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

[MassMark]

If they go away, I am buying 100 PMAGS and un-neutering my rifles.

You should anyway...

 

[Rob]

That is all.

 

[Half Cocked]

the Court has held that Heller identifies only a right to possess a handgun in the home, something permitted under all LTC restrictions.

Someone gets it!..... I think some of you are looking at this too broadly. My guess is that this has little impact on Ma. Remember in Heller... "reasonable restrictions" will be allowed. We will be arguing where that "reasonableness" line is forever just like in the 4th amendment.

I am not saying the ruling is bad it just does not impact us as much as it does others.

 

[soloman02]

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.

Timing with regard to Obama doesn't mean anything unless a justice who is one of the five who voted for Heller leaves or dies. Obama is replacing Stevens (who voted against Heller and this one).

Therefore the current balance of power is still the same with regard to 2A issues.


"the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship"

I have not read the decision yet, but if this language is in there, I feel someone will try to use the word "privilege" to keep the restrictions in MA and other states in place.

 

[AppleSeeds]

Poll: Do you agree with the Supreme Court that gun ownership is a fundamental right which cannot be abridged by states?

Vote here:
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/supreme-court-892/topics/do-you-agree-supreme-court

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I'd hold off on that one for a while. For the moment, the Court has held that Heller identifies only a right to possess a handgun in the home, something permitted under all LTC restrictions. In order for the Second Amendment to be offended by carrying restrictions, a court is going to have to rule that the Second Amendment also includes a right to carry a firearm in some, to be defined, circumstances.

My rights don't stop at the inside of my front door....they extend to every place I participate in living in society. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

 

[TomH]

I'd hold off on that one for a while. For the moment, the Court has held that Heller identifies only a right to possess a handgun in the home, something permitted under all LTC restrictions. In order for the Second Amendment to be offended by carrying restrictions, a court is going to have to rule that the Second Amendment also includes a right to carry a firearm in some, to be defined, circumstances.

An LTC "target only" would imply you are not allowed to use it for self defense in your own home.

 

[Realtor MA]

Originally Posted by RKG
the Court has held that Heller identifies only a right to possess a handgun in the home, something permitted under all LTC restrictions.

But doesn't it also mean that decisions not to issue a permit due to things like suitability may be challenged?

It seems like the court has clearly upheld the 'keep' part of the constitution. Will they ever address the 'bear' part?

 

[TheRoland]

My rights don't stop at the inside of my front door....they extend to every place I participate in living in society. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

Sure, but you're going to need a SCOTUS case directly on this point before it matters.

 

[Half Cocked]

My rights don't stop at the inside of my front door....they extend to every place I participate in living in society. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

Have you read Heller?

 

[M1911]

An LTC "target only" would imply you are not allowed to use it for self defense in your own home.

That's a matter of opinion. I doubt you will find any precedent for that.

 

[Half Cocked]

But doesn't it also mean that decisions not to issue a permit due to things like suitability may be challenged?

My guess is that a court would find that "reasonable". But who knows

 

[AppleSeeds]

Article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html

The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to lead to years of litigation across the country as lower courts decide how far the right to bear arms extends and which restrictions are unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said the 2008 ruling has already triggered a "tsunami of legal uncertainty." He predicted more "confusion, upheaval and burden on the states."

Can you believe that quote? First of all a "tsunami of legal uncertainty" is not the concern of the court. If Stevens wants to be a legislator and help write crystal clear laws that don't violate the constitution then he should run for office and legislate from the hill instead of the bench. I just can't believe a Justice, entrusted with protecting our rights, would make such an asinine comment. Disgraceful.

 

[Half Cocked]

An LTC "target only" would imply you are not allowed to use it for self defense in your own home.

Says Who?

 

[arlow]

An LTC "target only" would imply you are not allowed to use it for self defense in your own home.

No, a LTC "target only" implies that the only place outside your own property and house you can carry is at, to and from the range.

 

[cekim]

Someone gets it!..... I think some of you are looking at this too broadly. My guess is that this has little impact on Ma. Remember in Heller... "reasonable restrictions" will be allowed. We will be arguing where that "reasonableness" line is forever just like in the 4th amendment.

I am not saying the ruling is bad it just does not impact us as much as it does others.

This point is in dispute and will no doubt be litigated...

On page 46, they re-iterate what Heller said:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.”

The left is reading this to mean that anything goes on regulation.

I read this to say that the court has imposed restrictions in the past, but it is unclear as to whether anything beyond past allowances will be permitted.

