Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban, 5-4

[Wretched Excess]

That's the majority in DC v. Heller.

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

[Wretched Excess]

I am pleasantly, but totally surprised.

Can we clean the title of this thread up?  it's going to be a talker, and needs to be
more clear as to the subject.

[Wretched Excess]

Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

link

[franksolich]

I imagine the primitives on Skins's island are going batshit crazy about this.

Alas, it's very hot and humid here, and so I'm going to take off for a while.

If someone in air-conditioned quarters can post primitive reactions, I'd appreciate it.

But man, 5-4 is too narrow for me.

It seems we still need at least two more Supreme Court justices to make the court more reflective of popular opinion.  At least two more.  This should have been a no-brainer, 9-0.

[Rebel]

Am I to assume Kennedy finally got one right? 

The 4 opposed shouldn't be on the f'n bench. This is a basic right inserted into the Constitution at the time of our founding.

[USA4ME]

Way too close of a decision.

And this statement...

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."

... is a classic example of trying to reframe the debate.  If that were the case, then you'd see a large numer of advocacy groups trying to prevent gov't from keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons or to prevent gov't from having individuals create nukes in their basement,  So obviously, we as a society have the right to draw a line and say "You committed a certain crime and so you lose your RKBA.  And we don't want people building bombs in their basements."  Stevens and the other 3 want to draw the line way too far the other way.  I have no doubt those 4 would vote to confiscate all privately owned guns if they could have their way, though they'd never admit to it publicly.

.

[Jim]

This is a Red Letter Day for America and a very welcome acknowledgement that the Constitution does still have a little bearing on our country.

[Jim]

I imagine the primitives on Skins's island are going batshit crazy about this.

Alas, it's very hot and humid here, and so I'm going to take off for a while.

If someone in air-conditioned quarters can post primitive reactions, I'd appreciate it.

But man, 5-4 is too narrow for me.

It seems we still need at least two more Supreme Court justices to make the court more reflective of popular opinion.  At least two more.  This should have been a no-brainer, 9-0.

certainly should have been a 9-0 no-brainer decision but I would suggest that instead of saying to reflect popular opinion to say reflect the actual Constitution.

[Chris_]

Way too close of a decision.

And this statement...

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."

Ummm, Justice Stevens...

Having just spent 8 years at war to throw off the tyranny of elected officials (don't forget, it wasn't just King George that waged war against the Americans - to punish their rebellion and bring them in line with the crown - it was the British Parliament in lockstep with the SoB), YES I think limiting the authority of elected officials to keep the power-driven in check was EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS CHOSE, YOU DUMB****!

[Jim]

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."


why yes John Paul, they actually did.  are you just now figuring this out ?

[Lord Undies]

5-4 is ridiculous in this case.  If there was ever a case which afforded the usual "gang of four" an opportunity to demonstrate they can be on the side of the US Constitution, this was it.  Instead they show us once again how little regard they have for this nation as established by our constitution and the blood and guts of the men and women who have given their lives for this country in order to keep us a free people.

If this Supreme Court was about interpreting the constitution, this would have be a 9-0 decision.  The Second Amendment is not ambiguous or unclear.   Instead, what we have is at least four justices who admit this day that what our Constitution clearly states makes no difference if it does not support their radical agenda.

While this ruling is correct in its outcome, the margin on the correct side is dangerously inadequate.  I find my celebration of this occasion greatly tempered by my depression caused by the reality of what it truly represents.  

[Miss Mia]

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."


why yes John Paul, they actually did.  are you just now figuring this out ?

Agreed.

[jtyangel]

Way too close of a decision.

And this statement...

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."

Ummm, Justice Stevens...

Having just spent 8 years at war to throw off the tyranny of elected officials (don't forget, it wasn't just King George that waged war against the Americans - to punish their rebellion and bring them in line with the crown - it was the British Parliament in lockstep with the SoB), YES I think limiting the authority of elected officials to keep the power-driven in check was EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS CHOSE, YOU DUMB****!

Absolutely, Hi5!

[DixieBelle]

I'm doing my Happy Dance!!!!!

And I'm going to go buy some ammo. Heck, we may even treat ourselves to a new handgun. I think I'll go to the range too. 

[Thor]

Those folks in DC shouldn't get too anxious. I just heard Fenty speak (Mayor of DC) and it sounds as if semi-autos will still be banned.

