SCOTUS Ruling On Heller

[d90king]

Links to Heller 2a ruling.
Summary
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/
Complete Court Opinion PDF
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[Rich-D]

What is of major concern is that the vote was 5 to 4. An anti-gun President can nominate a Justice, who may alter the meaning of the 2nd Amemdment! That is a very scary thought!


Rich

[Old Fashioned]

Can't resist adding my 2 cents worth. Just to clear the air, I'm a gun owner, member of the NRA, and a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. Most of the controversy over the 2nd Amendment revolved around the individual right versus collective right. In the Keller decision, the Supreme Court ruled on this for the first time, declaring the 2nd Amendment to be a individual right. At the same time the Court recognized the right of government to excersize reasonable restrictions/regulations concerning firearms. Almost immediately, there was speculation as to the decision applying to state and lower governments. Of course, the DC gun laws were ruled unconstitutional. I was immediately puzzled by this speculation. I was under the impression that the Constitution of the US applied to all of the states in the union. Therefore, it seems to me that the governments of DC, Chicago, and other cities to ignore the Court's decision borders on insurrection. The words "right to keep and bear arms" seems very simple. Right to keep means to me that you have a right to own a firearm and keep it, for example, in your home. Bear arms should mean that you have a right to carry the firearm. While a government may impose reasonable restrictions, they may not impose a blanket ban on your right to keep (own) and bear (carry) a firearm. The preceding comment about the 5-4 decision and the President possibly appointing a judge to the court that does not believe in the 2nd Ammendment is all too real. We as gun owners need to hold the feet of our congressman and senators to the fire so to speak. When we hear that 90% of the drug cartel's firearms are coming from the US we need to demand proof, not just talk. We need to ask where are the prosecutions against the people that are making all of these straw purchases and doing all of this "gun smuggling". I go to the gun store/shooting range and I see many people that are obviously purchasing a firearm for the first time. I wonder how many of these people are NOT members of the NRA. If they are worried that if they do not purchase now, they may not be able to later, Then they should be joining the NRA. There is strength in numbers. Ed Rendel from Pa recently stated in an interview on MSNBC or CNN that the NRA was a paper tiger and implied that "they" would pass whatever laws they wanted. We need to let these people know just how many of there are that do not agree with them. If I have offended any one I am sorry, but this whole issue is CRITICAL.

[Frank]

:wc:

Let me try to help with some foundational information.

...I was under the impression that the Constitution of the US applied to all of the states in the union.... Cliff Notes version --

In the early 19th century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. It applied only to the federal government. However, in the late 19th century, well after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights in a piecemeal fashion to the states through the 14th Amendment. This process is known as "incorporation" -- selected rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and thus applied to the states.

Some provisions of the 1st Amendment were not applied to the states until the 1930s and 1940s. Many procedural protections available to criminal defendants in federal court under the Bill of Rights were not available to defendants in state courts until the 1960s. Some enumerated rights, like the 5th Amendment right to indictment by grand jury, and the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, have not been found applicable to the states.

So since Heller, the next order of RKBA business has been to obtain a court decision making the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states. We've just gotten that from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So far it's law only in that Circuit. The case is being discussed on the board here: http://www.gun-politics.org/showthread.php?t=125 .

...While a government may impose reasonable restrictions, they may not impose a blanket ban on your right to keep (own) and bear (carry) a firearm.... The thing is that at this stage we really don't know what sort of regulation Heller (or really, the Second Amendment) would allow.

There is, however, a significant body of cases defining the standard that would apply to determine if a regulation of a Constitutionally protected right is permissible. Regulations of a Constitutionally protected, fundamental right, which has generally included those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are subject to a test usually referred to as "strict scrutiny." There are three prongs to this test, as follows:

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

But we will have to wait for actual cases to see (1) if the courts apply this test; and (2) how.

My own "best guess" at this point is that such things as background checks, among other things, would survive challenge.

...I see many people that are obviously purchasing a firearm for the first time. ...If they are worried that if they do not purchase now, they may not be able to later, Then they should be joining the NRA....You won't get any argument from me on that. We need the NRA to grow and to continue to grow. Politics is pretty strictly a numbers game. How seriously a lobbying organization is taken is pretty much directly related to how many members it has -- membership equates to voting and economic power. Where the rubber meets the road, results depend a whole lot less on things like ideas and what's right and a whole lot more on power and using it wisely and well.

