Heller ruling out of SCOTUS today?

[Pinkycatcher]

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 day before I yelled "BOMB" at an airport

[drw]

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 day before I yelled "BOMB" at an airport

My concern is over who exactly is defining what is "reasonable" infringement.

[Pinkycatcher]

My concern is over who exactly is defining what is "reasonable" infringement.

Socialists

[pedalman]

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?

[israel67]

Yes!!!!

YES!!!!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/usa

[03Lightningrocks]

LOL...Feinstein and a few of the other anti gun nuts have made a statement to the affect that violence will now prevail across the country...LOL. She is one cray bat!

Here it is...ya'll are gonna love this twisted logic.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein On the Supreme Court’s Ruling Overturning the DC Handgun Ban


“I must admit as much as I knew this decision was coming, I was viscerally affected by the decision.

I remember both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect stare decisis and precedent – and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent.

I guess I didn’t really think that they would do this. I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety.

I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who has lost a youngster that I mentored who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found. I speak as somebody who authorized assault weapons legislation, who believes that it was working when it was allowed to expire. I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate.

And I happen to believe that Second Amendment does relate to the keeping of a militia. And I happen to believe that this is now going to open the doors to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed – assault weapons bans, trigger locks, and all the rest of it.

Unbelievably, this decision also strikes down the DC trigger lock requirement, which simply ensures that the gun won’t be used by someone who steals it, or finds it, or doesn’t own it.

I think this is a monumental decision. I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us about their respect for precedent.

To the ranking member, I listened as you talked about Super precedent, and everybody nodded their head and agreed with it.

And with this decision, seventy years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.�

[03Lightningrocks]

Lord help me I am enjoying her pain...

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

Exactly.

[HerbM]

The experts agree (or are starting to do so as they read Heller) that incorporation (effect on the STATES) is not explicitly addressed but that it is (strongly?) implied.

Chicago and suburbs are IMMEDIATELY NEXT according the the NRA.

[Eugene Volokh, June 26, 2008 at 10:25am] Trackbacks
The Second Amendment and State and Local Laws:

The Heller decision of course only involved the Second Amendment's effects on federal laws (including laws of federal enclaves, such as D.C.). Whether the Constitution limits state and local gun bans -- which is to say whether the Second Amendment is "incorporated" against states and their subdivisions by the Fourteenth Amendment -- will have to be decided in a future case. The majority doesn't clearly signal its view on the question, but it does suggest that simply citing some late 1800s cases which rejected incorporation (at a time when incorporation was generally being rejected as to nearly all of the Bill of Rights) will not suffice. Here's footnote 23, on page 48 of the majority oinion:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Cruikshank's judgment that the First Amendment wasn't incorporated was of course reversed by "later cases" starting in the 1920s.

According to Tom Goldstein, “The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.�

[The Annoyed Man]

LOL...Feinstein and a few of the other anti gun nuts have made a statement to the affect that violence will now prevail across the country...LOL. She is one cray bat!

Here it is...ya'll are gonna love this twisted logic.
...

I think this is a monumental decision. I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us about their respect for precedent.

She conveniently forgets that those 70 years fly in the face of the previous 150 years. She's the one who defied precedent!

[thejtrain]

I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who has lost a youngster that I mentored who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found. I speak as somebody who authorized assault weapons legislation, who believes that it was working when it was allowed to expire. I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate.
I speak as somebody who has a concealed weapons permit even when the vast majority of my constituents either
1) want one but can't get one
2) wish no one could have one
thereby making me the enemy of the entire state's populace.
I speak as somebody who can't believe these idiots keep re-electing me.
I speak as somebody who rejects the notion, put by Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn to the Gungan Jar-Jar Binks, that "the ability to speak does not make one intelligent."

Fixed.

[kd5zex]

I just finished reading Justice Stevens' dissent, it is truly frightening that 3 other justices agree with the statement below...

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating
the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this
case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy
choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The
Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the
Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,
and to authorize this Court to use the common-law
process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the
contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling
evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s
opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers
made such a choice.

[135boomer]

We have won a major battle. Remember, there is still a huge war to win.

[Skiprr]

I just finished reading Justice Stevens' dissent, it is truly frightening that 3 other justices agree with the statement below...

...The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons...

Justice Stevens, in my opinion, that is precisely what the Framers did. In no small part to help assure a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[jmorris]

In my most humble opinion, this is one of the most import parts of 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. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.� As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed"

The Supreme Court's majority opinion affirmed the fact that the right to keep arms to defend oneself, one's family, and property is so basic a right that it is a given. The Second Amendment does not *GIVE* us the right the keep and bear arms, because the founding fathers believed that right was so obvious, so necessary, so basic, as not to need stating. The Second Amendment establishes a limitation upon the Government, that it has *NO* authority to infringe upon that right.