Heller ruling out of SCOTUS today?

[nitrogen]

Yah, but it still shuts up the ACLU and those cooky people that say it's a collective right, and is at least a minor stepping stone, many arguments can be made from it though.

Good, then maybe the ACLU will start supporting the 2nd, and I can give 'em money again.

[Pinkycatcher]

Yah, but it still shuts up the ACLU and those cooky people that say it's a collective right, and is at least a minor stepping stone, many arguments can be made from it though.

Good, then maybe the ACLU will start supporting the 2nd, and I can give 'em money again.

Nope, I bet you they wont, the ACLU only supports parts of the constitution without the number 2 in them

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

From their website, I wonder if they're going to step up to the plate now.

[agbullet2k1]

You think Scalia is putting in a bit of a hint?

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment� could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment� language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.� 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time� for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.� State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

[HerbM]

The ACLU will remain hypocritical since on no other right did they presume they would lose without ever making the argument -- and they made these arguments commonly for the most bizarre readings of the Constitution and for people where clearly despicable and admitted violent criminals and racists.

Now it is -- or rather would be -- a good thing to have some organization defend all the rights of everyone no matter how vile, but clearly when they eschewed the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment they confirmed that their are mere ideologue hypocrites.

BTW: There web site is not full of provable errors on this issue.

[DParker]

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.

Except for San Antonio's lockblade knife ordinance?

I assume you're referring to the following from Code 1959:

Sec. 21-17. Certain knives prohibited generally; exceptions; penalty for violation.

a. It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or knowingly carry on or about his person a knife with a blade less than five and one-half (5 1/2) inches in length, which knife is equipped with a lock mechanism so that upon opening, it becomes a fixed blade knife.
b. The above prohibition set forth in subsection (a) shall not be applicable to a person carrying such a knife:
1. In the actual discharge of his duties as a peace officer, a member of the armed forces or national guard, or a guard employed by a penal institution;
2. On his own premises or premises under his control;
3. Traveling;
4. Engaged in lawful hunting, fishing or other lawful sporting activity; or
5. Using such a knife in connection with a lawful occupation, during such utilization.

With which specific part of the TX penal code is this at odds? Note that simply being more restrictive than the state code does not mean that it is a violation of the latter.

[anygunanywhere]

Before I had to go run errands (cruise the pawn shops for guns) DC's mayor was on Fox. He was talking about what DC was going to do about complying to the court's decision.

I heard (paraphrasing):

The ruling does not eliminate the ability of DC to ban "automatic and semi-automatic" handguns.

I assume he means that only revolvers will be allowed.

Handguns must be registered with DC Police before they are allowed in residences.

and

This ruling only allows possession of handguns in the home. Handgun possession outside the home is will still be illegal.

Maybe it is just me, but if I know the antis like I suspect I do, the Heller decision is just a start. The whole DC ruling elite including the PD will do everything in their power to circumvent the SC decision.

The citizens of DC still have a long row to hoe. I expect several more lawsuits will be required before any acceptable degree of handgun/firearm ownership will happen.

Of course, let us not forget that today's decision did not and never will affect the thugs, bangers, hoods, and other scum that have firearms in spite of the law,

IMHO, the first event that we can jointly celebrate will be when a DC resident uses his lawfully purchased, and registered firearm to erase a BG in self defense.

Anygunanywhere

[DParker]

But, regarding my claim that Ginsburg would find an individual RKBA...she (and the other dissenters) actually DID concur with that finding.

Hmmmmm. On second pass it appears that I was a bit hasty with that conclusion. At least, as generally as I phrased it.

[LarryH]

IMHO, the first event that we can jointly celebrate will be when a DC resident uses his lawfully purchased, and registered firearm to erase a BG in self defense.

Anygunanywhere

AND is neither arrested, prosecuted or sued.

[pedalman]

With which specific part of the TX penal code is this at odds? Note that simply being more restrictive than the state code does not mean that it is a violation of the latter.

Dohhh!!! I'm an idiot! I was being facetious, and forgot to mark it as such.

[Skiprr]

Except for San Antonio's lockblade knife ordinance?

I assume you're referring to the following from Code 1959...

This isn't germane to the Heller discussion, but I've always been amazed at this little bit of smoke-and-mirrors municipal legislation in San Antonio.

