Month: June 2008

I think The Court has argued that the state must permit some form of bearing arms for the purposes of self-defense.  Or at the least has left the possibility open for the future.  It seems that regulating concealed carry will be permitted.

I think the Heller opinion leaves the door wide open for incorporation, as far as I can tell.  I’m still reading.

The Court says:

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily 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.

Not that this does not mean The Court is endorsing licensing.  It’s saying it does not consider that, but presumed, because the issue wasn’t raised, that licensing would be sufficient for the purposes of relief for Mr. Heller.  They also demand the licensing must not be arbitrary or capricious.  Massachusetts licensing scheme, and New Jersey’s, would be under jeopardy here.  As would New York City’s.

Here’s some limitations prsented from the opinion:

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. 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.

Interesting.  Perhaps The Court will be willing to entertain open carry being constitutionally protected, while concealed carry remains something that may be licensed by the state.  But can it be outright prohibited?   Doesn’t seem to get into that.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of DC vs. Heller that DC’s ordinances are a violation of the Second Amendment.  This is a momentous occasion.  Let the celebrations begin.

While we may not follow our constitution to the letter, at the very least, the Bill of Rights means something, no matter how much the gun haters wish it didn’t.

Long Live the Bill of Rights! Long live the Second Amendment, the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms.  The Brady Campaign, VPC, CeaseFire PA, and others, can get down and kiss our collective asses for ever trying to con Americans into believing it was only a collective right.

Mr. Gura, Mr. Levy, and many others who’s life’s work brought this to fruition, we don’t just owe you a drink, we owe you a whole damned liquor store.

Unless Chief Justice Roberts is pulling our leg, today will be the day.  Stay tuned for details.  Don’t bite your nails down too far.

UPDATE: The Court will begin releasing opinions at 10.  In the mean time, Scotusblog has some interesting polls on their live blog coverage here.

UPDATE: This will be a momentous day for gun owners, no matter what the decision.  From here on out, things will be different.  This is the biggest day for those who care about the second amendment, probably ever.

UPDATE: The Court releases cases apparently according to seniority, so we’ll be dead last is Scalia is indeed the writer the Heller opinion.

UPDATE: I’m as giddy as a school girl.

UPDATE: Squirming in my seat here.

UPDATE: The case of Heller v. District of Columbia is AFFIRMED!

UPDATE: Scalia wrote the majority opinion.  Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented.  This case fell along ideological grounds, with the liberals dissenting.

UPDATE: Apparently there are two dissenting opinions.  This is a 5-4 ruling.  Closer than I would have liked, but a win, nontheless.

UPDATE: I will get the opinion, and read it, and give you my take as soon as I have time.

Clearly this person is an expert in constitutional law, all the modern scholarship that provides powerful evidence that he’s wrong be damned.  I should also note that Justice Scalia has to get four other justices to agree with him in order for his opinion to be the majority opinion.  Dave Hardy, who is a real expert in these matters, talks about possible methods of interpretation in Heller here.