The Verdict is In!

[Shooterman]

It appears 5 of the glorious 9 Divines said it's the Right to keep and Bear Arms is good, but only sometimes. Glorious Hallelujah!

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

Justice Scalia’s recitation from the bench of the majority’s reasoning continued for 16 minutes. Justice John Paul Stevens followed, for seven minutes, summarizing the reasons for two dissenting opinions — his and one written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The decision was the final one of the Term and, after issuing it, the Court recessed for the summer, to return on Monday, Oct. 6. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that concluding orders on pending cases will be released by the Court Clerk at 10 a.m. Friday.

SCOTUSblog

From the same blog. Some of the opinions from the Justices.

Quotes from the opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

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

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 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.”

It should come as no surprise the Divines were wishy washy and refused to do their duty. DOUBLE BAH!

At least it's a start.

[leobold1]

They said before that they were ruling on a very limited interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and only as it pertained to this case.

Next the ban will come as to whether or not having an AK-47 in your closet or a shotgun under your bed can be licensed. They would have done better to rule on the entire law, as it would save them headaches later.

[Woodmonkey]

Supreme Court's Gun Ban Decision Likely to Spark New Round of Court Battles

One of the first results of the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to overturn Washington, D.C.'s gun ban is likely be a legal onslaught by the National Rifle Association, which is gearing up for a nationwide campaign to make sure the court's decision is enforced.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told FOX News moments after the court struck down the 32-year-old ban on loaded weapons inside the homes of residents in the nation's capital that his group is targeting other localities that have blanket prohibitions on gun ownership.

"It's a great day," LaPierre said. "We're going to make sure this freedom is carried out.

LaPierre said that the first round of lawsuits will be in the suburbs of Chicago and San Francisco, where bans are in place. The NRA is going to see to it that "every American has equal access to guns," he said.

"The fact that it's an individual right, individuals all over the country have to get access to it. It cannot be walled off by the elite. So this is the opening salvo of a step-by-step process providing relief," he said.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment grants an individual, not just a "well-regulated militia," the right to bear arms. The ruling reinforced the rights of marksman, hunters and others, even in crowded or high-crime cities, to keep a gun in his or her home. The long-anticipated decision was the high court's first explicit ruling on the Second Amendment in 127 years.

La Pierre likened the ruling to those that have upheld freedom of speech and the freedom to vote.

"You can't say you can vote in some parts of the country but not in others," he said. "Individual rights means individuals everywhere, and the NRA will not rest until individuals everywhere can exercise this freedom."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors restrictions on firearms, said the decision has set new parameters by reducing legal extremes — a ban inside the home on one side and unfettered access to firearms on the other. But it allows for reasonable restrictions.

"You can deal with middle-ground restrictions. ... We can enact common-sense measures to make it safe," he said, including banning assault weapons and closing a loophole that allows easier purchasing of weapons at gun shows.

The decision also made strange bedfellows of some Republicans and Democrats who frequently are on opposite sides on other issues.

Liberal Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold both praised the court's ruling. So did more centrist Democrat Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. Tester stood alongside conservative Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Orrin Hatch at a brief news conference outside the court that sits across from the Capitol.

"The Supreme Court has recognized the personal right to bear arms, guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and expressly held for the first time that our Bill of Rights includes this right among its guarantees of individual liberty and freedom. That is a good thing," said Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

"I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights," Feingold, of Wisconsin, said.

"This is a great day for the country, for the Constitution, for the people to affirm the fact that we have a right to keep and bear arms, regardless of where you live, whether it's in rural Montana where I come from, or whether it's in Washington, D.C.," Tester said.

Hutchison, of Texas, led the effort to pen an amicus brief signed 300 lawmakers and submit it to the court. She called it "a clear opinion, and from this day forward the people of our country will have the right in any jurisdiction in America to protect themselves and their families in their homes, and that was our goal."

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, called the ruling "a resounding victory for the American people and sets a strong precedent that the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution may be regulated but cannot be extinguished by the law."

But the the court's ruling was cause for disappointment and alarm in other circles.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said the current in-home gun ban law will stand for 21 days until his administration creates emergency laws to comply with the court's ruling. But he said he does it reluctantly.

"As mayor of the District of Columbia, I think I speak for the near unanimous population here in this city when we say we're disappointed, we wish the ruling had gone the other way, but that we stand here and we respect the court's power to make this ruling and their deliberation that got them to this point," Fenty said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that her experience as a former mayor of San Francisco leads her to believe the court's decision will open the door to more, not less street violence. She also criticized the conservative members of the court, who she said did not follow the legal principle of "stare decisis," the Latin term for using earlier court decisions to strongly guide new opinions.

"I remember both (Chief) Justice (John) Roberts and Justice (Samuel) 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," Feinstein said, referring to the two justices appointed by President Bush. "I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety."

She added: "I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks and all the rest of it."

Feinstein said the court's decision, which also struck down a D.C. trigger lock requirement, is also faulty because those regulations prevent guns from being used by thieves or others who do not own the weapon.

The Source

[leobold1]

Sounds like Feinstein is whining.

"They said they wouldn't mess with precedent." But, those answers came in regards to abortion, and they said that it was in that area, and limited others, only.

[Woodmonkey]

Going to be lots of whining about this.

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Going to be lots of whining about this.

We should all be whining. The Divines passed the buck again.