BREAKING: SCOTUS rules 2nd Amendment protects individual rights
by Matt Bramanti · 06/26/2008 9:20 amAny minute now, the Supreme Court will release its ruling on D.C v. Heller. In the meantime, here are all the documents you could ever want regarding the case.
Here’s a quick history. In 2003, six Washington, D.C. residents sued the District, claiming that D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership is illegal. The court dismissed the lawsuit. The residents appealed, and the appellate court found the law to be unconstitutional. The district appealed to the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: Heller was affirmed. The gun ban has been ruled unconstitutional. SCOTUSblog has more:
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
UPDATE: Here’s Justice Scalia’s opinion, writing for the majority. Some quotes:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.
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.
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.
UPDATE:
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”
Filed Under Front Page, National · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
45 Responses to “BREAKING: SCOTUS rules 2nd Amendment protects individual rights”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
This ruling might determine whether we point our guns, while we still have them, their direction or not.
Gentleman and Ladies,
Just saw a news program on Nightline about open carry. I was surprised that it was well done, explained the issue from those who were in favor of open carry. Not one person from the Brady group or such was interviewed.
I, like many have been watching and waiting for the Sc to rule. I have followed the case and seen much analysis of the arguments and what the justices said.
With that said, I have a bad feeling about the decision that will be handed down. I am not sure why, but I do. I guess it stems from the fact that I have little confidence in some of the supremes to do their job properly. I guess it may have to do with some of the really stupid decision and reasoning behind them that they have produced over the last few years like todays decision on rape.
Perhaps we will get a mixed decision as some have suggested, but is that really a good thing? At this stage in doing that does not that take the air out of the sails of our arguement over the 2nd amendment? In doing so, will not that then give the opening for more regulation leading a complete erosin of the right? I have even heard the the status qua will be retained by the court. Again is that really a good thing? I think it just gives the opposition more time and possibilities to eliminate our rights as set forth by the Founders.
I really should be more optimistic about this especially since I was playing hooky from work, with bosses, at the shooting range. Got to send 100, rounds through my new (had for several months) PX4 storm in 40 cal and fire 100 rounds with my trusty WWII vintage 1911 (frame made in 1917. While I was there I taught my boss and his wife the basics of shooting while my other boss (ex-cop) watched. Great fun had by all. Especially knowing that my bosses and wife are getting their CHL’s soon. Doing this activity (as well as news of the recent home invasions) really brought home (again) the importance of this precious right.
With this feeling about the Supreme court, brings me to another thought. What about the future. I think Judge Bork had it right. We are slouching toward Gomorrah. I realize we have been going in that direction for quiet awhile. Evidence of that can be seen in the recent Pew poll on Religion as well as the happenings in our cities and schools. I think that one of my good friends put it this way. We may not be able to stop the slide but we sure can slow it and retard it. The question is how.
The answer is staring us in the face. It is our choice for President and Congressman and Senators. IT is the top of the ticket that defines the agenda. That is why I urge everyone to Vote McCain over Obama or any of the other pretenders. I have shown you what Taxes would look like under the other Obama. We all know what kind of judges Obama would nominate. We also need a Congress and Senate that would vote in McCains direction.
I know that some have suggested we need to not vote for anyone as president and wait it out for 4 to 8 years of democrat president. Can we really risk it? With the way our country is slouching towards Gomorrah, can we afford it? Can we really afford another cycle with a Pelosi or Reid at the helm of their respective chambers?
I do not pretend that McCain is perfect. Heck he was not in my top 3 picks. But when looking at his overall record he is light years better that anyone else out there.
Folks, we need to wake up. I hope I am wrong about the SC.
I suppose Law abiding Citizens in DC can protect themselves against the criminals, at last…..NOT only the criminals will have guns.
#2 tt
We’re no longer slouching toward Gomorrah; this country is stampeding that direction these days.
#2 Tektite
This will not be a panacea as SCOTUS rulings rarely, if ever, are such. What it will do is establish the individual right as opposed to the collective right and all future litigation and legislation will have to rest firmly on that foundation. It completely redraws the landscape.
Thank you George W. Bush, Alito and Roberts.
Yeaaaah!
I’m glad five of them can read.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Keep this and other rights intact by doing the following:
Hold your nose and vote for McCain for Prez. Keep Obama’s hopey-change crap out of the Whitehouse!
Join, renew, or upgrade your membership to the NRA!
Life member since 1998. Member since waaay before that!
Our freedom is like a garden. You have to keep the weeds, feral hogs, crows, and squirrels from ruining it.
Tom Goldstein @ SCOTUSblog:
Montepulciano for everyone ! It’s on the house !
(send your wine tabs to D. Benzion c/o LST)
Ok crappy link….
NRA membership
NRA membership
#8 texpat
I think I’ll pass on the wine(?), but I might just have to crack open my really good scotch (25 year Lagavulin) tonight.
If you want to be in the militia, join the Texas National Guard, I can hook you up with that. As far as owning a gun. Help yourself… It’s in the US Constitution, which is not a living-breathing document.
#9 NA
Montepulciano, a Tuscan red, is Nino Scalia’s favorite wine.
OK, Matt… What was the pic you had in the pipeline had the decision gone the other way?
I am overjoyed. My only disappointment is that four of our Supreme Court justices apparently think it would be perfectly all right for the government to ban private ownership of guns.
We must not give Obama a chance to appoint the next justice.
Wine???
Wouldn’t Colt .45 Malt Liquor be more appropriate?
It’s a great day for America!
BOOOOOOOO 4 justices that got it wrong!
#7 - Fasternu - I’m all about the 2nd amendment……but the NRA left a really bad taste in my mouth a few years back - by not living up to their commitment in return for a contribution. I’m glad as he(( for their good work but they can KEEP their massive loads of beg-a-thon mail and their broken word………..