And we will need to continue to pursue litigation in the wake of Heller. That will require resources that a strong NRA will be able to supply.

[Rich-D]

Frank, My compliments on your legal input! And the best thing about it, is you are not billing us $300 per Hour! :)


Rich

[d90king]

Frank, great write up!

For the record states have turned their nose up at fed law in the past and they will continue to do it in the future. In some cases rightfully so!

The federal government has grown to a size that is almost overwhelming .....

[Frank]

...And the best thing about it, is you are not billing us $300 per Hour! I'm not? :scared: I'll need to contact my billing service and have that oversight corrected immediately. :D :D Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :D :D :D

[Rich-D]

Send John the Bill!http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc267/Rich-D345/Rollinonfloor.gif

Rich

[d90king]

I'm not? :scared: I'll need to contact my billing service and have that oversight corrected immediately. :D :D Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :D :D :D


Frank you dont have one of those things for your computer that you have for your phones.....? The cash register starts at the beginning of the call and stops at "good bye". :lh:

[Old Fashioned]

I'll add "well done" on your write up. Your info on the Bill of Rights as they apply to the states is most interesting. Sounds as if it will all come down to who has the biggest legal guns (attorneys). By the way, the emoticons or whatever they are called that you guys are using crack me up. I think this is going to be a good forum. I joined 1911.org because the members all posted reasonable and sensible comments and were respectful of each other. I think this forum will be the same way.

[Frank]

Frank you dont have one of those things for your computer that you have for your phones.....? The cash register starts at the beginning of the call and stops at "good bye". Nah, too accurate. By guesstimating I can "round up" without leaving an auditable trail. :eb:

I'll add "well done" on your write up. Your info on the Bill of Rights as they apply to the states is most interesting. Sounds as if it will all come down to who has the biggest legal guns (attorneys)... Thank you.

And it's important to have good lawyers. And in the long run it's also important to have a good case. And it's important to pick your fights and fight smart and be patient and have realistic expectation. I think that we've made a good start with Heller and Nordyke, and I think we have the right side of the debate. But we still need to be smart about it. We're up against a determined and well funded opposition.

...By the way, the emoticons or whatever they are called that you guys are using crack me up. I think this is going to be a good forum. I joined 1911.org because the members all posted reasonable and sensible comments... We do like to needle each other on occasion. We know each other from m1911.org, so be sure to visit there when you want to talk about guns or shooting.

[Levant]

So what part of the Constitution authorizes the government, or even the Supreme Court, to allow reasonable exceptions or any exceptions at all?

I don't think the authors of that document intended any exceptions to what was written there.

[Frank]

So what part of the Constitution authorizes the government, or even the Supreme Court, to allow reasonable exceptions or any exceptions at all?

I don't think the authors of that document intended any exceptions to what was written there. At this stage that's all academic. The point is that the courts have done so. See post #4, above. Whether you think it's right or not, that will be the way courts will be deciding these things, and they will thus be affecting the lives and property of real people in the real world.

[DoubleTap45]

the head of the Brady Campaign. Some guy named Helmke who used to be mayor of Ft. Wayne, IN. He actually claimed we have TOO FEW gun laws and whined that "only 10 states have gotten a high rating from the Brady Campaign. Too FEW?!! Somebody please print up and mail him the text of the 22 THOUSAND we already have. :butthead:

-Ray

[tbone1964]

The Government does in as much have the right to resonably restrict fire arm ownership, we as a poeple wouldnt want someone who say is " mentally unstable" to posses firearms, nor convicted felons. so a reasonable restriction in that sense makes sense. Now the tenth amendment states as such "The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

At this stage that's all academic. The point is that the courts have done so. See post #4, above. Whether you think it's right or not, that will be the way courts will be deciding these things, and they will thus be affecting the lives and property of real people in the real world.
So your position is that the FIRST time SCOTUS overrules decades of history, that's hunky dory, but after that, it must remain forever thus???? For Filburn's sake, and Raich's, and to some extent Kelo's, I hope you're wrong.