kazzaerexys

Well, because the only immediate effect is to guarantee the relief sought by Heller (and, by extension, by Parker, & al) in the original District Court case.

As PaulJ pointed out, the actual text of the opinion is what will be used to bring suit to overturn other gun laws. It is already happening. Even though Scalia's decision only affects a particular law in a federal enclave, it is being used as the basis for suits in Chicago, San Francisco, and other places.

Similarly, there is a basis in that decision to try to attack open carry prohibitions, assault weapon bans, restrictions on private transfers, capricious may-issue enforcement, and onerous (de facto ban) registration requirements.

Even D.C. is not settled. They think they'll throw out the pre-1976 requirement for registration and leave all the rest of their crap in place. They want an 8-week approval period for registrations. They want semi-auto handguns to be ineligible for registration. They want to zone gun shops out of existence, meaning no BATFE approved FFLs, meaning no place in D.C. to buy a gun and nobody to accept transfers from out of the District. All of that, every single bit of it, fails to pass any test of reasonableness laid out in Heller.

But D.C. is going to go kicking and screaming one step at a time, and it is going to take a while. So it's no surprise we won't get other immediate victories out of this, but they will come. Of that I am as near to certain as can be. We won this round, and the gun-banners have a much, much harder hill to climb from here on out.

__________________
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?”

—Justice Antonin Scalia

Redneck Repairs

The decision is not " narrow " in the sense that it by verbage limits its self to DC . It is " narrow " in the sense that the 2nd is one of the rights that does not share " incorporation " where by it cannot be further limited by states . Now not to say it should be further limited , or can or cannot be further limited , but it has not been found to be " incorporated " yet so it may be . However on a good side the majority opinion specifically compared the 2nd to the 1st . and this leads this old non lawyer to believe that the current setting court considers it to come under strict scrutiny . Either Chicago or SF will likely sort out the " incorporation issue " assuming both dont just fold ( as anti gun rights folk wanted DC to do before the SCOUS verdict on Heller ) . Both Willimette and Mortan Grove IL have folded tents and stated they have tabled illegal gun laws . They did this for pure $$ issues as they cannot afford to fight the claims that the NRA and others may bring . Note tho they called " safe " they did not do away with the law , they just ceased enforcement in hopes no one will persue suit on THEM. No gun grabber wants to be responsible for " incorporation " where by Heller applys nationwide and from it we see the " common usage doctrine that throws out not only semi auto pistol bans , but imho any homeland defense rifle ( by anti assault weapon ) ban that could be written . Under " common use " I dont believe we win a thing on class 3 weapons ( call it machine guns or AOW regestrations ) . However we win a lot on rolling back defacto bans such as CA and other stats have . In My state as many others we can own any semi auto of any mag capacity . If i an residents of most states can do this , does this not rise to the " common use " standard ? What we need first off is someone " stupid " enough ( kinda like dc ) to take this the full ride on a states rights basis . Incorporation from any federal court is then almost assured . SCOUS says that the 2nd is an individual right , no lower court will be allowed to question that . Now its up to us to pick good cases to bring to define such things as incorporation , scope , and scrutiny . I for one wont live long enough see the 2nd sorted out , however for the first time since we became a nation it is a right for you and me idependant of milita service . I know this not because its common sense , rather because the SCOUS said so . Incorporation is a given, its gonna happen , it just takes arrogance as the folk in Chi town show when they defend the indefensible . Dont forget that for all the US history the SCOUS never took up a direct challenge . In fact the Bradys bragged that no gun law had ever been turned over due to the second . Even miller ( a much quoted decision ) only had one side testify and IMHO from what i read they expected to loose if they had even token resistance . Incorporation is a given, we just need someone stupid enough to make it an issue . The same as far as i can see any kind of " assault weapons " ban .

tinkerinWstuff

Maybe I'm a pessimest but it worries me to have the scope of the ruling pushed too far too fast when it was only a 5-4 ruling. Torques me off when one of the disenting judges was quoted in the media as saying he didn't believe the 2A gave americans the right to have a loaded handgun on their nightstand. To that I say, "What business is it of his or anyone's elses what I do in the bedroom of my own house?"

Because of that statement and the 5-4 ruling, I doubt that this could now stand an Open Carry challenge in the federal court with these judges. If we don't get another constitutionaly conservitive judge on the bench.....

Hopyard

This is where my poor and no doubt legally naive brain gives up.

Reasoning from an analogous situation: In the 1950s the SC said, with respect to a suit, that there must be school integration for fairness; Or, later, that abortions must be permitted.

Now, those suits of course involved specific school districts and specific plaintiffs.

What I don't understand is why those were immediately applicable to the entire nation, whereas this present result--that there are individual rights to keep and bear arms-- does not apply nationwide.

My poor brain doesn't understand it.

I've seen and heard comments that somehow this would need to apply indirectly through the 14th ; I can't understand why a further suit needs to be brought.

