Actually, in the decision, there was a discussion of an early Boston ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms around New Year's Day. It was noted that the purpose was to keep people from shooting in the air and would not have prevented self-defense use. The decision though narrowly drawn is very rich in implications in its dicta and footnotes.
Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
Actually, in the decision, there was a discussion of an early Boston ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms around New Year's Day. It was noted that the purpose was to keep people from shooting in the air and would not have prevented self-defense use. The decision though narrowly drawn is very rich in implications in its dicta and footnotes.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That is a very "right wing over-reaction" to what I said in my post. At no time did I say the 2A did not apply...nor did Obama. I said nothing about preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm...nor did Obama. I simply made a case for why certain precautions need to be observed to prevent certain crimes...especially in high risk areas.
Are you opposed to preventing criminal possession of firearms and illegal sales? Even if precautions can be taken that would not interfere with legal ownership?
HarrySchell
New member
Being in CA (but I have not read the decision in detail) I suspect CA governments will try to keep CCW as infrequent as they can by whatever means they can. Rural counties are close to "shall issue" but Los Angeles country only issues to the wealthy who help Baca or other politico's get elected. Just sort CCW's by zip code and places like Beverly Hills have them, Compton and South LA don't. It is racial and class discrimination by outcome which follows the original intent of concealed carry laws in LA as enacted in the early 20th century.
It is morally indefensible that there is apparently no one in Compton who is at risk or cannot pass a "shall issue" background and proficiency check. It is simply impossible. But that is what Baca, LAPD and the local political class would have you believe.
the best part of the decision is the clear intent of 2A as being a right to effective self-defense. That argues for less intrusive state policies even though the 14A status is "open".
It is going to be a long slog, but now is not the time to let up, much less if Barry O does make it into the White House. You do recall FDR's packing of the Supreme Court to get his programs launched to "fight" the Depression?
A good day for us, for a change! Today, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and remind ourselves that we literally 'won by a nose'.
The dissents underscore the fact that the left, from the lowest to the highest, will never GET it- and that we will always have to guard our constitutional rights like the precious possessions that they are.
The dissents underscore the fact that the left, from the lowest to the highest, will never GET it- and that we will always have to guard our constitutional rights like the precious possessions that they are.
maestro pistolero
New member
Highlights from SCOTUS decision
For those who don't have time, here are some of my favorite gems from Scalia, writing for the majority:
And perhaps my two favorites:
And last:
For those who don't have time, here are some of my favorite gems from Scalia, writing for the majority:
And perhaps my two favorites:
And last:
Last edited:
WOW. This thread has grown quickly. I hope this hasn't been posted yet. I searched this forum for the string "VPC" and the most recent return was in April of this year. 'Thought everyone would get a kick out of the Violence Policy Center Action Network's latest mailout to their members.
**************
Dear Violence Policy Center Action Network Member:
Following today's 5-4 Supreme Court opinion (http://www.vpc.org/heller.pdf) overturning Washington, DC's handgun ban, but apparently allowing for the retention of the law's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiautomatic handguns, the Violence Policy Center issued the following statement from Legislative Director Kristen Rand:
"Today's opinion turns legal logic and common sense on its head. As measured in gun death and injury, handguns are our nation's most lethal category of firearm: accounting for the vast majority of the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year. Handguns are our nation's leading murder and suicide tool. Yet the majority opinion offers the greatest offender the strongest legal protection. It's analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case.
"In its ruling, the Court has ignored our nation's history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia. Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District's ban on 'machine guns,' Washington, DC's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected."
For the full release, and background information on why under the ruling DC's ban on semiauto handguns should remain intact, please see: http://www.vpc.org/press/0806heller.htm.
The Court's opinion was authored by 2007 Sport Shooting Ambassador Award winner Antonin Scalia. For more information on Justice Scalia's gun industry award, please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/sport-shooting-ambassador_b_109367.html
As we conduct additional analysis on the potential effects of the ruling, we will keep you updated.
Thank you, as always, for your efforts to stop gun death and injury.
Sincerely,
Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director
**************
Dear Violence Policy Center Action Network Member:
Following today's 5-4 Supreme Court opinion (http://www.vpc.org/heller.pdf) overturning Washington, DC's handgun ban, but apparently allowing for the retention of the law's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiautomatic handguns, the Violence Policy Center issued the following statement from Legislative Director Kristen Rand:
"Today's opinion turns legal logic and common sense on its head. As measured in gun death and injury, handguns are our nation's most lethal category of firearm: accounting for the vast majority of the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year. Handguns are our nation's leading murder and suicide tool. Yet the majority opinion offers the greatest offender the strongest legal protection. It's analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case.
"In its ruling, the Court has ignored our nation's history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia. Thankfully, because the plaintiff in Heller did not challenge the District's ban on 'machine guns,' Washington, DC's ban on most semiautomatic weapons, including semiauto handguns, should be unaffected."
For the full release, and background information on why under the ruling DC's ban on semiauto handguns should remain intact, please see: http://www.vpc.org/press/0806heller.htm.
The Court's opinion was authored by 2007 Sport Shooting Ambassador Award winner Antonin Scalia. For more information on Justice Scalia's gun industry award, please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/sport-shooting-ambassador_b_109367.html
As we conduct additional analysis on the potential effects of the ruling, we will keep you updated.
Thank you, as always, for your efforts to stop gun death and injury.
