[Paul]

SCOTUS just ruled 2A protects individual right to own firearms. Now we just get to wait and see how far they went and what the consequences are. Either way the decision is good for all gun owners.

 

[Paul]

Here is the opinion on Heller:

"Heller Opinion"

 

[CLAYTON]

Wow what a milestone. Read for your self :dancing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

Don't know if this was covered in another thread. :dunno:

 

[Paul]

I am reading through the opinion and will post highlights for those that don't have time to read it in full. Here are some of the highlights IMO:

"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."

"The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”"

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

"Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”

 

[Paul]

“…history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied 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. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.”

 

[marksman]

This is cool "we find that they (the elements of the amendment) guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation."

 

[jimtheguern]

This is great news and a victory for us all. arty3:

 

[MarshallDodge]

WOOHOO! :dancing:

 

[jimtheguern]

Good news for us all. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather! :flag:

 

[Ruger Collector]

Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right....

arty3:

 

[marksman]

Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right....

arty3:

Heck yeah!!!!!

 

[Paul]

There is some funny stuff in the opinion. Those that dissented and anti-gunners are referred to as:
"the mad hatter" "Grotesque" "profoundley mistaken" and others. They pretty much bash the dissenters pretty good.

 

[PetersenRD]

God Bless America!

 

[murph]

What a fantastic day in american history! I am so happy to have this right guaranteed for me, my son, and all of you out there. I am taking my wife out for dinner tonight to celebrate!

 

[smoke]

Doug Wright on current Supreme Court ruling.. on the air right now.. 0950 6/26 ksl 1160 radio

 

[jimtheguern]

What a fantastic day in american history! I am so happy to have this right guaranteed for me, my son, and all of you out there. I am taking my wife out for dinner tonight to celebrate!

Thinking about taking my wife to Gallensons to celebrate :crown:

 

[Paul]

Just finished reading the decision. Not sure if I can stomache reading the dissent as it really doesn't matter much. All through the opinion they absolutely tear holes in the dissenting opinion and smash many of the anti arguements. This opinion is an huge victory for us. Everyone should read the opinion in full. Lots more to come in the next decade concerning these anti gun laws, etc and what we have is a SOLID foundation to build on. VICTORY!!!

 

[Paul]

Ok here is a big one:

page 52 of opinion: "….the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns might be unconstitutional…." it goes on through page 56 and specifically references M-16's and machineguns. They stronly hint that these bans are unconstituional, however they where not ruling on these laws. Interesting reading, not exactly sure what to think about it yet..... must keep reading.

 

[Paul]

“But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field…..there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”

The Court is practically asking for more cases revolving around the 2A and gun rights. Very interesting!

 

[macwise]

This part has me a bit worried:

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.

It seems to me that this could be taken to it's own level of abuse, though the ruling states that Heller must not be disqualified. First of all, I think it's WAY over the line to require a license for self defense with a handgun, let alone S.D. in the home. Secondly, who's to say that D.C. won't simply jack up the price on permits so that it becomes a burden on the general public? This is a bit concerning to me, and I think it could stand out in days, weeks, and years to come. Otherwise, so far the reading is pretty good.