Heller ruling out of SCOTUS today?

[agbullet2k1]

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment.

That made me chuckle a bit.

[stroo]

I just skimmed through the decision. It is about as bad as a good decision could be. On the good side, all of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and five of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment incorporated the right to self defense (this in fact appears to be the big argument between the justices). From there it goes to awful. All of the justices agreed that the right to bear arms can be significantly limited. The majority basically agreed that limits on carry in schools, purchasing requirements, bans of certain types of arms, and licensing requirements are permissible. From reading this, I think the majority would uphold an assault weapons ban. I think the only thing we got out of this is that handguns carried in the home can not be banned.

Overall this is a pretty awful decision. Not much to celebrate.

[HerbM]

I just skimmed through the decision. It is about as bad as a good decision could be. On the good side, all of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and five of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment incorporated the right to self defense (this in fact appears to be the big argument between the justices). From there it goes to awful. All of the justice agreed that the right to bear arms can be significantly limited. The majority basically agreed that limits on carry in schools, purchasing requirements, bans of certain types of arms, and licensing requirements are permissible. From reading this, I think the majority would uphold an assault weapons ban. I think the only thing we got out of this is that handguns carried in the home can not be banned.

Overall this is a pretty awful decision. Not much to celebrate.

The opinion would forestall the AWB as previously passed and now the new proposal. It protects weapons in common use by the public and doesn't support banning one (important) class by allowing another.

It WOULD (and probably does) allow for the machine gun bans and automatic rifles, true assault machine guns.

Of course these are only "not in common use" because they are virtually banned.

[Pinkycatcher]

I just skimmed through the decision. It is about as bad as a good decision could be. On the good side, all of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and five of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment incorporated the right to self defense (this in fact appears to be the big argument between the justices). From there it goes to awful. All of the justice agreed that the right to bear arms can be significantly limited. The majority basically agreed that limits on carry in schools, purchasing requirements, bans of certain types of arms, and licensing requirements are permissible. From reading this, I think the majority would uphold an assault weapons ban. I think the only thing we got out of this is that handguns carried in the home can not be banned.

Overall this is a pretty awful decision. Not much to celebrate.

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.

[HerbM]

I too was wrong about Ginsbert to a degree -- they won't affirm, but they all agree that it is an individual right.

9-0 on that but only 5 to affirm overturning the ban.

[stroo]

Herbm. The Majority expressly states that categories of weapons can be banned, just not handguns because they are the most used weapons for self defence. I would be very surprised if this Court overturned an assault weapons ban given this opinion.

[DParker]

I just skimmed through the decision. It is about as bad as a good decision could be. On the good side, all of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and five of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment incorporated the right to self defense (this in fact appears to be the big argument between the justices). From there it goes to awful. All of the justice agreed that the right to bear arms can be significantly limited. The majority basically agreed that limits on carry in schools, purchasing requirements, bans of certain types of arms, and licensing requirements are permissible.

Well, no...that's not really what they said. What they said was:

"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."

In other words, they're simply saying that their decision should not be interpreted as striking down those long-standing prohibitions...which is appropriate given that they were not the subject of the case. It is not a positive ruling on such restrictions. It also may well be that such verbiage was insisted upon by Kennedy as a prerequisite for his support.

From reading this, I think the majority would uphold an assault weapons ban.

I saw nothing in the decision to support that conclusion...at least as it pertains to any previous, current or currently-proposed AWBs.

I think the only thing we got out of this is that handguns carried in the home can not be banned.

Well, no. What we got out of it was a clear and unambiguous declaration from the highest court in the land that the RKBA is an individual right, and not a collective one. Don't underestimate the significance of that.

Overall this is a pretty awful decision. Not much to celebrate.

See my immediately previous response.

[HerbM]

...We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing� approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing� approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. ...

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different.

[Skiprr]

Overall this is a pretty awful decision. Not much to celebrate.

I think the biggie is Section II. This is the first opinion by SCOTUS that specifically states the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual, not a collective, right. We all assumed we wouldn't get an apple-pie-WITH-ice-cream ruling, but this alone is, I think, a huge achievement for RKBA. It will affect all future, attempted legislation and, trust me, does not make the Brady Bunch happy.

[dukesean]

Well, there will be tons of litigation to sort out the exact meaning and limitations of what government can/cannot do. This should be fun.

[anygunanywhere]

...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues.

I believe that this is what I said in a post yesterday, Herb.

...
MOst states made concealed carry illegal. SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that concealed carry is not protected. I think the ruling would have to go that OC is protected.

...
Anygun

There is no such US Supreme Court case or decision.

Tomorrow's Heller is almost with any precedent -- although there is Miller and some other dicta mentions of the 2nd Amendment, there isn't anything that controls on the RKBA. Miller is defective -- this was always easy to see because it is used by both sides (no one can really say what Miller says with any certainty).

The court did not cite any case law. This is where I believe that OC is protected and CC is not.

Anygunanywhere

[Skiprr]

FYI, here's the official link to the opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Pinkycatcher]

Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi-
nary 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.�
Pg. 52

Here's where I can see something happening, where automatic weapons could be challenged, Miller happened in 1939, automatic weapons were in common use anywhere around the world, in any militia or in any standing army. In WWII, we used the m1 garand as our main weapon in common use for our army, automatic weapons were not nearly as plentiful so they can be argued they were not in common use. Now we use an M16 (variants) that is an automatic weapon, nearly every police force, and military force issues them out to every one of their members, that would be in common use.

See my logic? I can see this wording being very helpful, and am excited to see what might happen!

[The Annoyed Man]

Well. I guess that's what I get for giving Ginsburg the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless....

Hooray for our side.

You actually thought that Ginsburg would come down on the side of the individual right?

I thought it was at least a good possibility, based on her questions during oral arguments. Did you listen to them? She gave every indication that she was leaning toward Heller's side in the case, albeit quite narrowly. But, like I said before...my prognostication was based on my status as a quasi-gambling man

She believes that foreign law regarding the RKBA should be dependent upon what other nations say about it.

Well, for the record...I also believe that foreign law regarding the RKBA should be dependant on what other nations say about it. Of course, I don't feel that way about U.S. law.

I guess I tripped over my own tongue. What I meant was that she believes that US law about the RKBA ought to be influenced by what other nations say about it.

[HerbM]

...We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing� approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing� approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. ...

...The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. ...

...We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct....