I've asked elsewhere here: Does this mean that all laws related to gun ownership

[AlinPA]

and acquiring them are struck down? Sounds like anybody, I mean anybody can acquire a gun with no obstacles. If everyone can acquire one, I have problems with some people getting them. Who? To start with, some mentally ill, specifically those confirmed to exhibit homicidal tendencies.

[HALO141]

1. If that's what you think it means

then you need to read it again.

No, it doesn't invalidate ALL existing gun laws. But it DOES put many of them in jeopardy and that's as it should be.

[AlinPA]

4. So they backed away from a lot of the issues like background checks.

[slackmaster]

10. The issue was DC's de facto total ban on handgun ownership

Background checks are still OK.

[AlinPA]

5. Then I don't see what all the fuss was about.

[HALO141]

12. Well...

For one thing, the fuss is about the fact that many people on the wrong side of the debate have fallaciously claimed that US v. Miller supported their "collective rights" view that the Amendment only applied to the "right of the states to maintain armed militias" and, in the modern day, "militia" is defined as the National Guard. They were wrong, of course, but they got a lot mileage out of repeating the mantra often and loudly. After all, when your argument doesn't hold water then you can often turn things around if you can control the language of the debate. The Heller decision explicitly rejects the "collective rights" interpretation and affirms the individual right.

[SlipperySlope]

15. This ruling was TREMENDOUS

The initial impact was tiny; two DC laws will have to be modified. The ruling as it stands has no impact on any other city or state.

But it was a TREMENDOUS ruling nonetheless. The Supreme Court has NEVER said anything substantial about what the Second Amendment means. They have finally spoken and settled many arguments.

* It protects an INDIVIDUAL right unconnected to service in a militia.
* It is a right to personal self-defense, that also happens to enable the militia. It is not a "hunting and sportsman's" right.
* It is a right that pre-existed the constitution, not one created by the constitution.
* That right is entitled to at least some degree of protection (TBD at a later date).

Even if the initial impact is tiny, this ruling is groundbreaking. This is the "Roe v Wade" of gun rights. The details will have to be fleshed out by future courts and future rulings, but the overall right is established.

Prior to today, there were many who argued that there was no individual right and that guns could be outright banned. After today, the right has been established, and now the long process of defining the limitations on that right begin.

None of our rights are considered absolute by the courts; they all withstand some level of restriction. Now the right to bear arms has been elevated to that position.

[AlinPA]

17. It's good that they put out their interpretation. But, they did not really do anything about

knocking down laws where indeed many people are kept from acquiring weapons.

[SlipperySlope]

19. They couldn't do more.

Generally speaking the court can only address the specific case that is being argued.

This case concerned Washington DC, which has a special federal status. It isn't really a state or a normal city, it is instead a part of the federal goverment.

Therefore, no part of this case concerned whether a State or normal city could ban gun ownership. This case was purely about whether the federal government (acting through DC) could ban gun ownership.

Because that was the case being heard, that was all the decision could address.

Trust me, there will be follow-on cases very soon.

[AlinPA]

21. Good clarification. Now, they can be cited and maybe the background checks can be eliminated.

[virginia mountainman]

2. No,,

Just outright bans on common firearms are out..It does not do anything to stop Brady checks, and most other gun control legislation..

But it DOES, affirm as a RIGHT, the ability for a citizen to own a gun, for self defence, in their home.

"Outright bans" on wide classes of commonly held arms, are out...This ruling should put the nail in the coffin on "so-called" Assault Rifle ban bullshit that floats up from the sewer from time to time.

[jody]

23. "in their home" and elsewhere, i.e. "use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as

self-defense within the home".

"Self-defense within the home" was just an example.

[Raskolnik]

3. No.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/my-sense-of-the-bottom-line-from-heller/

[SteppingRazor]

6. Absolutely not. From page 54 of the majority opinion:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..."

[AlinPA]

7. Thanks. Guys in my Sportsmen's Club say it didn't do anything and think it was

a waste of time. They don't like background checks. Maybe they should start from scratch on all the laws.

[SlipperySlope]

16. Ask the guys in your sportsmans club this...

What previous Supreme Court ruling was there that protected an individual right to bear arms unconnected to serving in a militia?

(pause)

There wasn't one.

Even if the initial impact is minimal, this ruling is groundbreaking. It took pretty much the entire body of "individual rights" knowledge and scholarship and made it the official opinion of the Supreme Court.

At first I didn't get it. The ruling just restates a bunch of stuff I already knew. But then I realized that the ruling was preaching to the choir. I already knew all this because I had already researched the second amendment. But none of this knowledge was the official opinion of the court, and there were plenty of jackasses in high places with crackpot theories that were wrong but that invalidated the individual right.

Too bad your buddies don't like background checks. I don't like them either. But the court isn't about to reverse the idea that convicted felons can't own guns, and the background check is one way to enforce that.

[AlinPA]

18. Yep, but we still say that acquiring a gun (background checks, etc) means that

we are kept from getting them. Most talk is zero laws. None at all.

[SlipperySlope]

22. Background check hasn't stopped me from getting one.

If someone is being prevented by a Brady background check from getting a firearm, it means one of two things to me.