Sincerely,
Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director
maestro pistolero
New member
Read the whole thing (it's long, I know). I believe it does cover CCW and OC:
The Violence Policy Center Action mailout would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that people like this are serious and as such committed to combating the ruling in every possible way.
For this group to suggest the Heller ruling is "analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case"is convoluted logic at best.
For this group to suggest the Heller ruling is "analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case"is convoluted logic at best.
BillCA's summary is the most complete so far on p. 4, http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299917&page=4. A couple of observations:
1. Even though the Court did not address incorporation by the 14th Amendment because it did not have to, there is lot's of language hinting that it would.
2. The Court did not specify what level of scrutiny it was employing in reviewing the D.C. laws. Strict scrutiny is the highest level a court uses. One has to wonder if Scalia didn't go into this in order to keep a wavering justice (Kennedy) on board. The majority did specifically reject the dissent's "interest balancing" test which would have allowed the court to essentially rule anything Constitutional if it so desired.
1. Even though the Court did not address incorporation by the 14th Amendment because it did not have to, there is lot's of language hinting that it would.
2. The Court did not specify what level of scrutiny it was employing in reviewing the D.C. laws. Strict scrutiny is the highest level a court uses. One has to wonder if Scalia didn't go into this in order to keep a wavering justice (Kennedy) on board. The majority did specifically reject the dissent's "interest balancing" test which would have allowed the court to essentially rule anything Constitutional if it so desired.
How could a rights group dedicated to eliminating firearms be so completely ignorant? Or maybe it's not ignorance but an attempt to promote ignorance in the public by trying to change the meaning of a word. In any case, they are going to be severely disappointed when the courts allow semi auto handguns in DC.
The Violence Policy Center Action Network's argues that semi-autos should remain banned in D.C. because they carry more ammo and can be shot faster than revolvers (they should see Jerry Mikulek). They also argue they should be banned because they are the most common handgun in the U.S., accounting for 73% of handguns manufactured in 2006.
According to the majority in Heller, the fact that semi-autos are the most prevalent for self-defense is exactly why they should not be banned.
According to the majority in Heller, the fact that semi-autos are the most prevalent for self-defense is exactly why they should not be banned.
carguychris
New member
I think that one of the first outcomes of the SCOTUS decision is that licensing and/or registration on a local or state level will have to be done using a transparent, fair, and legally contestable set of rules. A right can't be taken away without due process.
The good news is that this will probably spell the end of arbitrary and capricious licensing systems such as the one in place in MA, where the director of local law enforcement can (as I understand it) arbitrarily approve or deny licenses.
The bad news is that some anti-gun jurisdictions will inevitably react by setting the "shall-issue" standard absurdly high. ("Unpaid traffic ticket? Misdemeanor conviction for public intoxication 10 years ago? NO GUN FOR YOU!!")
The rulles will then have to be challenged and hashed out in the courts. 
The court should, in theory, only rule on the issues brought before them. The first baby step is Individual right.
I found the "must issue..." statement about the license in D.C. VERY interesting. That appears to be a very clear statement that if Heller is not issued a 'license', that the court will rule in his favor on the 'shall issue' situation.
Here, in Kali, we currently have police chiefs, and country sheriffs that only issue to a select group of fund raisers and friends. With this ruling, they are ripe for a Supreme Court case, but, the next step is establishing the individual right to be secure in your person, and to protect your body, when not in your home.
Another is the financial discrimination caused by the license garbage. A starving substitute teacher having to pay 300 dollars a year to have a CCW constitutes discrimination, based first on income, and, second on race, since certain groups have lower income then others.
The fact that Scalia wrote about a specific, automatic weapon, the M16, and how such weapons that many consider to not be mainstream would be proper for militia purposes, and uses, certainly makes me wonder what
Kali's assault weapon ban is going to do, if challenged.
Finally, the court in Lopez actually came out for states rights. This brings to light a major problem:
As Bill mentioned, the Constitution was intended to limit the FEDERAL government, of which D.C. is a part. Now, like many other amendments, is the 2nd amendment incorporated to the states, limiting the states writing laws regulating firearms?
The door is open, and, either the Federal government, or the states needs to be estopped from writing laws limiting firearms. Is the right to regulate firearms a Federal right, or a state right?
I found the "must issue..." statement about the license in D.C. VERY interesting. That appears to be a very clear statement that if Heller is not issued a 'license', that the court will rule in his favor on the 'shall issue' situation.
Here, in Kali, we currently have police chiefs, and country sheriffs that only issue to a select group of fund raisers and friends. With this ruling, they are ripe for a Supreme Court case, but, the next step is establishing the individual right to be secure in your person, and to protect your body, when not in your home.
Another is the financial discrimination caused by the license garbage. A starving substitute teacher having to pay 300 dollars a year to have a CCW constitutes discrimination, based first on income, and, second on race, since certain groups have lower income then others.
The fact that Scalia wrote about a specific, automatic weapon, the M16, and how such weapons that many consider to not be mainstream would be proper for militia purposes, and uses, certainly makes me wonder what
Kali's assault weapon ban is going to do, if challenged.
Finally, the court in Lopez actually came out for states rights. This brings to light a major problem:
As Bill mentioned, the Constitution was intended to limit the FEDERAL government, of which D.C. is a part. Now, like many other amendments, is the 2nd amendment incorporated to the states, limiting the states writing laws regulating firearms?
The door is open, and, either the Federal government, or the states needs to be estopped from writing laws limiting firearms. Is the right to regulate firearms a Federal right, or a state right?