In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
SCOTUS summary of strike down of DC Gun Ban
susie
Member Posts: 7,683 ✭✭✭✭
If you do not want to read through the first 63 pages of supporting documentation, citations, and historical anecdotes here is the final opinion summarized on page 64:
"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.
* * * We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
"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.
* * * We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
Comments
Praise God.
I bet that damn justice Ginsberg would just love to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Although I understand the SCOTUS was ruling on a particular case, there are still too many references to self-defense "in the home" for gun owners to celebrate. There will need to be more lawsuits filed to force the SCOTUS to include the right to self-defense outside of the home. Their ruling also used the phrase "must register his handgun" which could have a reverse effect on those states that do not have handgun registration.
Spider, that is because Heller himself did not contest the "registration" requirements,.......therefore that did not come into play in the decision.
Now whether other states will take this as having meaning that was NOT intended,.......who knows.
It was very narrow, and only addresses his individual grievance.
Much more work to be done.
I already reposted it here:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=310986
I think what the court actually "held" is more important as to how this decision applies to other cases, and this appears very early in the breif.
I already reposted it here:
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=310986
Yes,......I read the whole thing, and they referenced MANY items, and precedent.
My point is the decision was "narrow", and only applied to Heller.
The points made, will have to be pressed in other cases, as this will NOT resolve them, only be more precedent to be referred to going forward.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-26-scotus-guns_N.htm
Scalia was joined by the more conservative members of the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Dissenting were the four more liberal justices: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Here's a good read from the USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-26-scotus-guns_N.htm
Scalia was joined by the more conservative members of the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Dissenting were the four more liberal justices: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Kennedy is always the man in the middle,.........he goes both ways![:0]
"but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
Praise God.
I bet that damn justice Ginsberg would just love to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Yep - and it damn near became extinct, too, Allen. I have to add three cheers for George Bush and his SCOTUS appointments: Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! [:D]
X-ring Spider!!!! "Shall not be infringed" means within the boundries of the United States. Buy hey, any day you can get a gun grabber to pi$$ down both legs is a great day!+1..........[:D]
ha
This is a temporary pass.
4 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, who are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution voted in favor of government managed tyranny.
Amazing, this is being called a WIN. 4 people who should care about nothing except the sanctity of the country voted to sell you down the river, and now, here we are, Joe American gun owner who is happier than a pig in s-h-*-t because of it.
I won't be happy until CA's AWB is gone, along with the '86 ban, and open or concealed carry is allowed, and they rule the standard for reasonable restriction is licensing for anything with an explosive charge greater than 100 pounds
Then maybe some voters in Kalifornia need to grow a pair and get more voters interested in protecting and preserving INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Why not be the first on your block to file a lawsuit against the State to return your rights that were legislated away by Kalifornian Legislators? The '86 ban on transfers of automatic weapons wasn't a Kalifornia-based "solution", but you have to pick your battles, and it looks to me that you'd rather loudly denounce "Govamint" than actually get involved.
It took several tries and several years before NM citizens were "allowed" to carry concealed; form a group and see if it can be done in Kali.