MEGA THREAD -Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights to All 50 States

[jar]

This seems to be the narrowest possible decision in our favor. They elaborate no further (compared to Heller) about what restrictions are permissible under 2A, and they don't even explicitly strike down the Chicago ban. They merely reverse the 7th circuit's finding that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated, and remand. It's the victory I expected, but not the one I hoped for.

Yeah. At least on my skim, the majority opinion doesn't really tell us anything new.

They reitterate that Heller does not overturn all possible regulations. I don't remember seeing "reasonable restriction", but this opinion isn't really about gun rights; Heller controls.

Exactly, this was really a 14A case, not a 2A case. At least from the majority perspective. Try applying the dissent to any other right and it'll be as ridiculous to liberal ears as it is to ours.

 

[flintoid]

But didn't the justices Bush appoint replace conservative ones anyway? Therefore all Bush did was keep the status quo.

solid point

 

[TimMcG74]

Careful, it will make you:

I read it, and basically, they say that there is no natural right to armed self defense, and the 2A applies only to military.

What kind of an ideologically driven pansy would assert that there is no natural right to armed self defense!?!? Self preservation is a BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE. If it weren’t, humanity as we know it never would have existed. If one cannot plainly see that right in 2A, then it should probably be the most obvious unremunerated right. Liberals are so maddeningly naive.

 

[Garys]

But didn't the justices Bush appoint replace conservative ones anyway? Therefore all Bush did was keep the status quo.

No. Rehnquist was not a conservative, nor was O'Connor. O'Connor was a swing voter, often siding with the liberals. Alito was appointed when she stepped down and is far more of a strict constructionist than she was. Rehnquist was not particularly conservative, especially in his later years. Roberts is far more so. Both of Bush's appointments brought the court back towards the center than it had been for many of the Rehnquist years. OTOH, Obama so far has only been able to replace liberals with liberals, so the balance has up until now stayed the same. Kagan isn't conservative, isn't pro gun rights and certainly isn't pro military. She'll probably be narrowly affirmed, which is too bad. I don't think that the Republicans can stall her nomination until after the November mid terms at which time the GOP is likely to gain enough seats in the Senate to block her confirmation.

 

[TheRoland]

Yeah. At least on my skim, the majority opinion doesn't really tell us anything new.



Exactly, this was really a 14A case, not a 2A case. At least from the majority perspective. Try applying the dissent to any other right and it'll be as ridiculous to liberal ears as it is to ours.

The dissent really is bizarre. I usually appreciate, or at least understand, the liberal wing of this court. But this dissent just seems like "we'll say anything to ban guns". I just don't get it.

 

[Bill Nance]

I just finished reading the opinion (not all the dissents) and it's a pretty firm smackdown to the respondents. The language sounds like "Why are you wasting our time with BS arguments?"

In terms of the court, Heller just happened recently. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that they didn't go beyond the fundamental issue at hand, which was incorporation, not defining "reasonable restrictions." That opinion wasn't even asked for AFAIK.

 

[jar]

But didn't the justices Bush appoint replace conservative ones anyway? Therefore all Bush did was keep the status quo.

Except Roberts replaced Rehnquist, who died in office. If Lurch had won, Rehnquist would've been replaced by a liberal and this would've gone the other way.

 

[Dr_Scholl]

I don't know about the Brady people, but the Violence Policy Center has released the expected hand wringing statement. "People will die" and "Cities and towns will have to expend precious resources to fight frivolous cases" crap. Well, people will die, but mostly the right people will die. And the cities and towns don't have to expend a penny, all they have to do is follow the law.

Yeah I just read it on their website. It's good for a laugh if nothing else.

The whole gun industry fading and gun ownership declining bit is always entertaining. Apparently we're losing and don't even know it.

 

[TimMcG74]

Exactly, this was really a 14A case, not a 2A case. At least from the majority perspective. Try applying the dissent to any other right and it'll be as ridiculous to liberal ears as it is to ours.

This is essentially a 14A case, but let's not underestimate the 2A implications. Incorporation to the states is a big deal; it opens the door for a whole new chapter of legal challenges. I don't expect any immediate results, but this is a really important step.

