Heller Decision AFFIRMED, INDIVIDUAL right (Scalia)
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
The victory today is only a temporary one if we do not fight to limit the inevitable attampts that will be made to make it as difficult as possible for D.C. residents that want to legally protect themselves.
The joy I feel at this decision can be best described as this sentence.
Now,it is not ONLY the criminals that have guns in D.C.
Every D.C. resident that feels they need a handgun to defend themselves, their family and property can (with phenomenal effort no doubt
) now legally buy a firearm.
The D.C. courts will no doubt try to make an example of the first person that successfully defenses his or her property or self or family with a firearm.
The battle is only started.
We've only won the right to start the process.
Now we have to fight to make sure the process is totally fair to all the D.C. residents that want to legally own a firearm.
One last thought,most D.C,. residents are Afro-Americans,therefore the handgun ban all these years was promarily designed to rob Afro Americans of the right to legally defend their selves,their families and their property.
What kind of law does that make that law?
Fantastically fair decision to return the right to keep and bear arms to the residents of the District of Columbia.
Now,we have to make sure the decision gets carried out right.
The joy I feel at this decision can be best described as this sentence.
Now,it is not ONLY the criminals that have guns in D.C.
Every D.C. resident that feels they need a handgun to defend themselves, their family and property can (with phenomenal effort no doubt
) now legally buy a firearm.The D.C. courts will no doubt try to make an example of the first person that successfully defenses his or her property or self or family with a firearm.
The battle is only started.
We've only won the right to start the process.
Now we have to fight to make sure the process is totally fair to all the D.C. residents that want to legally own a firearm.
One last thought,most D.C,. residents are Afro-Americans,therefore the handgun ban all these years was promarily designed to rob Afro Americans of the right to legally defend their selves,their families and their property.
What kind of law does that make that law?
Fantastically fair decision to return the right to keep and bear arms to the residents of the District of Columbia.
Now,we have to make sure the decision gets carried out right.
Last edited:
No, DC residents can't legally buy a handgun, because under Federal law delivery of a handgun to the final purchaser must be done via a federally licensed dealer within the jurisdiction of residence. There are no FFLs in DC, and therefore no way for a resident of DC to comply with Federal law when purchasing a handgun, unless they can find a private party also living in DC from whom to purchase one - fat chance.
http://www.auctionarms.com/help/FFLStateSearch.cfm
http://www.auctionarms.com/help/FFLStateSearch.cfm
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I think trying to make that argument would be like trying to push a pile of molasses up a hill with a pointed stick. These conditions are of a socioeconomic nature and not because of any gun law.
Once again, B.N.Real is right on the money.
I find it very funny that the dissenters were almost using a states rights approach in order to invalidate the 2nd. Pretty funny if you ask me. Seems that Ruthie, John, David and Stevie think what the states think is important when restricting rights, but no so when protecting them.
milemission
New member
Dead, go ahead and apply for those, and if rejected, call up the NRA and get them to help you take it to court. Same goes for the California assault weapons ban. As far as DC, perhaps the interstate commerce ban should be challenged as well as that prevents residents of DC from legally buying guns.
Good decision. Sort of like a Sam Adams. Not an excellent one, due to many factors already discussed here.
Here is one of my fears, as it pertains to D.C. "Ok, we have to allow you a license to have a gun in your home so that you can defend yourself. Well, that license will cost you $500.00 because we have to pay for extra police which will be needed as blood runs in our streets, and we have shoot outs like the Wild West at the OK Corral. Oh, by the way, you only get one license per household, and that license is good for only one firearm, period. You must renew your license every 4 years, just like a drivers license. How's that grab you potential gun owners? We are allowing you a gun in your home, so this isn't a ban anymore, in accordance with the ruling of the USSC".
They could also say, "We will only allow 9 mm or smaller caliber handguns in to be licensed because we don't feel anyone needs any more firepower than that for self defense in the home. But we won't allow any ammo smaller than 40 caliber to be sold in the city. Criminals favorite ammo is 9 mm, 38's, .25's and .22's. We have a vested interest in not allowing criminals to get access to that ammo".
I look for the liberal control machines in places such as Philadelphia, New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, etc, to push this to the limit as to what they can "get away" with.
I'll also claim, "lot's of work and hard fighting ahead of us". Take a quick breather and a sip from the canteen. Get ready to go back to the front first thing in the morning.
Here is one of my fears, as it pertains to D.C. "Ok, we have to allow you a license to have a gun in your home so that you can defend yourself. Well, that license will cost you $500.00 because we have to pay for extra police which will be needed as blood runs in our streets, and we have shoot outs like the Wild West at the OK Corral. Oh, by the way, you only get one license per household, and that license is good for only one firearm, period. You must renew your license every 4 years, just like a drivers license. How's that grab you potential gun owners? We are allowing you a gun in your home, so this isn't a ban anymore, in accordance with the ruling of the USSC".