Fenty And Police Chief Speak

[Jim]

Those folks in DC shouldn't get too anxious. I just heard Fenty speak (Mayor of DC) and it sounds as if semi-autos will still be banned.

now that "shall not be infringed" is just what it says, I kinda doubt it.

[DixieBelle]

I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.

[Chris_]

I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.

Those that defend themselves with deadly force will likely still be up on charges in the District, on the prosecutor's thinking that the USSC may have affirmed the right to KEEP and BEAR arms for "hunting and self defense", but it didn't say anything about USING the arms for hunting or self defense.

The bureaucrats will not be denied their pound of flesh for this "outrage", on that you can rest assured.

[DixieBelle]

That's expected to say the least. Of course the ACLU will be absent if such a case ever comes to pass. *eyeroll*

You'd think Fenty and Lainier would welcome the housekeeping.

[Jim]

That's expected to say the least. Of course the ACLU will be absent if such a case ever comes to pass. *eyeroll*

You'd think Fenty and Lainier would welcome the housekeeping.

if things get better they can't whine for more money to (effectively) keep things the same or worse

[Jim]

A NOTE FROM NEAL (Boortz snipped off the newz)

Even though I'm on vacation this week ... with cell phones turned off ... I've been waiting for the Supremes to issue their ruling on our right to own guns.  Finally the Supreme Court, though by a narrow margin, has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens not the rights of government.  Good news for those who believe in the sanctity of the individual, bad news for those that believe we are here merely to serve the ends of government. 

Here's something else you may want to ponder as the uproar over this ruling spreads.  (Oh, those poor Brady people).  Without the appointments made to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush this probably would have been completely different.  With Al Gore in the presidency your right to own a gun for self-defense would have been ripped away today.

[Chris_]

I can't wait until the people of D.C. can defend themselves and the violent crime stats come down. Fenty and Lainier will be eating crow.

Those that defend themselves with deadly force will likely still be up on charges in the District, on the prosecutor's thinking that the USSC may have affirmed the right to KEEP and BEAR arms for "hunting and self defense", but it didn't say anything about USING the arms for hunting or self defense.

The bureaucrats will not be denied their pound of flesh for this "outrage", on that you can rest assured.

They didn't limit what I can hunt did they?
I'll just be hunting varmits.  *wink, wink*

[Chris_]

Justice Kennedy, in a rare moment of lucidity, has, for once decided that the Constitution actually means what it says......don't count on such clarity of thought from him tomorrow.....fortunately for the Republic, today is the last day of the current SCOTUS term.......

If you read Justice Scalia's majority opinion, the comments of the DC mayor are uneducated bullcrap, and completely untrue.....just pandering to his liberal and black constituancies......typical of the type......DC may be allowed to establish some form of licensing scheme, but according to the decision it must be "reasonable", and cannot be arbitrarily withheld....this will also strike down Chicago's ban as well.....there are some nebulous areas in the opinion, specifically regarding the effects on such weapons as "machine guns", and its effect of the '36, and '86 NFA statutes, but the decision will go a long way toward clarifying the points for future litigation.  This is a BIG win.......and will result in a lot of litigation over the next few years, vis-a-vis other bans/limitations/prohibitions.....but a giant step in the right direction.

It is a great day for freedom!

doc

[Wretched Excess]

I just read that the president of the NRA was just on foxnews saying they were going to file suit in
chicago against their handgun laws.

as I understand it, chicago has a law that says that a resident may own a handgun only if it is
registered by the chicago police dept . . . . but the chicago police department refuses to register any
handgun purchased after 1982, thereby creating a de facto ban on handguns.  oh, and I assume
everyone has read the stories about crime running rampant in chicago recently.

anyway, let's see what The BarackStar! has to say about that.

[Doc]

I just read that the president of the NRA was just on foxnews saying they were going to file suit in
chicago against their handgun laws.

as I understand it, chicago has a law that says that a resident may own a handgun only if it is
registered by the chicago police dept . . . . but the chicago police department refuses to register any
handgun purchased after 1982, thereby creating a de facto ban on handguns.  oh, and I assume
everyone has read the stories about crime running rampant in chicago recently.

anyway, let's see what The BarackStar! has to say about that.

The SCOTUS decision specifically overturns de facto bans as well, and forbids "registration", it will allow "licensing", however, you have to have a "license" (FOID) in Illinois to own a firearm at present anyway......so Chicago is SOL......

doc