Heller ruling out of SCOTUS today?

[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?

http://www.asil.org/events/AM05/ginsburg050401.html
"A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind": The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice- Supreme Court of the United States
April 1, 2005

(Of late, I must acknowledge, my Chief has expressed disagreement on the relevance of foreign law, particularly on questions implicating the allocation of regulatory and decisionmaking authority between state and federal governments in the United States. I will later refer to 21st-century dissenting opinions he joined criticizing comparative sideglances by the Court's majority.)

Returning to my own perspective, while U. S. jurisprudence has evolved over the course of two centuries of constitutional adjudication, we are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems newer to judicial review for constitutionality. The point was well made by Second Circuit Judge, former Dean of Yale Law School, Guido Calabresi: "Wise parents," Judge Calabresi said in a 1995 concurring opinion, "do not hesitate to learn from their children."

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

[HerbM]

...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. The Court’s opinion should not 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 fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time� finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56....

[HerbM]

Also, the "handgun ban and trigger lock requirements ...violate the 2nd Amendment"

[Skiprr]

Articles posted online from...

ABC.com: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/sto ... 600&page=1

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 8420080626

And, of course, every media outlet in the country will have a level of expanded coverage later in the day.

[drw]

From the Brady Bunch:

"This will inspire years and years of litigation and undercut the network of gun laws," he said.

YES!!!

[lawrnk]

Excellent news! To those few democrats on here who believe the democrats are for gun rights, these liberals voted against. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

[DParker]

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.

[kd5zex]

A battle has been won, but the war is far from over...

[drw]

From the opinion:

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

It's official: the state of Texas is infringing on our rights by requiring us to be licensed in order to carry.

[Kythas]

Great news!

[bdickens]

Let's hope it does "...inspire years and years of litigation and undercut the network of gun laws...."

It doesn't surprise me that it was such a narrow decision. Our work has only just begun.

[Pinkycatcher]

From the opinion:

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

It's official: the state of Texas is infringing on our rights by requiring us to be licensed in order to carry.

2. 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 can see the argument that open carry cannot be regulated though

[Mithras61]

From the opinion:

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

It's official: the state of Texas is infringing on our rights by requiring us to be licensed in order to carry.

2. 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 can see the argument that open carry cannot be regulated though

If I'm not mistaken, at least one State court has previously ruled that you had to allow one or the other at a minimum (there being only two ways to carry arms, openly or concealed).

[HerbM]

Strongly implying that automatic and short barrel shotgun bans/licensing will remain intact -- although through a form of mental gymnastics that borders on intellectual dishonesty: protects only weapons in common use (ignoring that such arms were be in use if they were not regulate to the point of a near ban.)

Less strongly implying that concealed carry prohibitions will be found acceptable

Stating clearly that allowing rifles will not excuse banning (common) handguns or presumably vice versa.

[Pinkycatcher]

Strongly implying that automatic and short barrel shotgun bans/licensing will remain intact -- although through a form of mental gymnastics that borders on intellectual dishonesty: protects only weapons in common use (ignoring that such arms were be in use if they were not regulate to the point of a near ban.)

Less strongly implying that concealed carry prohibitions will be found acceptable

Stating clearly that allowing rifles will not excuse banning (common) handguns or presumably vice versa.

Yah, but I can see an argument that says automatic weapons are in common use in America, every single one of our soldiers has used one, and therefore they serve as a great weapon for self defense or else they wouldn't be using them