Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
SCOTUSblog reports that the Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow (Thursday, June 26) at 10 a.m. Eastern. Scalia is likely writing the opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
How do you know Scalia is? I hope so--I love his writing style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
PW said:
Anywhere on the internet you can listen to it live?
if you google heller vs DC live broadcast it is amazing how many "sites" may or may not carry it live. If you find one please post it and I will do the same.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
The aticipation is killing me! :nilly:
 
G

·
I can't foresee a ruling that I like.

Here's why:
1 - The SCOTUS appears to currently favor the "personal right" interpretration which is incomplete. It's _BOTH_ a personal right preserved for public defense. Militias are meant to be manned by private citizens supplying their own arms and ammunition. But SCOTUS won't go for that. Instead, they're going to protect your turkey hunting gun and your Glock. Both things I like -- but that's not the point.

2 - The SCOTUS will go to great lengths for this ruling to not undermine years of judicial precedent. They're not going to strike down the GCA68, no matter how wrong it is.

3 - It will turn into fodder for the Brady Campaign as they redouble their efforts and lead a new charge against liberty under the guise of "sensible gun laws"

That being said, I am confident that I will be relieved at the outcome of the SCOTUS ruling here. I don't think I'll be happy until Federal Agents appear at my door and give me an M16 and 1,000 rounds in apology for their insidious encroachments upon my rights, drop off the goods, tip their hats, and say goodbye before committing seppuku.

But I am confident that, at the very least, the Brady Campaign will be angry about the outcome of this ruling, too. That is a relief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Ishpeck said:
That being said, I am confident that I will be relieved at the outcome of the SCOTUS ruling here. I don't think I'll be happy until Federal Agents appear at my door and give me an M16 and 1,000 rounds in apology for their insidious encroachments upon my rights, drop off the goods, tip their hats, and say goodbye before committing seppuku.
I would kinda like to see that myself. :raisedbrow:

:lolbang:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
:party3:

Tom Gresham will have Alan Gura, Heller's attorney, on his show this Sunday to discuss the ruling. Mr. Gura has already indicated that he is going to bring a lawsuit against Chicago. http://guntalk.com/site3.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
this is cool "we find that they (the elements of the ammenement) guaran-
tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation
."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_ ... cotus_guns

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
ADVERTISEMENT

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
On ABCnews.com this comment from Justice John Paul Stevens, he said, "a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." Well, as the second amendment states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that, keep away from our guns! Or better yet, in the words of Pancho Vilos "Gun Grabbers BACK OFF!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Outsider said:
On ABCnews.com this comment from Justice John Paul Stevens, he said, "a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." Well, as the second amendment states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that, keep away from our guns! Or better yet, in the words of Pancho Vilos "Gun Grabbers BACK OFF!"
:agree: I believe that we have the right to own any kind or type of "arm" and carry it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
I read the first 10 pages of the decision and it is an awesome read, there are 157 pages--have read it later. This is truly a great day for America! :super: :thewave: :mod: :band: :party3: :dancing: :flag: :raiseflag: :party:
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top