DC vs. Heller:ALL Related Discussion: VICTORY! Merged - Page 55

SIGguy229 · June 27th, 2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says he wishes the justices who rejected the D.C. ban would first "spend a week in public housing."

So, you're saying public housing is an example of peaceful coexistence....or it is a battle zone?

If a battle zone....don't ya think the citizens who live there should be able to defend themselves?

Rock and Glock · June 27th, 2008, 06:17 PM

Well, here's another thought:

Quote:

News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says
By RANDY E. BARNETT
June 27, 2008; Page A13

Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is historic in its implications and exemplary in its reasoning.

A federal ban on an entire class of guns in ordinary use for self-defense – such as the handgun ban adopted by the District of Columbia – is now off the table. Every gun controller's fondest desire has become a constitutional pipe dream.

Two important practical issues remain. First, will this ruling also apply to states and municipalities? That will depend on whether the Supreme Court decides to "incorporate" the right to keep and bear arms into the 14th Amendment. But in the middle of his opinion Justice Scalia acknowledges that the 39th Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment did so, in part, to protect the individual right to arms of freedmen and Southern Republicans so they might defend themselves from violence.

My prediction: This ruling will eventually be extended to the states.

Second, how will the court deal with firearms regulations that fall short of a ban? The majority opinion strongly suggests that such regulations must now be subjected to meaningful judicial scrutiny. The exact nature of this scrutiny is not clear, but Justice Scalia explicitly rejects the extremely deferential "rationality" review advocated by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Most likely, gun laws will receive the same sort of judicial scrutiny that is now used to evaluate "time, place and manner" regulations of speech and assembly. Such regulations of First Amendment freedoms are today upheld if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a truly important government purpose, but not if they are really a pretext for undermining protected liberties.

My prediction? Because gun-rights groups like the NRA have so successfully prevented enactment of unreasonable gun laws, most existing gun regulations falling short of a ban will eventually be upheld. But more extreme or merely symbolic laws that are sometimes proposed – whose aim is to impose an "undue burden" by raising the cost of gun production, ownership and sale – would likely be found unconstitutional. All gun regulations – for example, safe storage laws and licensing – will have to be shown to be consistent with an effective right of self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

Justice Scalia's opinion is exemplary for the way it was reasoned. It will be studied by law professors and students for years to come. It is the clearest, most careful interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution ever to be adopted by a majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia begins with the text, and carefully parses the grammatical relationship of the "operative clause" identifying "the right to keep and bear arms" to the "prefatory clause" about the importance of a "well-regulated militia." Only then does he consider the extensive evidence of original meaning that has been uncovered by scholars over the past 20 years – evidence that was presented to the Court in numerous "friends of the court" briefs.

Justice Scalia's opinion is the finest example of what is now called "original public meaning" jurisprudence ever adopted by the Supreme Court. This approach stands in sharp contrast to Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion that largely focused on "original intent" – the method that many historians employ to explain away the text of the Second Amendment by placing its words in what they call a "larger context." Although original-intent jurisprudence was discredited years ago among constitutional law professors, that has not stopped nonoriginalists from using "original intent" – or the original principles "underlying" the text – to negate its original public meaning.

Of course, the originalism of both Justices Scalia's and Stevens's opinions are in stark contrast with Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion, in which he advocates balancing an enumerated constitutional right against what some consider a pressing need to prohibit its exercise. Guess which wins out in the balancing? As Justice Scalia notes, this is not how we normally protect individual rights, and was certainly not how Justice Breyer protected the individual right of habeas corpus in the military tribunals case decided just two weeks ago.

So what larger lessons does Heller teach? First, the differing methods of interpretation employed by the majority and the dissent demonstrate why appointments to the Supreme Court are so important. In the future, we should be vetting Supreme Court nominees to see if they understand how Justice Scalia reasoned in Heller and if they are committed to doing the same.

We should also seek to get a majority of the Supreme Court to reconsider its previous decisions or "precedents" that are inconsistent with the original public meaning of the text. This shows why elections matter – especially presidential elections – and why we should vet our politicians to see if they appreciate how the Constitution ought to be interpreted.

Good legal scholarship was absolutely crucial to this outcome. No justice is capable of producing the historical research and analysis upon which Justice Scalia relied. Brilliant as it was in its execution, his opinion rested on the work of many scholars of the Second Amendment, as I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge. (Disclosure: I joined a brief by Academics for the Second Amendment supporting the individual rights interpretation; one of my articles was cited by Justice Scalia and another by Justice Breyer in his dissent.)

