AFFIRMED

[bossy22]

2A PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

[east texas lib]

1. So it appears...

'Bout time, too!:thumbsup:

[AlinPA]

2. But............ruling's syllabus part 2 #2 still inhibit the acquistion of guns and

still allows laws that force people to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Doesn't sound like a big deal when it comes to background checks.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[sl8]

3. Haven't you asked this same question several times already ...

... and received some very good answers?

Mr. Heller challenged the District of Columbia's authority to deny him the right to keep a handgun in his home. The Supreme Court supported the Appeals Court decision in favor of Mr. Heller. In the process of reviewing his case, they interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as justification to rule that the District's ban was unconstitutional.

The issues involved are a little more complicated than that, but why on earth would you expect a ruling that would change some entity's (State, Federal, D.C. ?) concealed carry laws, background check requirements or "acquisition of guns" legislation?

[AlinPA]

4. What I've tried to say is that by including the 2.2 in their syllabus they

made it hard in the future to eliminate a lot of gun laws (yes, that do inhibit acquistion of weapons). Lawyers will cite that section and say that even Scalia supports gun laws. Even citing the U.S. v Miller re:unusual weapons further affirmed existing laws.

[sl8]

5. It depends on which laws you're talking about..

Some of them will stand, some won't.

Scalia, or any other Justice, couldn't realistically not cite Miller. Scalia could have said that Miller decision was full of crap, but that wouldn't have been a good idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which would be trying to convince at least 4 other Justices agree with his opinion.

Certainly lawyers will cite Scalia's comments about gun laws. Lawyers cite SCOTUS cases regarding the restrictions placed on all of our rights. That doesn't mean that future jurists will find their arguments compelling enough to rule in their favor.

In principle, at least, the Court should not have ruled for or against any hindrances to the "acquistion of weapons" beyond what was necessary to resolve this case. This case was about DC's gun ban, not about background checks and not about what laws States can make regarding arms.

[radioburning]

6. Funny, I thought everything in the Bill of Rights was specifically about "individual rights"

Well, at least it's finally clear about 2A. Now the anti's have one less argument point against us gunners. I'll be at the range tomorrow, celebrating...