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.
What the SCOUTS actually held
CA sucks
Member Posts: 4,310
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
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 traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
So, under Miller, weapons commonly used by the militia are protected, this includes AR-15's, as federal code includes the National Guard in the militia - taken together, these two decisions should unequivocaly say at least burst fire machine guns are protected.
However, conditions on the sale, they say are ok- this would presumably include background checks, registration, perhaps a firearms safety course certificate may need to be shown, or a trigger lock purchased with the gun (like here in CA)
They mentioned the DC ban failed all their scrutiny standards they considered - however they don't mention a scrutiny standard that should be widely applied, implying there may be tougher scrutiny standards, and the DC law isn't the threshold
Heller wimped out and didn't fight licensing standards, so the court expressely said they didn't address the standards. So they didn't say the standards were ok, nor did they say they were not ok
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
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 traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
So, under Miller, weapons commonly used by the militia are protected, this includes AR-15's, as federal code includes the National Guard in the militia - taken together, these two decisions should unequivocaly say at least burst fire machine guns are protected.
However, conditions on the sale, they say are ok- this would presumably include background checks, registration, perhaps a firearms safety course certificate may need to be shown, or a trigger lock purchased with the gun (like here in CA)
They mentioned the DC ban failed all their scrutiny standards they considered - however they don't mention a scrutiny standard that should be widely applied, implying there may be tougher scrutiny standards, and the DC law isn't the threshold
Heller wimped out and didn't fight licensing standards, so the court expressely said they didn't address the standards. So they didn't say the standards were ok, nor did they say they were not ok
Comments
Heller could only do so much. Now, it is time for the next person to put up a fight, and I hope to God that the NRA, GOA and every other gun-rights organization helps out.
We have a precedent demonstrating that the 2nd is most certainly an individual right. Now, we have the foundation, it is time to rebuild the house.
Pool resources, class action lawsuit, and try and deliver a 2nd blow.
If nothing follows this, all is lost - some are already calling it a loss because it didn't go far enough.
Now that we have made some gains, it is time to go for more. I agree it would have been unwise to go for everything at the risk of having nothing.
Now we have something, lets try and get more.
This ruling opens up the possibility of challenging AWBs, other handgun bans/restrictions (like chicago), and the 86 machine gun ban.
We need to get cases on these 3 issues going ASAP, while momentum is on our side and before any of them kick the bucket (a phrase they reference in their decision oddly enough)
One win at a time. Lest we not forget that it is our turn to get the camel's nose under the tent.
Heller could only do so much. Now, it is time for the next person to put up a fight, and I hope to God that the NRA, GOA and every other gun-rights organization helps out.
We have a precedent demonstrating that the 2nd is most certainly an individual right. Now, we have the foundation, it is time to rebuild the house.
Exactly, now is the time to press the attack home! By the end of next week there should be a minimum of 50 lawsuits filed nation wide against cities and states that insist on infringement, and this stupid "CCW" thing needs to go the way of the dodo bird.
We have a precedent demonstrating that the 2nd is most certainly an individual right. Now, we have the foundation, it is time to rebuild the house.
Exactly. I'm going to be keeping a close eye on things over the next few weeks.
Whichever gun rights group displays the most aggressive legal posture is going to recieve as substantial a donation as I can afford
but to the Brady Bunch and other anti this probably feels like a huge defeat.
They'll be spending money on lawyers like crazy trying to find another angle of attack
Life Scan fingerprinting
3 references, with letters, names, addresses, and phone numbers.
Employer name, address, and phone number.
A letter explaining why it is a neccessity to have a dangerous weapon, and how you will ensure you won't be a threat to public safety.
I'd like to skip the application process, and go straight to the lawsuit.
Any lawyers want to do it pro-bono, for donations, with GOA support?
Any lawyers want to do it pro-bono, for donations, with GOA support?
I'd much rather donate to a individual than a group.
You wanna push it, get a lawyer. If you have a case, I'm in for $50
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.