They could also say, "We will only allow 9 mm or smaller caliber handguns in to be licensed because we don't feel anyone needs any more firepower than that for self defense in the home. But we won't allow any ammo smaller than 40 caliber to be sold in the city. Criminals favorite ammo is 9 mm, 38's, .25's and .22's. We have a vested interest in not allowing criminals to get access to that ammo".
I look for the liberal control machines in places such as Philadelphia, New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, etc, to push this to the limit as to what they can "get away" with.
I'll also claim, "lot's of work and hard fighting ahead of us". Take a quick breather and a sip from the canteen. Get ready to go back to the front first thing in the morning.
maestro pistolero
New member
Mayor of D.C. says "no semi-autos" . . .
. . . In a press conference a little while ago. The fudging has started already. Our work has just begun.
. . . In a press conference a little while ago. The fudging has started already. Our work has just begun.
To quote Winston Churchill:
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
I'm going to apply for a carry permit here in California and part of my "just cause" will be today's decision. If (when) i'm denied, we'll see if the NRA is looking for test cases....
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
I'm going to apply for a carry permit here in California and part of my "just cause" will be today's decision. If (when) i'm denied, we'll see if the NRA is looking for test cases....
MyGunsJammed
New member
I'd like to see the NYC gun laws challeneged.... what i want is for them to give me my pistol permit. Heck I already have their rifle/shotgun permit, so what difference does it make if I have the pistol permit????
In addition, I want to see the NYC assault weapons ban thrown out as well....
its silly I say as I can drive 30 minutes east or 1 hour north and be able to own an AR15 or an AK47 without having to register it... what sense does it make????
In addition, I want to see the NYC assault weapons ban thrown out as well....
its silly I say as I can drive 30 minutes east or 1 hour north and be able to own an AR15 or an AK47 without having to register it... what sense does it make????
Last edited:
bushidomosquito
New member
Well, that takes care of the "keep" part. So when do we get to address the "bear" part? You know, concealed carry without unreasonable restrictions. Keep means owning. Bear means having it with you especially when you need it. So long as they were selectivly ignoring (or twisting the meaning of) words in the 2nd ammendment I guess they chose to ignore that one too.
grey_pilgrim
New member
I think its a baby step. I'm glad they ruled it an individual right, but I do not expect any watershed changes directly from this decision. . . i expect gun grabbers will try and use this as a smokescreen "see, we don't want to ban guns", while simultaneously exploiting the "unreasonable" definition of guns that can be banned to try and push assault weapons bans and strict licensing requirements.
That could play into our hands, because when a community has "incredibly high" requirements for licensing. . . then you hit them with another suit and do away with licensing requirements (like poll taxes or poll tests).
OTOH, we don't want our whole movement to be about litigation and legislating from the bench, I don't think they did in this decision > DC was clearly in violation of the second amendment, and so a ruling had to be passed.
That could play into our hands, because when a community has "incredibly high" requirements for licensing. . . then you hit them with another suit and do away with licensing requirements (like poll taxes or poll tests).
OTOH, we don't want our whole movement to be about litigation and legislating from the bench, I don't think they did in this decision > DC was clearly in violation of the second amendment, and so a ruling had to be passed.
Pilgrim, I agree. I'm more than a little sad that the Supremes weren't clear enough on the classes-of-weapons issue, so now there will have to be a round of litigation of laws that restrict semi-auto handguns while allowing revolvers, or that restrict "assault weapons" while allowing less-"scary" and bolt-action rifles.
However, the core issues in many of the briefs were the individual right, militia, and trigger lock / home possession elements. Perhaps it isn't a bad thing to let the pro-RKBA side brief other issues more fully in separate cases before ruling on them, to avoid the appearance of legislating from the bench.
However, the core issues in many of the briefs were the individual right, militia, and trigger lock / home possession elements. Perhaps it isn't a bad thing to let the pro-RKBA side brief other issues more fully in separate cases before ruling on them, to avoid the appearance of legislating from the bench.
MyGunsJammed writes:
I'd like to see the NYC gun laws challeneged.... what i want is for them to give me my pistol permit. Heck I already have their rifle/shotgun permit, so what difference does it make if I have the pistol permit????
In addition, I want to see the NYC assault weapons ban thrown out as well....
its silly I say as I can drive 30 minutes east of 1 hour north and be able to own an AR15 or an AK47 without having to register it... what sense does it make????
Sir:
I lived in NYC for many years, was born and raised there, left in 1967, as a DIRECT result of the long gun registration law enacted by City Council that year. The fee, as I recall, was originally $5.00, which covered the registration of a single piece, or as many as one were registering. What is the fee today, and how does this example of THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW act to mitigate or prevent crime? Obviously it doesn't, and was never meant to do, but that's another question.