Due to the political orthodoxy among most constitutional law professors, some of the most important and earliest of this scholarship was produced by nonacademics like Don Kates, Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, Clayton Cramer and others. Believe it or not, Heller was a case of nearly first impression, uninhibited by any prior decisions misinterpreting the Second Amendment.

Last but not least, tribute must be paid to the plaintiffs – Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon – who went where the National Rifle Association feared to tread, and to their lawyers Robert Levy, Clark Neily, and lead counsel Alan Gura. I was privileged to witness Mr. Gura argue the case – his first Supreme Court argument ever – and he was outstanding. Heller provides yet another reminder of the crucial role that private lawyers play in the preservation of our liberties.

Mr. Barnett, a professor at Georgetown Law, is the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2004).

SixBravo · June 27th, 2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

But more extreme or merely symbolic laws that are sometimes proposed – whose aim is to impose an "undue burden" by raising the cost of gun production, ownership and sale – would likely be found unconstitutional.

You know, that's a really good point. With how Scalia defined the right, it would be difficult to argue successfully for an implementation of a law that would make guns or ammo prohibitively expensive. If the average citizen couldn't afford one, then it really is taking the rights out of the hands of the 'militia' and placing it into the hands of the wealthy (and possibly tyrannical).

paramedic70002 · June 28th, 2008, 12:01 AM

High Court gun ban veto triggers review of Mass. law - BostonHerald.com

High Court gun ban veto triggers review of Mass. law

Yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns will force Massachusetts officials to review the state’s gun laws, long considered among the toughest in the nation.

In the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights, the court ruled 5-4 that Washington’s ban was incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said her office was reviewing the decision but did not expect it to result in a “radical” change in the state’s gun laws.

“This decision is part of an on-going process . . . to balance public safety concerns and the need for sensible gun control with the legitimate right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for hunting, sport or self-defense,” Coakley said. “Our office will work with state and local law enforcement to ensure that we strike that balance.‘

Massachusetts has 216,000 registered firearms, according to the Executive Office of Public Safety. But in Boston, where there are 4,300 active gun licenses, police Commissioner Ed Davis said he was concerned about the ruling.

“I feel that it opens the door for fewer regulations, which has the potential of resulting in increased deaths,” Davis said.

The court not only struck down Washington’s handgun ban, but also a requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled. Massachusetts has a similar law requiring that guns either have a trigger lock or be secured in a locked container.

“We’ve been arguing since 1998, when the Legislature passed the mandatory storage law, that it would be impossible to defend yourself in your home when you’re required to keep your firearm under lock and key,” said James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League.

In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, noting 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.”

Boston College law professor Robert Bloom said the Supreme Court ruling may cause Massachusetts to revise its gun laws.

“I could envision a child-safety lock being appropriate, much like a child-safe pill bottle,” Bloom said. “But I wonder whether requiring a gun to be locked up will still be valid because Scalia said for a gun to truly be used in self-defense, you need instantaneous access.”

But John Rosenthal, a gun owner and founder and chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, said he expects the ruling to have little practical effect.

“Responsible gun owners lock their guns,” he said. “Irresponsible gun owners don’t.”
Article URL: High Court gun ban veto triggers review of Mass. law - BostonHerald.com

paramedic70002 · June 28th, 2008, 12:02 AM

Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban - News Story - WMAQ | Chicago

Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

Video:Wilmette Lifts Ban
Interactive:Meet The Justices

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

"That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said.

Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed.

Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare.

The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense.

Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter declined to comment on the high court's ruling, saying he had not yet had a chance to read the decision or review it with village staff.

NBC5's Phil Rogers reported that Wilmette was not the only community with big decisions to make in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. Six Chicago area communities: Wilmette, Winnetka, Evanston, Chicago, Oak Park and Morton Grove, have outright handgun bans, dating back to 1981, which are now apparently illegal.

Eight other communities: Highland Park, Deerfield, Northbrook, River Grove, Westmont, Forest Park, Elk Grove Village and Niles, ban the sale or transfer of handguns within their city limits.

On Friday, the Chicago Tribune called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. But barring that, Rogers reported, the Supreme Court's decision seems to leave little wiggle room for refinement of existing laws.

"It's going to be very challenging, I think, for municipalities to hold on to the overall ban on a handgun," Frenzer said.

As local communities tried to determine exactly how the ruling affected them, many activists made it clear that they were not prepared to take "no" for an answer.

Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson declared that if the law means more gun stores, he would fight to have a say as to where they are located. Jackson also likened the fight against gun violence to the struggle for civil rights.

"We have legalized access to weapons of mass destruction," Jackson said. "We have become the most violent nation on earth. We make the most guns and we shoot them."

NRA Files Suits In Chicago, Three Suburbs Challenging Gun Bans

The National Rifle Association has entered the fray over Chicago's handgun ban.

The NRA filed a lawsuit Friday against the city ban. It said it also filed comparable lawsuits in the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park and Morton Grove. Several other pro-gun groups filed a separate lawsuit yesterday challenging Chicago's ban.

The flurry of litigation follows a Thursday U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Washington, D.C. gun ban.

NRA lobbyist Chris Cox said the lawsuits are meant to ensure state and local governments adhere to the court's ruling.

He adds the NRA won't rest until the existing handgun bans are all struck down, but he said that attorneys for the pro-gun groups concede the fight over Chicago's ban could last years.

Anti-gun groups said the bans help stem the number of gun-related deaths and accidents.

Additional information provided by Chicago Sun-Times Inc.

bluelineman · June 28th, 2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtD

The NY Mayor is saying that their "resonable restrictions" on hangun ownership will remain intact under this ruling. Several million people live in NY and there are 20,000 permits to own handguns outstanding.

That sounds like the process of approval may not be a "reasonable restriction" and could fall in the "arbitrary or capricious" category. I would bet that only the wealthy and well connected have been "granted" permits.

After re-reading the decision, I think that, in cities where permits are required to own firearms, those permits may soon become "shall issue" permits.

Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley (crook just like his old man) says the decision has nothing to do with Chicago. Good luck with that in court mayor.

LongRider · June 28th, 2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

In some circles that equals hero. Go figure.

I lived through that era and was no great fan of tricky dick. But I do have to respect Gordon Liddy he was the only one in the whole mess who stood by his beliefs and his oath the the President. He made no deals. He ratted on no one. He did not sell anyone out to save his own hide. He did not find Jesus in time for sentencing or make excuses. He did the crime and he did the time. I may not agree with his beliefs but he is who he says he is, did what he said he would. He stood by his beliefs and code of ethics, without sniveling he paid the price. By that definition I have to admit he is an honorable and ethical man

press1280 · June 28th, 2008, 08:49 AM

My prediction? Because gun-rights groups like the NRA have so successfully prevented enactment of unreasonable gun laws, most existing gun regulations falling short of a ban will eventually be upheld. But more extreme or merely symbolic laws that are sometimes proposed – whose aim is to impose an "undue burden" by raising the cost of gun production, ownership and sale – would likely be found unconstitutional. All gun regulations – for example, safe storage laws and licensing – will have to be shown to be consistent with an effective right of self-defense by law-abiding citizens.
+1 Your average clean-criminal record citizen should not fall under any "ban," of any weapon nor have to wait months and months to purchase a gun. They probably won't mess with shorter wait periods like the 7 day wait period and so forth.

Tom357 · June 28th, 2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTFatBa*d

This single sentence may be the basis for eliminating all "May Issue" laws and converting them to "Shall Issue," to include Illinois and Wisconsin, and NYC.

I agree that Justice Scalia's explicit statement ("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.") seems to acknowledge a Constitutional mandate for "Shall Issue", but I disagree that it also acknowledges a mandate for "Must License" in states that do not currently have a license regime for concealed carry.

One does wonder, though, if this decision prevents states that currently have a licensing regime from eliminating concealed carry.

Hopyard · June 28th, 2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongRider

I lived through that era and was no great fan of tricky dick. But I do have to respect Gordon Liddy ....

He did the crime and he did the time.

That makes him respectable?

