Article

2008-06-26 Home Front: Politix

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2008-06-26 10:34|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 I'll have to read the two opinions but it sounds like the supreme Court has limited the owning of weapons to self defence and hunting, not what the constitution or the framers of the Constitution said. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The 2nd Ammendment shall never be construed as to give Congress the power to deprive law abiding citizens of their arms". He also wrote, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms".

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2008-06-26 10:46|| 2008-06-26 10:46|| Front Page Top

#2 It may be 5-4, but it still goes in the "win" column.

Jim Geraghty at National Review:

I expect a lot of discussion about judicial nominations on the trail in coming days, considering that four of the justices ruled that a state cannot sentence a child rapist to the death penalty, but that state can deny almost all of its citizens the right to own a gun. And when asked for his model justices, Obama listed three of those four...

Posted by Mike 2008-06-26 10:51|| 2008-06-26 10:51|| Front Page Top

#3 I feel like we just missed a Civil War. Thankfully the SC came down on the side of right this time.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-06-26 10:55|| 2008-06-26 10:55|| Front Page Top

#4 You can be sure that the language of the decision will chip away at the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment in some way. It will be subtle, but it will be there the next time they go to take another bite out of it.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-06-26 11:05|| 2008-06-26 11:05|| Front Page Top

#5 This is why judicial appointments are important--whoever takes the oath of office as president on 1/20/09 will probably get to appoint a Justice or two. See the comment by Jim Geraghty above.

Posted by Mike 2008-06-26 11:24|| 2008-06-26 11:24|| Front Page Top

#6 From McCain's comments:

Todays ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, todays ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

Ouch. Obama just got bitch slapped.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-06-26 12:13|| 2008-06-26 12:13|| Front Page Top

#7 The court did not establish a level of review (e.g. strict scrutiny) for 2nd amendment cases. Given that it was a 5/4 decision, that's probably a good thing.

The court did strike down the DC handgun ban and the disassembly/trigger lock requirement. It did not rule on licensing, but that will probably survive.

So, gun bans are now unconstitutional. I like that. And if we can win the next presidential race and get just one more seat on the SCT we can probably look forward to more good decisions like this one.

Posted by Iblis 2008-06-26 12:14|| 2008-06-26 12:14|| Front Page Top

#8 The state cannot ban an entire class of weapons (handguns), but can impose licensing requirements, the way I read it. Loophole. Wanna bet that DC makes the requirements kinda tough to meet?

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-06-26 12:34|| 2008-06-26 12:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
-Justice Scalia

Loophole? Not much of one there unless DC bureaucrats can find a felony in Mr. Heller's background.

Weaseley DC bureaucrats don't want any trouble. Mr. Heller will have his handgun in short order...

Posted by BigEd 2008-06-26 12:53|| 2008-06-26 12:53|| Front Page Top

#10 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/kavanf1/armbears.jpg

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-06-26 13:43|| 2008-06-26 13:43|| Front Page Top

#11 "Disqualified" by the licensing regs, Ed.

You have to apply at 0400 under the second tree from the left in Central Park on October 31, or it's no-go...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-06-26 13:52|| 2008-06-26 13:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Who in their right mind would vote against a man's right to have a gun in his house?

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2008-06-26 14:40|| http://www.weaselzippers.net]">[http://www.weaselzippers.net] 2008-06-26 14:40|| Front Page Top

#13 Who in their right mind would vote against a man's right to have a gun in his house?

Those who would want to enslave or rob the man (of his valuables, livelihood or freedom).

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-06-26 14:46|| 2008-06-26 14:46|| Front Page Top

#14 He said right mind, not tyrant! ;-)

Posted by gorb 2008-06-26 15:51|| 2008-06-26 15:51|| Front Page Top

#15 Ed: check this out

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/26/not-so-fast-sizing-up-the-heller-rulings-immediate-effect-on-dc/

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-06-26 16:06|| 2008-06-26 16:06|| Front Page Top

#16 license to carry it in the home.

Huge error, the constitution does NOT say "In the home".

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-06-26 16:40|| 2008-06-26 16:40|| Front Page Top

#17 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 speech.'

There. How about THAT, you hypocritical, two faced, lying, forked-tounged, american hating son of a bloodsucking lamprey?

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-06-26 17:30|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-06-26 17:30|| Front Page Top

#18 The scary part is four justices were prepared to completely take away the right to keep and bear arms. The November election is huge.

Posted by Keystone 2008-06-26 19:46|| 2008-06-26 19:46|| Front Page Top

#19 Sorry - last Post was mine. SKYNET/MATRIX is acting up this morning.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-06-26 19:51|| 2008-06-26 19:51|| Front Page Top

#20 I'd been wondering.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-26 20:49|| 2008-06-26 20:49|| Front Page Top

#21 the right to keep and bear arms was intended to keep the gov't in check from becoming a tyranny to the people. Fuck these 4 black robed clowns and all who sided w/them. I not only have the right to defend my family & my home but I have the utter moral obligation to defend them. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as endowed by my Creator.

Posted by Groting Bucket6626 aka Broadhead6 2008-06-26 21:15|| 2008-06-26 21:15|| Front Page Top

#22 If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court can only rule on the case brought before it, not on a general class of concerns. Wasn't this case brought against Washington, DC's ordinance against handguns in the home?

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-06-26 21:33|| 2008-06-26 21:33|| Front Page Top

#23 The reason its ruling mainly mentions only the home is that the law only mentions the home.

HOWEVER....

The "background" and reasoning and construction of the decision point very strongly toward using it as a basis for other pro-gun decisions - since it very clearly and strongly enforces that the 2nd amendment is specifically applicable to individuals, and that it is a fundamental right that precedes and underlies the constitution.

Scalia and the majority weer ver pointed in thier references to guns rights being indiidual rights for self defense. They completely demolished the Miller case and destroyed the "militia" clause as a "collective right" ro the right beloning to the states/milita.

There is absolutely NO doubt that individuals have it - meaning it is to be treated much as the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-26 22:51|| 2008-06-26 22:51|| Front Page Top

#24 And to throw into the mix the "collective vs. individual" idea...

When the militias were about in the writing of the constitution, the 2nd amendment could have been seen as a collective right.
However, since ALL able bodied men 18-45 were to be members of the militia in that time frame (see compulsory), all men would have arms under their roof. As the militias fell out of favor, the idea that all men would have arms stayed, so the 2nd amendment was seen as an individual right.
Under the views of the founding fathers, all men should be armed and be allowed to carry arms if able, therefore the non-criminal or mentally deranged could and should be able to carry arms.

That is how I see the 2nd amendment coming from our founding fathers.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-06-26 23:14|| 2008-06-26 23:14|| Front Page Top

23:38 Old Patriot
23:23 DarthVader
23:14 DarthVader
23:00 crosspatch
22:58 OldSpook
22:56 OldSpook
22:51 OldSpook
22:49 DMFD
22:46 Redneck Jim
22:39 Spike Uniter
22:29 bigjim-ky
22:23 trailing wife
22:19 eltoroverde
22:19 Eric Jablow
22:17 Eric Jablow
22:15 Eric Jablow
22:12 eltoroverde
22:00 Procopius2k
21:58 Procopius2k
21:33 Ptah
21:33 trailing wife
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:26 JosephMendiola
21:18 JosephMendiola