Heller ruling out of SCOTUS today?

[HerbM]

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!

Yes, of course your reasoning is good. And the other half is that the government cannot logically ban something then claim the ban is valid because the object banned is not longer in common use (by civilians) DUE to that ban, but this decision implies strongly that this will work. (It doesn't say it outright but it comes close.)

This reading is intellectually dishonest -- but yours is not necessarily going to prevail without careful work.

[DParker]

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.

Yeah, I knew that. I was just returning a little of the ordnance you'd just lobbed at me

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

[57Coastie]

Does anyone read this decision to change anything in Texas?

Jim

[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.

[Kalrog]

...
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

You mean sighting case law like this:

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons).

[DParker]

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

It didn't cite any case law? Are you reading the same decision as the rest of us?

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Pinkycatcher]

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!

Yes, of course your reasoning is good. And the other half is that the government cannot logically ban something then claim the ban is valid because the object banned is not longer in common use (by civilians) DUE to that ban, but this decision implies strongly that this will work. (It doesn't say it outright but it comes close.)

This reading is intellectually dishonest -- but yours is not necessarily going to prevail without careful work.

I do not disagree, but it is still a possible argument, and all you need is a willing judge, an extremely well prepared brief and you've got a decent shot.

Like I said this is just a stepping stone, and we need to wait to see how the courts and legislature decide this

[57Coastie]

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.

Although I am not sure one has to conclude that current Texas gun law is dependent on the recognition of an individual RKBA. Anyway, it is moot now.

One could speculate about it perhaps opening up changes in Texas law, but this would just be speculation, until the decision works its way up and down the lower court systems.

Jim

[anygunanywhere]

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

It didn't cite any case law? Are you reading the same decision as the rest of us?

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

[Skiprr]

Initial comments from the NRA-ILA:

Fairfax, VA – Leaders of the National Rifle Association (NRA) praised the Supreme Court’s historic ruling overturning Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and on self-defense in the home, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

"This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting," declared NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law."

Last year, the District of Columbia appealed a Court of Appeals ruling affirming that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home and possession of functional firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

"Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right."

Initial comments from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed down its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Brady Campaign and Center will post a statement as soon as possible after reviewing the decision.

By the way, for those of you who can bite your tongue long enough to visit the Brady site at http://www.bradycenter.org/, click on View, Source and see what interesting things they choose to put in the search engine Meta tags...things like "Columbine, NRA, sniper, stopthenra, nrablacklist, nramadness."

I do so hope today's decision gives them terrible heartburn and sleepless nights.

[anygunanywhere]

You mean sighting case law like this:

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons).

Hey, I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I do not make a living in law books. I just posted what I read.

Anygunanywhere

[HerbM]

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.

I don't think they did this "affirmed DC's right" but rather presumed that it could be done without violating Heller's rights -- since this was not at issue it is not really covered.

They did IMPLY that such might be affirmed, but left the question open (as far as I can tell on a fast read).

I am also not finding any real guidance on INCORPORATION, are the states also prohibited from enacting such bans?

Others have asked, "how does this affect Texas" and the quick answer is that it doesn't today. It might be argued that a ban on open carry of handguns while allowing such for rifles is similar but that is something of a stretch and would take a court decision.

What has essentially happened is that they have protected the right for all law-abiding people for some legal purposes (presumably all) but then limited those protections vaguely.

Now we get to watch the DEFENSE attorneys try to use this to get the criminals (and innocent) off.

I still believe this will be as big as Miranda and eventually used similarly.

[Pinkycatcher]

Yah, right now it won't do anything, but expect some people from Chicago and Kalifornia to start challenging based on this decision, then we can get the ball rolling, may-issue states are going to start being challenged first of all, if this ruling actually does anything on concealed carry or open carry.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.