As to your close, "what sense does it make", the answer is obviously NONE. It never did make SENSE, nor was it ever so intended. What's that old saying, something attributed to Thomas Jefferson, it ran to the effect that people usually get the sort of government they don't vote against.
I'd like to see the NYC gun laws challeneged.... what i want is for them to give me my pistol permit. Heck I already have their rifle/shotgun permit, so what difference does it make if I have the pistol permit????
In addition, I want to see the NYC assault weapons ban thrown out as well....
its silly I say as I can drive 30 minutes east of 1 hour north and be able to own an AR15 or an AK47 without having to register it... what sense does it make????
Sir:
I lived in NYC for many years, was born and raised there, left in 1967, as a DIRECT result of the long gun registration law enacted by City Council that year. The fee, as I recall, was originally $5.00, which covered the registration of a single piece, or as many as one were registering. What is the fee today, and how does this example of THEFT UNDER COLOR OF LAW act to mitigate or prevent crime? Obviously it doesn't, and was never meant to do, but that's another question.
As to your close, "what sense does it make", the answer is obviously NONE. It never did make SENSE, nor was it ever so intended. What's that old saying, something attributed to Thomas Jefferson, it ran to the effect that people usually get the sort of government they don't vote against.
This is no victory!
It is a statement of what WE already knew and believed.
It is a legal "slap in the face" to persons of communist and socialist dissent, who would rather change this country, than move to one that suits them best.
This is The United States of America!
If you don't like it here, GET OUT!
To those Judges that dissented: Be ashamed! Be very ashamed.
You, who are supposed to rule based upon the law, have dissented against the cornerstones upon which you sit.
You have allowed your personal beliefs to color your black and white world.
A world you chose to enter, and vowed to uphold.
It is plain text, in English. There is no bias allowed.
Yet, for some unknown reason, you choose to break your vows to me and every other citizen; including yourself.
You dissented AGAINST The Bill of Rights.
By my definition, I call it Treason.
Be Ashamed!
It is a statement of what WE already knew and believed.
It is a legal "slap in the face" to persons of communist and socialist dissent, who would rather change this country, than move to one that suits them best.
This is The United States of America!
If you don't like it here, GET OUT!
To those Judges that dissented: Be ashamed! Be very ashamed.
You, who are supposed to rule based upon the law, have dissented against the cornerstones upon which you sit.
You have allowed your personal beliefs to color your black and white world.
A world you chose to enter, and vowed to uphold.
It is plain text, in English. There is no bias allowed.
Yet, for some unknown reason, you choose to break your vows to me and every other citizen; including yourself.
You dissented AGAINST The Bill of Rights.
By my definition, I call it Treason.
Be Ashamed!
I think the obvious message is the SCOTUS votes along party lines (5/4 split) - choose your president wisely. We were one justice shy of a complete catastrophy.
And don't be so quick to throw thanks to the NRA, they did not lead this legal effort nor did they assist in the case. They attempted to kill it in the lower courts by disterously launching a similar case in an effort to have the court combine them. Both cases were tossed but the CATO institute managed to revive their case. The NRA has a strong sporting leaning and defends the 2nd amendment to the expediency of that cause. They were all too happy to endorse the NICS Improvement Act (though I doubt many of its provisions will survive today's ruling). I respect what they do but please don't confuse the work of their powerful lobby with the victory today. Thank the CATO institute, Robert Levy and those citizens brave enough to take on the seat of the US government. It's an amazing victory.
The opinions were interesting too. The dissenting opinion stated basically three startling things: Miller was a fine precident, guns are very dangerous and kill people, and the litigation resulting as a consequence of the ruling will make the courts busy. Two of those are very correct, one is flat wrong and none of them make any comment whatsoever to the legailty of the DC Ban. Contrastly, the majority opinion was concise, backed by facts and spoke directly to the heart of the legal matter. It should have been a 9-0 decision.
And don't be so quick to throw thanks to the NRA, they did not lead this legal effort nor did they assist in the case. They attempted to kill it in the lower courts by disterously launching a similar case in an effort to have the court combine them. Both cases were tossed but the CATO institute managed to revive their case. The NRA has a strong sporting leaning and defends the 2nd amendment to the expediency of that cause. They were all too happy to endorse the NICS Improvement Act (though I doubt many of its provisions will survive today's ruling). I respect what they do but please don't confuse the work of their powerful lobby with the victory today. Thank the CATO institute, Robert Levy and those citizens brave enough to take on the seat of the US government. It's an amazing victory.
The opinions were interesting too. The dissenting opinion stated basically three startling things: Miller was a fine precident, guns are very dangerous and kill people, and the litigation resulting as a consequence of the ruling will make the courts busy. Two of those are very correct, one is flat wrong and none of them make any comment whatsoever to the legailty of the DC Ban. Contrastly, the majority opinion was concise, backed by facts and spoke directly to the heart of the legal matter. It should have been a 9-0 decision.