June 28th, 2008, 12:01 AM	#544
paramedic70002 Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Franklin, VA Posts: 1,803	High Court gun ban veto triggers review of Mass. law - BostonHerald.com High Court gun ban veto triggers review of Mass. law Yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns will force Massachusetts officials to review the state’s gun laws, long considered among the toughest in the nation. In the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights, the court ruled 5-4 that Washington’s ban was incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said her office was reviewing the decision but did not expect it to result in a “radical” change in the state’s gun laws. “This decision is part of an on-going process . . . to balance public safety concerns and the need for sensible gun control with the legitimate right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for hunting, sport or self-defense,” Coakley said. “Our office will work with state and local law enforcement to ensure that we strike that balance.‘ Massachusetts has 216,000 registered firearms, according to the Executive Office of Public Safety. But in Boston, where there are 4,300 active gun licenses, police Commissioner Ed Davis said he was concerned about the ruling. “I feel that it opens the door for fewer regulations, which has the potential of resulting in increased deaths,” Davis said. The court not only struck down Washington’s handgun ban, but also a requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled. Massachusetts has a similar law requiring that guns either have a trigger lock or be secured in a locked container. “We’ve been arguing since 1998, when the Legislature passed the mandatory storage law, that it would be impossible to defend yourself in your home when you’re required to keep your firearm under lock and key,” said James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League. In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, noting 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.” Boston College law professor Robert Bloom said the Supreme Court ruling may cause Massachusetts to revise its gun laws. “I could envision a child-safety lock being appropriate, much like a child-safe pill bottle,” Bloom said. “But I wonder whether requiring a gun to be locked up will still be valid because Scalia said for a gun to truly be used in self-defense, you need instantaneous access.” But John Rosenthal, a gun owner and founder and chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, said he expects the ruling to have little practical effect. “Responsible gun owners lock their guns,” he said. “Irresponsible gun owners don’t.” Article URL: High Court gun ban veto triggers review of Mass. law - BostonHerald.com __________________ Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But... Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

June 28th, 2008, 12:02 AM	#545
paramedic70002 Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Franklin, VA Posts: 1,803	Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban - News Story - WMAQ \| Chicago Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans. Video:Wilmette Lifts Ban Interactive:Meet The Justices In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park. "The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance." Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms. "That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said. Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed. Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare. The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense. Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday. Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter declined to comment on the high court's ruling, saying he had not yet had a chance to read the decision or review it with village staff. NBC5's Phil Rogers reported that Wilmette was not the only community with big decisions to make in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. Six Chicago area communities: Wilmette, Winnetka, Evanston, Chicago, Oak Park and Morton Grove, have outright handgun bans, dating back to 1981, which are now apparently illegal. Eight other communities: Highland Park, Deerfield, Northbrook, River Grove, Westmont, Forest Park, Elk Grove Village and Niles, ban the sale or transfer of handguns within their city limits. On Friday, the Chicago Tribune called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. But barring that, Rogers reported, the Supreme Court's decision seems to leave little wiggle room for refinement of existing laws. "It's going to be very challenging, I think, for municipalities to hold on to the overall ban on a handgun," Frenzer said. As local communities tried to determine exactly how the ruling affected them, many activists made it clear that they were not prepared to take "no" for an answer. Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson declared that if the law means more gun stores, he would fight to have a say as to where they are located. Jackson also likened the fight against gun violence to the struggle for civil rights. "We have legalized access to weapons of mass destruction," Jackson said. "We have become the most violent nation on earth. We make the most guns and we shoot them." NRA Files Suits In Chicago, Three Suburbs Challenging Gun Bans The National Rifle Association has entered the fray over Chicago's handgun ban. The NRA filed a lawsuit Friday against the city ban. It said it also filed comparable lawsuits in the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park and Morton Grove. Several other pro-gun groups filed a separate lawsuit yesterday challenging Chicago's ban. The flurry of litigation follows a Thursday U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Washington, D.C. gun ban. NRA lobbyist Chris Cox said the lawsuits are meant to ensure state and local governments adhere to the court's ruling. He adds the NRA won't rest until the existing handgun bans are all struck down, but he said that attorneys for the pro-gun groups concede the fight over Chicago's ban could last years. Anti-gun groups said the bans help stem the number of gun-related deaths and accidents. Additional information provided by Chicago Sun-Times Inc. __________________ Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But... Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

June 28th, 2008, 08:49 AM	#548
press1280 Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: WV Posts: 381	My prediction? Because gun-rights groups like the NRA have so successfully prevented enactment of unreasonable gun laws, most existing gun regulations falling short of a ban will eventually be upheld. But more extreme or merely symbolic laws that are sometimes proposed – whose aim is to impose an "undue burden" by raising the cost of gun production, ownership and sale – would likely be found unconstitutional. All gun regulations – for example, safe storage laws and licensing – will have to be shown to be consistent with an effective right of self-defense by law-abiding citizens. +1 Your average clean-criminal record citizen should not fall under any "ban," of any weapon nor have to wait months and months to purchase a gun. They probably won't mess with shorter wait periods like the 7 day wait period and so forth. __________________ And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode