Heller ruling out of SCOTUS today?

[DParker]

Does anyone read this decision to change anything in Texas?

I certainly don't. TX law already seems to be predicated on an individual RKBA.

In the sense that the court affirmed DC's right to impose licensing and registration requirements for possession of handguns in the home, look for some Texas cities to try the same. Whether or not it would ultimately pass muster in a legal challenge, somebody is sure to try it.

They mostly wouldn't have passed muster before, and they wouldn't now. TX state law supercedes local law, and the way the state law currently stands I think it would be pretty difficult for a local government to construct a restrictive ordinance that was not at odds with it.

[DParker]

Dude, lighten up.

The quote I posted from the decision did not reference any case law. I was merely refuting Herb's post where he said I was wrong.

Take a chill pill.

Anygun

Did I give the impression that I was upset about something? I just asked a simple question. No need to get all wound up in order to tell someone else who isn't to calm down.

[The Annoyed Man]

Here is the official Brady Campaign response:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... elease=992

News Release

Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke
On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling
For Immediate Release:
06-26-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319 Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.�

# # #

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in America, through education, research, and legal advocacy. The programs of the Brady Center complement the legislative and grassroots mobilization of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.

[DParker]

Here is the official Brady Campaign response:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... elease=992

What?! The Brady Campaign issuing a statement that is not consistent with the facts?!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

[Kythas]

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

This would seem to me that the Court would uphold open carry. They specifically state an individual has a right to possess and carry weapons.

I understand the need to regulate concealed carry, but I wonder what this will do to laws prohibiting open carry.

[57Coastie]

Well shoot. I thought the ruling was a good thing. Now I read all this and I'm not so sure anymore.

You're a wise man, Lightning. Patience is a real virtue so far as this decision is concerned. There have, for example, been raves here that the recognition of an individual right is marvelous news and pretty much insures that "we" have won. We must not forget, however, that a unanimous court recognized this, but four of the nine drew some greatly different conclusions about the ultimate impact of that recognition.

We must also not forget that the court's session was extended several days so that it could sort out deals on the most contentious cases in front of it, and Heller came last. It was not easy for them to blast this decision out of chambers, and it did not happen without compromises which may not all be evident.

Jim

[Pinkycatcher]

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

This would seem to me that the Court would uphold open carry. They specifically state an individual has a right to possess and carry weapons.

I understand the need to regulate concealed carry, but I wonder what this will do to laws prohibiting open carry.

Go challenge it in the courts and find out

[anygunanywhere]

Dude, lighten up.

The quote I posted from the decision did not reference any case law. I was merely refuting Herb's post where he said I was wrong.

Take a chill pill.

Anygun

Did I give the impression that I was upset about something? I just asked a simple question. No need to get all wound up in order to tell someone else who isn't to calm down.

Hard to tell intent or attitude in just words.

Are you reading the same decision as the rest of us?

Didn't sound like a simple question to me. I am not often asked something so obvious in a kidding manner.

To answer your question, then, yes I am reading the same decision as the rest of you.

Anygunanywhere

[drw]

From http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... f7ac3.html

Ms. Hutchison called the ruling "a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed."

What on earth is going on? Since when is any kind of infringement reasonable? Man, I'm feeling sick.

[DParker]

You're a wise man, Lightning. Patience is a real virtue so far as this decision is concerned.

That's true of pretty much all court decisions.

There have, for example, been raves here that the recognition of an individual right is marvelous news...

That's because it is.

...and pretty much insures that "we" have won.

That depends on what is being referred to as having been "won". If it refers to the legal battle over whether or not 2A protects an individual RKBA then we have indeed "won". I don't see many claims here that we've won anything beyond that very specific battle.

We must not forget, however, that a unanimous court recognized this, but four of the nine drew some greatly different conclusions about the ultimate impact of that recognition.

That's true, and I think there's been pretty wide-spread acknowledgement here that the real significance of the case was the individual rights interpretation, and not anything of great import beyond that.

[HerbM]

Well shoot. I thought the ruling was a good thing. Now I read all this and I'm not so sure anymore. It is fun to watch the story on the different media outlets, each slanting the ruling to meet their own agenda.

It's a good thing. It is a very good thing.

It affirmed an individual right by all 9 justices (4 of which didn't agree with overturning the ban however.)

It disconnected the right from any requirement for belonging to a militia.

It said that banning pistols was not allowed just because rifles might be available.

It said that trigger lock requirements don't work either, i.e., you cannot require them to make the gun inoperable through a lock or disassembly.
(This does not necessarily mean the requiring locks to be available or to be sold with firearms is disallowed, or locked when not attended etc.)

It was about what we (those following the case closely) expected.

It was a big win -- it doesn't add any new restrictions. It removed a few. It moves the argument to what is reasonable and necessary and what is allowed to restrict an essential right.

I don't think we would agree with all those restrictions that MAY be allowed, but at least the argument has been moved radically.

[DParker]

Hard to tell intent or attitude in just words.

Then one is left to wonder why you were so quick with the "chill pill" response.

[DParker]

What on earth is going on? Since when is any kind of infringement reasonable?

For quite a long time now. Have you tried shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater lately?

[The Annoyed Man]

Here is the official Brady Campaign response:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... elease=992

What?! The Brady Campaign issuing a statement that is not consistent with the facts?!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

[srothstein]

Wow, I feel like I am late joining in, since I called up the forum a full 90 minutes after the ruling was released.

My wake on this ruling, and some of the other posts here:

It is not a great ruling, or even as good as I had hoped for, but it is not a bad ruling. It started by stating that it is an individual right not related to militia duty. Recognizing self-defense was better than it could have been. BY recognizing and already announcing some limits the court will allow to stand, it is not as good as it could have been either.

I do not see this ruling making any difference in Texas right now. Our laws all seem to be consistent with the ruling.

I do see Chicago getting sued for it's ban. I also see California and may issue states losing when they get sued. The part that hurt me was the acknowldgement by Heller that licensing would be constitutional if done by rules and not arbitrary whims. But, this allowed the court to hint that may issue permits will be overturned.

I also see things like the assault weapons ban being overturned, if the weapons are in common use for military purposes at the time. I think this is the proper time for a good test case on full auto weapons also. Not the ban or tax on them, just the closure of the database. I think we could win a case to allow new class III stuff under this ruling IF we just went for the ruling of old stuff is still allowed, so new should be also.

My conclusion is that this is this first step in a long journey. It is not the baby step it could have been, nor is it the giant step we wanted it to be.