???

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

While what you say sounds reasonable, you have to consider that the 2nd amendment was written to provide the means to form a militia to fight both external and internal threats, including the government. By the intent of the law, the weaponry citizens should be allowed to possess should evolve with the weapons the government is able to wield against the populace if an uprising were to happen. With that said, I'd love to see every gun vanish from the streets of this country, but since that wont happen no matter what laws are passed, I should have the means to protect myself from someone wishing to do me or my family harm.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: ahurtt
When the constitution was written, the most dangerous thing people had were probably muskets and muzzle-loaders. Not full/semi automatic assault rifles with laser scopes and 30 round clips of ammunition that you could use to mow down dozens of people in short order. The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of such a thing. Now if you want to go out and buy and carry around a 200 year-old muzzle loading musket, nobody should be allowed under the constitution to stop you. But get real. . .times have changed, weapons have changed. There definitely needs to be a line drawn to delineate what is needed and allowed for home and personal defense and what is clearly offensive assault weaponry. Should people be allowed guns? Yes. Absolutely. Any gun they want? Absolutely no way in hell.

While what you say sounds reasonable, you have to consider that the 2nd amendment was written to provide the means to form a militia to fight both external and internal threats, including the government. By the intent of the law, the weaponry citizens should be allowed to possess should evolve with the weapons the government is able to wield against the populace if an uprising were to happen. With that said, I'd love to see every gun vanish from the streets of this country, but since that wont happen no matter what laws are passed, I should have the means to protect myself from someone wishing to do me or my family harm.

QFT, of course if I want a machine gun Ill just move to Nevada (though with proper training and regulation this should be so in all states). Unfortunately with the advent of nuclear biological and chemechal weapons we will forever be outgunned.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The legitimate purposes of the 2nd amendment are met by long guns, and handguns meet no legitimate purpose the 2nd amendment protects that long guns don't meet.

How about 3 legitimate purposes for starters:

Handguns are easier to maneuver in close quarters than rifles or shotguns AND they take up less space allowing them to be securely stored easier.

For example: I live in a small apartment. It is far easier to stuff a pistol in my nightstand drawer than it is to try to cram a shotgun in there. Also, if someone were to break into my apartment while I was sleeping, it would be much easier for me to bring a pistol into play than a rifle or shotgun.

A final example would be someone who is wheelchair bound. It is VERY difficult for them to get in a firing position in their chair while holding a long arm. A handgun is a much better solution for a person in this situation.

You shouldn't assume that others don't have legitimate uses for handguns just because you don't have any.

 

[Michael]

The legitimate purposes of the 2nd amendment are met by long guns, and handguns meet no legitimate purpose the 2nd amendment protects that long guns don't meet.

The SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. The fact that armed forces across the world issue sidearms/handguns to soldiers as a matter of course also shows how poor that arguement is.

From my quick reading of the opinion, I don't see much trouble for cities or states to reasonably restrict the carrying of handguns. For example, can specify that only transport while being locked and only to gunnery range or other such use. Ban them from public places except for a narrow set of permitted transport and it looks like it will be fine. The ruling looks to be fairly targeted at outright bans from owning handguns, not reasonable restrictions on their use.

Michael

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Michael

The legitimate purposes of the 2nd amendment are met by long guns, and handguns meet no legitimate purpose the 2nd amendment protects that long guns don't meet.

The SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. The fact that armed forces across the world issue sidearms/handguns to soldiers as a matter of course also shows how poor that arguement is.

From my quick reading of the opinion, I don't see much trouble for cities or states to reasonably restrict the carrying of handguns. For example, can specify that only transport while being locked and only to gunnery range or other such use. Ban them from public places except for a narrow set of permitted transport and it looks like it will be fine. The ruling looks to be fairly targeted at outright bans from owning handguns, not reasonable restrictions on their use.

Michael

It's a good start at least. It's not unreasonable to let the next lawsuit expand on this one: "The court has ruled that individuals have the right to carry firearms, how can this right be restricted to one's own home? No other right is so restricted. The court acknowledges the right of an individual to self-defense, but do they claim that this right is only in effect within the confines of the home? What about one's car?" Etc, etc.

I'm not saying it will be quick, but there's a lot of great language there to drive a wedge into draconian controls.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Nebor
There are no gun stores in DC. No place for the public to buy firearms. And it's unlawful for them to leave the district to buy them and bring them back. So all they'll be doing for a while is registering the previously illegal guns, owned by otherwise law abiding people who just want to do the right thing to defend themselves.

But I'm sure there's a few FFLs right? So people can buy guns online (i.e. gunbroker.com) or from private buyers have them shipped to the FFL and transfer them in.

As far as I know, the only FFLs held in DC are by political organizations. This will blow your mind, but the Brady Campaign has an FFL, and are exempt from all DC gun laws. For "research" purposes only, of course.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Michael

The legitimate purposes of the 2nd amendment are met by long guns, and handguns meet no legitimate purpose the 2nd amendment protects that long guns don't meet.

The SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. The fact that armed forces across the world issue sidearms/handguns to soldiers as a matter of course also shows how poor that arguement is.

From my quick reading of the opinion, I don't see much trouble for cities or states to reasonably restrict the carrying of handguns. For example, can specify that only transport while being locked and only to gunnery range or other such use. Ban them from public places except for a narrow set of permitted transport and it looks like it will be fine. The ruling looks to be fairly targeted at outright bans from owning handguns, not reasonable restrictions on their use.

Michael

It's a good start at least. It's not unreasonable to let the next lawsuit expand on this one: "The court has ruled that individuals have the right to carry firearms, how can this right be restricted to one's own home? No other right is so restricted. The court acknowledges the right of an individual to self-defense, but do they claim that this right is only in effect within the confines of the home? What about one's car?" Etc, etc.

I'm not saying it will be quick, but there's a lot of great language there to drive a wedge into draconian controls.

Yup, lots of lawsuits to be fought, the more ambitious of which were filed earlier today.