Heller Has Been Affirmed!

[2barearms]

Scalia wrote the opinion which has not been posted yet..................

[V guy]

We Won!

[2barearms]

Here's the link:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/


This is the link to the opinion: warning it's 157 pages!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[MordeanGrey]

Quoting the syllabus: 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.

[Scott S]

I haven't read the entire opinion, yet, but after reading the "executive summary" on the first three pages, I have to say that it doesn't look good. Here are a few quotes that give me pause:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. (my emphasis) Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The slippery slope just got steeper. You thought NICS/instant check was already bad, just give Congress a couple years. And the first "assault weapon" ban? Hell, it was a poster child law for "dangerous and unusual weapons". Expect the next one to include anything that doesn't look exactly like dad's deer rifle.

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.

Wanna take any bets on how rigorous the new DC licensing law will be?

Slap me if I'm wrong, but this opinion doesn't sound good to me. I was worried this would happen.

[2barearms]

I was sure no one would be happy with the opinion, but it's better than
no guns at all.

[MordeanGrey]

and it affirms the individual right, vs militia rights

It also says that banning a certain class of weapon is unconstitutional (in this case handguns).

Could the same be said for assault rifles?

[2barearms]

I think you should read the entire opinion before you make claims about the
excerpts, there is a lot of interpretation left as it relates to firearms. My take is
that Miller is the most operative Decision and that Military Type weapons in common use today would be protected, but only those sold through commercial
channels. It would silly to say that weapons in
use in say 1776 would be protected. I say dangerous and unusal wepons, I
would think RPGs and Squad Type MGs would be what they mean hear. A pistol
is dangerous too?