 

[NFD9]

How do you think this will effect Non-Res licenses, like NY no non-res permit stance?
People who own a second home in states like NY are effectively being banned from possessing a hand gun on there property.
Any thoughts?

 

[Dr_Scholl]

I don't know about the Brady people, but the Violence Policy Center has released the expected hand wringing statement. "People will die" and "Cities and towns will have to expend precious resources to fight frivolous cases" crap. Well, people will die, but mostly the right people will die. And the cities and towns don't have to expend a penny, all they have to do is follow the law.

Yeah I just read that. Apparently we're losing, we just don't know it yet.

 

[soloman02]

How do you think this will effect Non-Res licenses, like NY no non-res permit stance?
People who own a second home in states like NY are effectively being banned from posesing a hand gun on there property.
Any thoughts?

Good point. That could also affect Mass's non-res permits. In order to even possess a firearm in Mass as a non-resident, I think you need a non-res permit.

 

[Baldkat82]

How do you think this will effect Non-Res licenses, like NY no non-res permit stance?
People who own a second home in states like NY are effectively being banned from possessing a hand gun on there property.
Any thoughts?

Maybe we can force the states to accept licenses from other states? and simply the ID of someone from vermont or Alaska as valid for firearms...

 

[lupis42]

The dissent really is bizarre. I usually appreciate, or at least understand, the liberal wing of this court. But this dissent just seems like "we'll say anything to ban guns". I just don't get it.

It seems to be the same as the Heller dissent, and all I can ascribe it to is hoplophobia.

No. Rehnquist was not a conservative, nor was O'Connor. O'Connor was a swing voter, often siding with the liberals. Alito was appointed when she stepped down and is far more of a strict constructionist than she was. Rehnquist was not particularly conservative, especially in his later years. Roberts is far more so. Both of Bush's appointments brought the court back towards the center than it had been for many of the Rehnquist years. OTOH, Obama so far has only been able to replace liberals with liberals, so the balance has up until now stayed the same. Kagan isn't conservative, isn't pro gun rights and certainly isn't pro military. She'll probably be narrowly affirmed, which is too bad. I don't think that the Republicans can stall her nomination until after the November mid terms at which time the GOP is likely to gain enough seats in the Senate to block her confirmation.

Kagan is as weak on 1A as she is on 2A, so we might be able to bring some... unusual allies to resist her nomination. Doubtful, though, since most of the blue legislators seem to have cut off their cojones when their party got the majority.

 

[cekim]

I can't wait to see the response from the minority on why they voted no.

It will read about as coherently and sane as Ted Kaczynski's NY times piece... [sad2]

 

[Pilgrim]

Scalia did a job on Stevens...really harsh.

Here's the end of it:

"And the Court’s approach intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision. JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which “majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,” .........., but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, with “the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,” ibid.—makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril."



Steven is a real scum bag...and a real danger.

 

[dfranke]

Steven is a real scum bag...and a real danger.

Not any more he's not. This is the last opinion he'll ever write. His retirement begins tomorrow.

 

[cb1]

The dissent really is bizarre. I usually appreciate, or at least understand, the liberal wing of this court. But this dissent just seems like "we'll say anything to ban guns". I just don't get it.

I agree. The dissent seems to be all over the place. Don't use history to support the opinion but we're going to use history to support the dissent? wtf? In my opinion, some serious mental back flips are needed to justify selective incorporation so I guess the dissent shouldn't be all that surprising.

 

[jar]

This is essentially a 14A case, but let's not underestimate the 2A implications. Incorporation to the states is a big deal; it opens the door for a whole new chapter of legal challenges. I don't expect any immediate results, but this is a really important step.

I'm not saying it doesn't have huge 2A implications, just that there was no need to decide in this case what exactly they are, so the court didn't.

To everyone asking what effect it'll have on this law or that law, no one knows yet. The only thing that's certain is that complete handgun bans will be struck down. I agree with Rob's analysis that eventually LTC-As will have to be shall issue, though restrictions may remain a possibility. I also agree that this will almost certainly take a court case, possibly all the way to SCOTUS. Hopefully if so, that case will be immediately granted, reversed, and remanded.

 

[dwarven1]

Second Amendment Foundation's press release.

COURT VICTORY OVER CHICAGO IS 'CALL TO ACTION,' SAYS SAF
For Immediate Release: 6/28/2010

BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of the Chicago handgun ban is “our call to action,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“This morning’s high court ruling clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States,” Gottlieb stated. “We are already preparing to challenge other highly-restrictive anti-gun laws across the country. Our objective is to win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

In striking down Chicago’s handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally-protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege, he added.

Gottlieb announced that in recognition of SAF’s victory, the organization will host the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in the Chicago area. The event will serve as SAF’s official celebration of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“By that time,” he said, “we should have some exciting news about other actions we are currently planning.”

The ruling marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008. This time around, Mr. Gura represented SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four Chicago residents. The case was McDonald v. City of Chicago, named for plaintiff Otis McDonald.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the City of Chicago,” added ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

“Thanks to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb observed, “average Chicago residents like Mr. McDonald will now enjoy the same right of self-defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor’s policies have been unable to accomplish.

“The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted to have worked with Alan Gura, who brought together the individual plaintiffs and organized this landmark case for us and our colleagues at ISRA,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today, it feels great to be the most effective community organizer Chicago has ever had.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-

 

[TomH]

Now if the NRA would just start getting behind cases everywhere, in full force... I won't hold my breath.

 

[theGringo]

Breyer's dissent seems petulant and entirely dismissive of the Heller decision. We're well on our way to a Supreme Court, and other federal courts, that will do as they damn well please. Obama will finish the job of moonbatting the judiciary. How many more bullets will we dodge?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Talk about dodging bullets..... If this timing of Heller and McDonald (particularly McDonald) had not been "just right", we'd very likely have a 5-4 decision against us thanks to the infringer in chief. We can only hope that enough respect for stare decis remains after Obaminization of the courts to protect our rights until the pendulum swings back.

 

[Dirtypacman]

I am smiling - will see where this gets us.

 

[Nitro]

I agree with Rob's analysis that eventually LTC-As will have to be shall issue, though restrictions may remain a possibility.

Just doesn't make sense to me, I have a right in mass, so long as I give the state $100 and accept the fact my rights may not be equal to the next door neighbors? bleh.

 

[jar]

Breyer's dissent seems petulant and entirely dismissive of the Heller decision. We're well on our way to a Supreme Court, and other federal courts, that will do as they damn well please. Obama will finish the job of moonbatting the judiciary. How many more bullets will we dodge?

""We are free at last, free at last...There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands."

 

[TheRoland]

Talk about dodging bullets..... If this timing of Heller and McDonald (particularly McDonald) had not been "just right", we'd very likely have a 5-4 decision against us thanks to the infringer in chief. We can only hope that enough respect for stare decis remains after Obaminization of the courts to protect our rights until the pendulum swings back.

Kagan is replacing Stevens, no? She can't possibly be worse on this issue.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Time to put a date/time stamp mark the Chicago violent crime statistics.......then watch them fall in the coming months as people start arming themselves and start defending themselves against the thugs that run their streets.

 

[cekim]

Talk about dodging bullets..... If this timing of Heller and McDonald (particularly McDonald) had not been "just right", we'd very likely have a 5-4 decision against us thanks to the infringer in chief. We can only hope that enough respect for stare decis remains after Obaminization of the courts to protect our rights until the pendulum swings back.

Yes, our nation missed a hit to its vital organs by a handful of years or perhaps months...

The "logic" of the dissent is, as with Heller, further demonstration of the progressive agenda determined to disarm those who don't agree with them so that they can be made subjects rather than citizens.

 

[cekim]

Time to put a date/time stamp mark the Chicago violent crime statistics.......then watch them fall in the coming months as people start arming themselves and start defending themselves against the thugs that run their streets.

I wouldn't count on anything drastic right away. Self defense is only part of the picture... The culture of crime that has been created by the nanny/police state will take some time to correct.