1: They are a person who is prohibited from owning firearms (convicted felon, etc.)
2: There was a mistake made.

I philosophically disagree with background checks, but in practice they have never gotten in my way of buying a gun. If your buddies don't like (1) then I wonder if they think *anyone* should be prohibited weapons. If your buddies experienced (2), then there are relatively simple ways to get the mistake corrected.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. I guess it prevents you from getting one if you are legally barred from having one.

My sportsmen club is just a shooting range. We hardly ever just sit down to converse, of course there are thousands of members, so it's kind of hard to get together.

David

[slackmaster]

8. Not by a long shot

Here is the federal list of people who are prohibited from owning firearms:

...It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who <2> has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence....

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

[AlinPA]

11. "Anyone can own a gun" who wants to protect themselves can have it is what I read.

These 9 say that they can't. I don't get why they even went through all the trouble.

[old mark]

9. There is a specific statement that says there is

no intent to make guns available to felons, mentally ill or other persons not qualified to own a gun, but that all qualified citizens who desire to own a gun have the right to do so. It states that weapons in the home may be used for defense, and that weapons may be carried and used for defense. It specified "weapons", not "handguns", so that it seems to apply to all types of weapons.
It states that the right to own and carry weapons preceeds the Constitution, which does not grant the right, but protects it from infringement.
It reads very well, and was obviously a well studied opinion. I urge you to read it thoroughly.
mark

[AlinPA]

13. My point is that we still have laws about acquiring weapons, so no real progress was made.

[slackmaster]

20. To a resident of DC, the ruling is huge

The difference between not being able to legally buy a handgun at all, and being able to buy one and keep it at home.

The difference between government requiring you to keep a lawfully owned firearm disassembled, vs. no such restriction.

[Callisto32]

27. My friend,

we now have legal precedent, in the SC, no less. And when you want to get stuff done in the legal system, precedent is very, very handy to have. Believe it or not, HUGE progress has been made, but it is progress in the potential of the situation. Now it is in the hands of a great many people in the various jurisdictions.

[AlinPA]

28. Here's the part where they backed off of eliminating existing laws:

(see post by uberllama42 below.)
2. 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.

[uberllama42]

14. Read the syllabus, item #2 on page 2

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

2. 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.

[greenvpi]

24. The rulling was good for all sensible people.

It ruled that a right was an individual one. That's good for the other rights so the Repukes can't say, for example like they have in the past, that free speach only exists for groups. It is also good that the ruling reaffirms licensing of these dangerous things. So, if you make the licenses not available or prohibitavely expensive, then we are all safer. It's a good thing.

Hopefully in DC, handguns will becomd legal, but the licenses will take so long to get and be so expensive and require so many hoops to jump through that very few of them are actually issued.

[hooptie]

29. Licenses

The Supreme Court would take a very dim view of such shenanigans. The "ban" in D.C. was not an ban per se, the city simply required anyone who wanted to own a handgun to have a license. The only catch was, they city refused to issue licenses. This type of de facto ban is what got struck down by the Heller decision. D.C. will very quickly find themselves back in court if they try to make the licensing process "so expensive and require so many hoops to jump through that very few of them are actually issued." The "bans" in Chicago and New York are the same need-a-license-that-we-won't-issue de facto bans.

[Dimensio0]

30. So you are in favor of requiring licensing for exercise of a right?

What other Constitutionally-protected rights do you believe should be licensed? Are you unopposed to creating a "class" system such that only the very rich may be able to afford to exercise Constitutionally-protected rights? Do you believe it acceptable for the District of Columbia to essentially circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by instituting a prohibitive licensing system for handguns?

[PFunk]

25. This is going to be revisited again folks

Probally within 10-20 years (if not sooner) when death's from hangun crimes start to rise again due to various factors. One of them being gang conflicts.

[osperto]

26. Because gangs...

Were currently not arming themselves out of fear of running into conflicts with DC's gun ban?

Seriously?

[tburnsten]

31. I think after the initial shock

of newfound freedom, D.C. home invaders may become a little more hesitant to bust into people's homes while they are in them. This might have an impact on the murder rate, though that is pretty heavily dependant on gang activity in D.C. so probably won't change much. The biggest thing is that people will have the right to keep themselves safe while waiting for emergency responders to show up. And if they don't show, or come 30 minutes or more later, the person in need of assistance does not have to just hope for the best.

[jeepnstein]

32. How's that?

The gangs I've encountered are not exactly concerned with any kind of lawful behavior. They are made up of individuals who's lives are so out of control they should be removed from society for an appropriate period of time-out. They maraud through neighborhoods with impunity and are feared by both lawful citizens and the justice system. I seriously doubt legal gun ownership is even an issue to them.

Oh, and you should see some of the junk they are packing. You can say whatever you want about the availability of arms, these guys are getting their stuff from the bottom of the barrel. If they had a thousand bucks to spend, they'd be buying dope not a new AR15. Well, except for the ones like the bunch in Phoenix who may or may not be members of the Mexican Army doing a bit of moonlighting, they had nice stuff.

J.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Gang deaths won't force anything to be revisited.