Im OK with the SCOTUS gun decision.

[zanne]

They didn't throw gun control out the window along with lifting the home gun ban in Washington DC. It will only be legal to have a gun in their homes. They still have gun control. It's much better than what I thought they were going to do! I'm relieved.

[Hydra]

1. I'm kinda surprised it didn't go the other way

Bush and Cheney would like nothing better than to have the only legal guns in America belong to Blackwater.

-----------
Edit

Typo in the title

[yeswiican]

2. I agree

[fasttense]

3. I was hoping they would rule against civilians having guns

and piss off the entire republican party. I was hoping for a good laugh. Got to go...Hey, kid get away from my rocket launcher.

[atreides1]

5. Sarcasm??

Just curious.

[zanne]

23. No. No sarcasm. nt

[BigDaddy44]

25. You haven't been reading very much then.

Because a substantial part of the democratic party would have been pissed also.

[krispos42]

4. Yes, that was the key issue

It was the arbitrary ban, as well as the prohibition about functioning firearms, that was at issue.


Everything else that we spar over is generally considered legal. The debate rises from effectivenss and burden on the gun owner, not usually Constitutionality.

[jody]

6. Wrong "only be legal to have a gun in their homes". Please read the opinion before you spout more

statements that are not in the decision.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

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, con¬cealed 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 fire¬arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 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. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi¬trarily 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. Pp. 56–64.

[LawSchoolLiberal]

8. Having read the entire decision...

I agree with most of the majority's holdings, but I do think Scalia was overly dismissive of the 19th Century statutes governing storage of gunpowder cited in the dissenting opinions. There is a solid argument that trigger locks are no more restrictive than those requirements were, and are equally motivated by an important interest in safety. That said, I think that the interesting future caselaw will involve questions about what safety measures will be too restrictive and what measures will be permissible. I'll be interested to see what will happen when fingerprint-based trigger locks become a little more commonplace.

[jody]

9. I quickly read the opinion and believe cases will proliferate re registering firearms. The opinion

ends by saying "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."

Recent attempts to register guns in Canada have not been successful and the law might be overturned.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry for links to Canada's problem.

[zanne]

10. Why are you talking about Canada?

That's not where we live and it's not our culture.

[jody]

12. Because the issue I pointed out was "registering firearms" and Canada is going through a debacle to

create a national firearms registration system.

Do you know of another comparable attempt to develop a national firearms registration system?

Have a nice day, :hi:

[LawSchoolLiberal]

15. He's saying he believes the problems Canada has had means it's a potential area for future cases.

EDIT: Ninja'ed!... Partially. ;)

Which may be true, if a little off topic. Registration laws are one of the specific measures the majority identifies as acceptable measures in regulating ownership. (Possibly because it's not any harder to use a registered gun when you have to...) They DID also say that they were not considering the need to register the gun in this case, because neither party was challenging the requirement. As for the Canada laws, it's a national system they're in the process of implementing now, which is a major source for problems. As for our various state and local systems, they've been in place for a period of time, so many of the problems have been ironed out. (Not all; they're no more perfect than any other large scale system.) Also, no one is pushing to eliminate the programs like the Conservative Party is in Canada.

[jody]

16. SCOTUS said "District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license".

The phrase "register his handgun" is distinct from "issue him a license".

Register in RKBA use means each firearm must have a serial number and its ownership, location, etc. must be entered in a data base.

License in RKBA use and in the Heller context means a person must have a license issued by law enforcement allowing that person to keep and bear arms.

[-..__...]

17. Y'know...

your comment(s) /opinion(s) might be more credible if you were at least consistent, honest and fair.

Have you ever griped or complained when certain gun shy neighbors to the North made similar comparisons to the gun control laws and registration scheme in that country?

Did you ever point out that "that's not where we live and it's not our culture" when a previous (banished), gun control advocate known for his fondness of dragging out the firearms statistics and murder rates of other "civilized and industrialized nations" posted his repetitious rants?

Ohhh... and least I forget, do you only complain or call foul on pro-RKBA threads posted in GD ("this belongs in the Guns forum... not GD"), or do you also play that same game when threads with an anti-RKBA spin are posted here?

[zanne]

22. I'd love to see fingerprint locks become law.

I don't see what is objectionable about that. It doesn't limit anyone's freedom or liberties. It just makes us all safer, and who's not for safety? And before someone replies with "Oh, that doesn't work" can save some energy. I've heard the argument before.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

13. Have a nice day. n/t

[Oregone]

7. But doesn't this still make purchasing a gun illegal?

Since you don't do that from your home? Aren't you breaking the law all the way until you get home?

:)

[aikoaiko]

14. only the alarmist anti-gun nuts predicted anything more than what was delivered.

Gun regulation was never in danger with a pro-Heller decision. But there were many anti-gun nuts who screamed that the sky was falling.

[zanne]

18. I'm the OP. Did you bother to actually read the original post? nt

[aikoaiko]

21. Yes, I did. You said the decision was much better than you expected...

...but no one really expected anything more except alarmists who claimed that an affirmation by SCOTUS would tear down all gun laws.

[zanne]

24. It does have the potential to chip away at gun control...

You can't tell me you're not champing at the bit to get a case before a court to undo gun regulations.

[madokie]

19. I have no problem with it either

gun control is way down on my list of things to worry about. I personally am not a gun owner but I have no problem with anyone else having one. Guns themselves scare me not, its the brain controling the hand on it that do.

[zanne]

20. Exactly. People have the right to own guns, but....

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." As the official ruling says, gun control is necessary.

[papapi]

26. Who will possess the guns if U.S. citizens don't. Guns aren't going away. . . .

no matter how many people dream that dream. I, for one, am glad I have the right to own a gun, even if I don't currently have access to one and never have. Now that my Mother is dead, her Colt six shooter is packed away somewhere in the storage shed, but if the time comes when I think I need that gun in order to protect my civil rights you can bet I'll be locating that Colt in a hurry.