Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)

Read "Scalia Dissents"

A collection of his dissenting opinions in various cases.


In this particular case I'm glad he wasn't dissenting............
 
Note McCain just released statement applauding the ruling and taking a poke at Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment during the campaign ...
 
Does this decision keep cities from essentially regulating firearms ownership to the point that ownership is essentially impossible for the average person?
Click to expand...

I would say that the court acknowledged that restrictions can remain in place but your right to own firearms is acknowledged. The court left open the right of cities (and states etc) to control ownership of certain kinds of firearms and restrict their 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, concealed
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 firearms
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.
 
Unfortunately groups like the Brady Center had anticipated this ruling and were developing a new startegy even before it's release.

While no longer attempting to ban guns outright, they indicated on their website they can now attempt to restrict their use and ownership and therefore be more successful in getting laws passed to do so.

Fortunately, many if not most states have in their respective Constitutions stronger protections for their citizens, but in certain juristictions such as Illinios, California, Hawaii and others without those protections things will still be dicey for citizens there. That's my opinion anyway as I read it.
 
Note what Stevens said in his dissent. He 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." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Stevens is a complete idiot. The whole point of any right listed in the Bill of Rights is exactly to "limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate" whatever is covered by the enumerated right. Kinda pointless to enumerate a right, otherwise.

And then he said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Um, how about looking at the 2nd Amendment? How much more evidence do you need to find? Somehow, a right to an abortion is in the Constitution, which never even comes close to specifically mentioning such a right. But where it does specifically mention an individual's right to keep and bear arms, Stevens can't find it.

I'm happy about the decision, but I'm appalled by how close the vote was. Imagine how this would have turned out if O'Carter had selected even one justice to the Supreme Court.
 
WhyteP38 said:
Note what Stevens said in his dissent. He 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." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Stevens is a complete idiot. The whole point of any right listed in the Bill of Rights is exactly to "limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate" whatever is covered by the enumerated right. Kinda pointless to enumerate a right, otherwise.
Click to expand...
Ha ha, you beat me to it.

"Limit[ing] the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons" is EXACTLY what the Founders intended to do when they wrote the Second Amendment. They wanted ultimate power in the hands of the citizens, period.

Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised by this decision.
 
I see the machine gun law staying put, however I think Assault Weapon Bans will be struck down. For the time being be happy and take a moment to thank Thomas Jefferson, because he himself said that the 2nd Amendment will not be needed until the government tries to take it from us. I think the court realized this and upheld the constitution. As for the liberal Socialists on the Court. Off with their head! Figuratively of course. Time to go fill in the holes in the backyard
 
Everybody reading the opinion enjoying all the Alice in Wonderland references?:D

Also, I especially liked the part about the meaning of arms on page 13, "It would be rather like saying 'He filled and kicked the bucket' to mean "He filled the bucket and died.' Grotesque."
 
Our enemies are already releasing their new strategies, and begging for donations from their alleged majority.

I strongly encourage everyone to go read the Brady Campaign's response to this decision here.

They know they lost, and they know that our side is about to unleash hell, so make their nightmare come true and start donating to the organizations that will bring our case to the courts.

We just gained a lot of ground and we need to push the initiative to gain more, and not stop to rest on our laurels.

-SS
 
I am relieved it is affirmed and obviously my concerns about bringing this were justified.

5 - 4 too close

Does anybody want to wager what O'Connor would have decided? That is how close this was. Now look 4 - 8 years forward and consider which of the two candidates likely to win you are more worried about filling any openings...
 
That the Second Amendment is an individual right is a big victory. Time to celebrate. Tommorow we go back into battle with the anti-s. We Have won a big battle, but not the war.
 
SS,

Agreed!!! its time to really get to work on the issue. This is just the beginning of a longer quest in America.

Its time for all firearm owners to get active in their communities and make sure that their voices are heard - either through local organizations or national ones.
 
LaPierre just said NRA filing suit in Chicago, Chicago suburbs and elsewhere where laws ban firearms for self-defense ... this is a wonderful day, I can't get over how good it feels to read the decision ...
 
Our enemies are already releasing their new strategies, and begging for donations from their alleged majority.

I strongly encourage everyone to go read the Brady Campaign's response to this decision here.

They know they lost, and they know that our side is about to unleash hell, so make their nightmare come true and start donating to the organizations that will bring our case to the courts.

We just gained a lot of ground and we need to push the initiative to gain more, and not stop to rest on our laurels.
Click to expand...
Truer words were never spoken. Like Patton reportedly said, "I'm not interested in hold our position. I'm interested in holding onto the enemy and kicking the hell out of him."

We have the high ground and the momentum. The time to act is now. Even $10 donated toward the cause will go a long way.
 
Stevens is a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

No he's not. He's a freaking Supreme Court Justice. What do you think, that he scribbled crayons all over his LSATs and submitted macaroni and glue craftwork to his Bar examination?

Irks me to see people dismissing officials in power as "idiots" when such officials do something disagreeable.

Stevens is being an activist. He's trying to use his position to to legislate. Then there's Breyer, who Scalia pointed out is acting for the supposed "interests" of DC, just like how Kennedy acted in the "trends" for the child rape case. These justices have motivations, they have personal convictions. They are certainly not constructionists. One could say that they are not fulfilling their job descriptions.

But they're not idiots.
 
But they're not idiots.
Click to expand...
In my book, he is an idiot. A complete idiot. Or as the other expression goes, "an educated fool." Being a Supreme Court Justice does not make one a genius, nor does it shield one from being a complete idiot.

If you don't want to consider him a complete idiot, fine. But there are still things called freedom of speech and freedom of thought in this country, and I don't need your permission to hold and state my opinions.

Activist or not, the logic of his dissent is illogical. Blatantly so. After all the education and experience he has accumulated, to make such illogical statements is, in my book, the mark of a complete idiot.
 
I didn't catch any bit about legislating ammo in the majority opionion.

We'll still have to deal with micro-stamping and such. Smart bullets (as opposed to dumb?), etc.

There's also the open door Scalia left for gun registration. On the other hand, Scalia did accomodate the possibility of striking down all the NFA regulations.

It's not over. It's far from over. But least we can all let the blood pressure fall back down to normal levels. Maybe even celebrate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top