Anyway, I am sure brighter and more informed heads understand these issues, but to me, the plain wording and the ruling seem to indicate an almost unregulated right to keep and bear unless you are a felon or a nut job.

I thought Scalia made this rather plain.

(And I am no fan of his, but that's what it looked like he wrote for the majority.)

matiki

Those were examples, not a list. I think that's where the concern comes from. To say that regulation is acceptable, with some examples but not a guideline might as well have been the same as saying, "including but not limited to". I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's possible (if not likely) that one could successfully argue that in another court.

__________________
Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Hopyard

OK, I can sort of understand that, because a number of years back I did something based on statutory language that counsel said I could do, but was later sued for. What was thought to be a non-exhaustive list of examples of permitted action, turned out to be (in the opinion of the judge) an absolute list, and so if something wasn't on it, that was that; and so anything not on it was prohibited.

So what you are saying is that we don't know really, if Scalia was limiting regulation or giving examples of possible reasons for regulation.

I still don't see why the ruling is limited to DC or would require some action through the 14th to make it more broadly applicable to other situations.

Again, this is way too much for my poor delicate little brain.

kazzaerexys

Supreme Court decisions affect do the entire nation. This is why it is important for litigants to get their case up to that level. If the Supremes do not want to set a nation-wide precedent, they simply choose not to hear a case (they do not grant certiori). They can either say the lower court's decision is fine, or tell the lower court to go back and retry the case. Either way, the resultant decision stays limited to the Federal Circuit from which the appeal was made.

The interesting thing here is that it was the District of Columbia that appealed a lower court decision to SCOTUS. The Brady Bunch and their ilk did not want this precisely because it would make any resulting decision (which they correctly feared) a national one.

Now, the next subtlety (what you are trying to figure out) is whether or not in recognizing an America-wide federal protection of RKBA enshrined in the 2A, they also mean to incorporate that decision to apply at the State level.

In short, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, people thought the Amendments only restricted the feds. Over time (especially after the Civil War), SCOTUS has generally moved more and more protected rights into the 'incorporated' category, meaning that your State can no more declare an official religion than the feds could...and so forth. (In essence, the decisions you cited above were about rights that were already understood to be incorporated at the State level, so no extra step was necessary.)

This is what the Chicago and San Fran suits will push. The Heller decision did not explicitly state the the 2A applied to the States, but the argument strongly suggested that it should be. Once Chicago falls, we will have incorporation to go with the individual RKBA.

Once that is established, then litigants can start to fight individual state gun laws based on violation of an incorporated individual RKBA.

Don't worry. It'll take a while. You'll have plenty of time to try and sort it all out.

__________________
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?”

—Justice Antonin Scalia

SelfDefense

Your first sentence is correct. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was only to restrict the Federal government. Nothing since then has changed the original intent. The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with incorporation, selective incorporation, or anything of the sort. Incorporation is a judicial construct; it has nothing to do with the law or the original intent of the Founders. It is identical ideaology: the antis wanted to change the Second Amendment and now the pro gun lobby wants to have it 'incorporated' into the Fourtenth. Neither position has any basis in the Constitution.

I suggest anyone interested in the Fourtenth Amendment read Fairman's work. His paper is the seminal treatise on why the Fourteenth was never ratified with the the intent to force the Bill of Rights on the states.

Let's hope not. The erosion of state's rights has been ongoing for decades. Every state is a sovereign entity and their people should decide the issues, not kowtow to five men in robes, whether you agree with the robed tyranny or not.

Hopyard

I don't think so. I picked two decisions, school integration and privacy *abortion rights* which were clearly not understood to be incorporated at the State level when the decisions were handed down.

If that understanding existed, the cases wouldn't have been litigated at the SC. In fact, the wide understanding (at least in the deep southern states) was that States could run allegedly "separate but equal school systems" which were racially segregated.

So again, why were those rulings instantly obeyed (with minor exceptions in Little Rock and elsewhere) and recognized as the law of the entire land, but the Heller decision is NOT instantly recognized as the law of the land?

Clearly, I am missing something, don't understand, but that is why I am asking.

SelfDefense

Exactly what are you asking? The Heller decision was specific to a single case: Heller. It was specific to the handgun ban in Washington DC, a Federal jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with individual states. The fact is that the enumerated rights should be the values of the states, and in most, the right to keep and bear arms is preserved and protected. All Court decisions are singular in nature. They have no power to make law. Their effect is indirect. No one wants to waste resources when the Court precedent will certainly trump local decisions. Heller provides no such precedent until the Court usurps states' rights and 'incorporates' [read: forces] their opinion down the throats of the states.

As to the Brown decision, the integration of schools was and is a huge impediment to education. Forcing children to endure interminable bus rides to distant neighborhoods in the name of political correctness is sheer nonsense. It inhibits learning, which should be the only goal of public schools. Worse, it causes students to be ostracized by their peers and causes problems we now associate with racial tension.

As to abortion and the abominable Roe opinion...well we cannot discuss that in this forum.