It by no means strikes down MA law wholesale, though it does invalidate a number of key holdings of MA SJC of application of the second amendment, but having invalidated those holdings (by virtue of disposing of the "militia rights" argument from the 70's that underpins them), we will still have to litigate what it now means... It does mean some changes will be required to "may issue".

Unfortunately, even the "5" supposedly on our side still cannot read the words "shall not be infringed"...

Due process/Common law do allow the infringement of the rights of Felons duly prosecuted and found guilty, but there is no reading of the Constitution I can see that permits the restrictions of non-Felon's rights...

Clearly the Court does not yet see it this way...

 

[dfranke]

The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to lead to years of litigation across the country as lower courts decide how far the right to bear arms extends and which restrictions are unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said the 2008 ruling has already triggered a "tsunami of legal uncertainty." He predicted more "confusion, upheaval and burden on the states."

Yet, in almost the same breath:

JUSTICE SCALIA worries that there is no “objective” way to decide
what is essential to a “liberty-filled” existence: Better, then, to ignore
such messy considerations as how an interest actually affects people’s
lives.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

This seems to be right on point. It appears to me like there's a good argument that LTC-Bs must be shall-issue now.

No, its complete nonsense.....ALL "permits" should be abolished post haste, they are a violation of the rights of citizens. Nobody should have to pay the government to exercise their rights under the law.......and the meaning of the law has just been stated by the Supreme Court.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Have you read Heller?

Have you read the second ammendment?

Are you another one who doesn't understand the simple meaning of Shall not be infringed?

 

[cekim]

Have you read the second ammendment?

Sadly, it seems there is an epidemic of illiteracy WRT to that amendment...

"shall not be infringed" appears to be too complicated for the liberal mind, but as it stands, the correct interpretation of that phrase would presently lose in front of SCOTUS by 9:0

They have gone WELL beyond the common-law abridgment of the rights of convicted felons to give themselves the power to strip the rights of the mentally ill and weapons in "sensitive places" (such as schools, courts, etc... per Heller and MacDonald now)...

HC is just stating the facts as they exist today. We need to change them. This decision was never the end of this debate/conflict.

 

[Half Cocked]

deleted

 

[MassMark]

The sooner people keep and bear arms en masse - in defiance of state/local laws, the better...Hiding in the shadows, bitching and speculating on the internet and banking on Supreme Court rulings and false-prophet-for-profit gun organizations to save the day, just keeps us neck and neck with garden slugs.....

 

[BWhite]

THANK GOD this case was decided before The King of Queens takes a seat on the Supreme Court bench. . . assuming her nomination survives that whole "naked shower picture" scandal

Some say he/she also looks like Lou Costello

 

[JuergenG]

from the decision:



So, no guns for aliens, legal or illegal.

BOOOO !

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Sadly, it seems there is an epidemic of illiteracy WRT to that amendment...

"shall not be infringed" appears to be too complicated for the liberal mind, but as it stands, the correct interpretation of that phrase would presently lose in front of SCOTUS by 9:0

They have gone WELL beyond the common-law abridgement of the rights of convicted felons to give themselves the right to strip the rights of the mentally ill and weapons in "sensitive places" (such as schools, courts, etc... per Heller and MacDonald now)...

HC is just stating the facts as they exist today. We need to change them. This decision was never the end of this debate/conflict.

Agreed, but at times it sounds as if he almost supports the wrong headed decisions. My apologies HC for being snappy about it.

 

[Pilgrim]

from the WSJ poll readers comments:

The second amendment was never intended to be used for a the "commoners" to have a gun and certainly it was not envisioned how people would be using this amendment. Life was far different when they wrote the constitution and it's been very misinterpreted. The Supreme Court needs a huge U.S. history lesson as well as most Americans. Alaska wasn't even part of the U.S. at this time. According to Palin it was part of Russia.

another ignorant lib who needs a history/geography lesson.

 

[Garys]

Justice Thomas' opinion relied heavily on citing the racist roots of gun control. That's a significant position to take for any Justice.

 

[Half Cocked]

My apologies HC for being snappy about it.

Accepted

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

from the WSJ poll readers comments:



another ignorant lib who needs a history/geography lesson.

I saw that too.....she's lucky she's out of arm's reach.

She's obviously overdosed on moonbat koolade.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I am building a team of lawyers, law students and college student to prepare for litigation applying the McDonald decision to state law. Please email [email protected] and steve@attorneycohen with your resume.

A most righteous undertaking!! I hope you are inundated with replies Jesse.