As you quoted, the muni code reads, "a. It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or knowingly carry on or about his person a knife with a blade less than five and one-half (5 1/2) inches in length..."

Fast forward to the Texas State Penal Code, §46.01:

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:

(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches...

So SA isn't circumventing the state laws; it just means that the only locking folder you can have in San Antonio (other than the not-applicable provisions) is one that has a blade that is precisely 5.5" long, to the micron. And I'll betcha their police department doesn't have the precision calipers necessary to measure the blade, much less that any two people would measure blade length in exactly the same way.

So the muni code effectively outlaws any locking folder (again, unless you fall into the not-applicable provsions). It just makes me think some city legislator(s) wakes up every day and smirks at how clever he was...

[DParker]

Dohhh!!! I'm an idiot! I was being facetious, and forgot to mark it as such.

OK. Consider us in agreement on the issue then (not the "idiot" part...the other part)

This isn't germane to the Heller discussion, but I've always been amazed at this little bit of smoke-and-mirrors municipal legislation in San Antonio.

As you quoted, the muni code reads, "a. It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or knowingly carry on or about his person a knife with a blade less than five and one-half (5 1/2) inches in length..."

Fast forward to the Texas State Penal Code, §46.01:

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:

(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches...

So SA isn't circumventing the state laws; it just means that the only locking folder you can have in San Antonio (other than the not-applicable provisions) is one that has a blade that is precisely 5.5" long, to the micron. And I'll betcha their police department doesn't have the precision calipers necessary to measure the blade, much less that any two people would measure blade length in exactly the same way.

So the muni code effectively outlaws any locking folder (again, unless you fall into the not-applicable provsions). It just makes me think some city legislator(s) wakes up every day and smirks at how clever he was...

I think you may be misinterpreting a lack of technical precision in the San Antonio law as some sort of diabolicaly clever end-run around state law. First off, I never conclude evil intent when incompetence is an adequate explanation (sort of my own variation on Occam's Razor.) Secondly, the result would be the same had the the law specified blades "less than or equal to five and one-half inches in length". That simply would have been a more precise expression of the intent of the statute, which was simply to extend the state ban on longer blades to all others of that same type. Either way it does not run afoul of state law in any manner.

[maverick2076]

Is anyone besides me eagerly awaiting Charles' comments on this decision and the written opinions?

[Skiprr]

Either way it does not run afoul of state law in any manner.

Yep. And as for pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate...I still think someone wakes up smirking.

[neal6325]

Heller Discussion Board: Incorporation and the Need for Further Litigation
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 2:24 pm | Ben Winograd | Comments Off |
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

The following post was written by David J. Schenck of the Jones Day office in Dallas. He filed an amicus brief on behalf of State Firearm Associations in support of the respondents.

It is not hyperbole to describe today’s decision in Heller as the most significant opinion of this century, and likely, of the last two generations. Two particular thoughts immediately come to mind. First, the extent to which today’s decision effectively opens the door for future litigation regarding the Second Amendment to further clarify the extent of the now confirmed, but long understood, individual right to keep and bear arms. Second, this is an election year. This decision, closely divided as it is, will likely provide a rallying cry for the millions of the Americans who recognize that their Second Amendment rights came down to a single vote.

same text...later in the body....

It doesn’t take a mathematician to recognize the narrow margin in this case. Replace any one of the five justices in the majority with a more liberal appointment - many of whom will be waiting in line if Barack Obama wins the presidency - and the outcome would have flipped. Americans would have lost the individual right to keep and bear arms. For some, this may be a welcome change, but for many of us, it’s the sort of thought that makes the hairs on the back of our necks stand up. Of course, there’s now precedent going forward, which helps. But this litigation is, as discussed above, only the beginning. Thus, the close margin and ideological division of this decision will likely serve as a reminder that, like it or not, whoever occupies the White House for the next four or eight years will, through his appointments, directly impact Second Amendment rights for perhaps the next century. This will no doubt have at least some effect as Americans cast their ballots in November.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

I did not copy the entire text but thought the highlighted sentence worth some thought....I hope it drives the vote as future cases will likely be decided by a different combinations of Justices. I included the link as the rest is worth reading.

[aardwolf]

Either way it does not run afoul of state law in any manner.

If San Antonio can ban locking folders why can't Dallas ban loaded handguns? Either there's State preemption or there isn't.