I am sure glad that the bad feeling I had about the SC decision was wrong. But I am still not sure that we are out of the woods on this subject.
I think Texpat perhaps said it best when he said it does “completely redraws the landscape”. Now we have to go through the exercise of the lower courts defining the second amendment and watch it work its way up the chain. Out right bans are out but now we will have to see what type of restrictions are placed upon the citizens.
NativeAmerican, you may be correct. I recognize that we are not creeping but I am not sure that were are stampeding (landsliding). We sure are moving towards it in an accelerated pace.
Thank God that five justices have well regulated (in the context of 18th century English) mental faculties.
EXACTLY. Judicial Review is a power given to We the People, NOT to the courts!!!
I love Scalia. Weren’t he and J. Kennedy nominated by Reagan?
Just fired off a couple 50 cals in celebration here at the Hogpound. Two less saplings in my line of fire.
Time to join the toast with texpat & NA. Can we add a good small bath bourbon (Woodfords Reserve) and a St. Arnolds Ale in the mix??
And it will be fascinating to see what happens and the effect of this decision in the states that have incorporated the Bill of Rights into their own constitutions. Will that slap down challenges by any state entity therein that wants to restrict the right to keep and bear arms beyond what the Heller decision deems permissible?
The mayor of DC just stated he is imposing strict controls on ownership. Like registration, no semiautomatic weapons……
Could not hear the rest of the order. Probably just like the previous restrictions
Another excerpt from Scalia’s opinion:
H/T The Corner
This is historic. I don’t look for an appeal from the gun control advocates (or can you appeal a SC ruling?).
#25 Shannon
Beautiful…
We’ve been reading the opinions here too. Scalia really put the wood to Ginsberg and Stevens. Again.
I heard that weasel D.C. Mayor says the ban lift doesn’t apply to semi autos. He needs to be run out of town on a rail.
What I tried to quote in #27:
We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie… Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people – which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew.
Holy smokes!! Justice Kennedy actually got on the right side of the issue this time. If we catch enough heathens in the act, it will not be necessary to have such idiotic rulings as we did yesterday. The execution will have take place at the time of the crime. To expedite this event, I recommend these.
http://www.buffalobore.com/cart/cartview.asp?i=1
Well, that didn’t work well. They’re 325 grain Colt 45 (long) recommended for dangerous game up to 1,000 lbs!
Now the next question. Can we use this to overturn some of the gun control legislation of the last 130 years?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
Seen elsewhere:
No more Back Alley DC gun sales!!!
Here we also have proof that liberals, including SCOTUS liberals, don’t give a hoot about the Bill of Rights. If it suits their purpose, they will run all over your God given (not Constitution given) rights.
If that hasn’t been made abundantly clear to everyone today there is nothing anyone can say or do to get through.
MORE HOT NEWS RULING FROM SCOTUS:
Supreme Court strikes down part of campaign finance law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080626/pl_nm/usa_politics_court_money_dc;_ylt=AlTTuvNvBoY.Y1lckEMwJH6s0NUE
I read the decision a earlier. Mostly good news but there are some issues in there that will have to be ruled at a later case.
Licensing required to exercise a fundamental right? By definition, a license is apermit to do XYZ that otherwise would be illegal. Licensing was not tackled in this case but, why not?
Who will define mentally ill?
Who will define what is a legitimate sel-defense weapon? A sawed-off shotgun is a very good weapon for home defense but it is illegal!
Still sleep with one eye open.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
36
It has.
There isn’t.
An amusing aspect of this opinion is ow Stvens get smacked down, then Brayer, then Stvens get smacked down again. LOL
Eugene Volokh’s (of the Volokh Conspiracy web site) study on the 2nd amendment is referenced.
Also, William Rawle’s A View of the
Constitution of the United States of America is freferenced in the decision. Rawle’s View was used in West Point as the textbook for studying constitutinal issues when Rober E. Lee, for example, attended. Rawle’s is explcit on a State’s undelegaed authority to secede.
#31 b45
Reminds me of a couple quotes from Johnny Dangerously.
D.A. Burr: The public sees him as a knight in shining armor.
Danny Vermin: This goes through armor . . . and it goes through the victim, through the wall, through a tree outside.
—
Dutch: It’s an .88 Magnum.
Danny Vermin: It shoots through schools.
WWWTPD for today
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
The Obama adviser who suggested Winnie the Pooh was really on to something. In my research, because I am every vigilant, wanting to learn from Pooh, I have found this.
“Have you got your gun?”
“Of course I have”, you said. “But if I do that, it will spoil the balloon.”
“But if you don’t,” said Pooh, “I shall have to let go, and that would spoil me.”
It seems that Pooh agrees with the Supreme Court, does this mean he is off the adviser list for Obama?
…history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men
was not by banning the militia
but simply by taking away the people’s arms,
enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf
So, is it reasonable to have a licensing scheme in order for us to subscribe to a magazine? So why is it reasonable to require a license in order to exercise a right to purchase/own a weapon, which by definition, preexists the central government itself?
And it is also reasonable to limit a class of weapon? Machine guns for example? Are we not told to be in mortal fear because “if we do not fight them over there they will come here?” At least, if they come over here should we not be able to own, unencumbered, weapons with burst mode?
Is a sawed-off shotgun not a great weapon against home invaders? Who says it is not?
The SCOTUS decision says we have an individual right but a right afforded only with restrictions.
That hole needs to be plugged. Rights have no preconditions save one: conviction in a felony. and, it seems mor and more these days, everything is becomng a felony crime.
Only a partial victory, in mu opinion.