Breaking: High Court strikes down gun ban

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional. A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority. "

Fuckem.

Did you even read it?

They're really pumping out the big rulings. Anybody got a link to the docket?

violation is bull shit. Let's take off the safety too. fucking stupid.

their fascist dreams of might are coming to a head now. You too can be a man... buy a gun and call it p
Oh yeah... it's really about your rightssss..... sure it is. But those without guns, not so much. You now need to come up with cash so you too are protected or else.

With the current make up of the court. Let me guess 5-4 decision with Kennedy being the swing vote?

Scalia firmly believes that the 2nd permits an individual to carry what an infantryman carries. He was once asked about hand grenades and he said yes. Scalia is actually following Madison on this point.

But here it mentions that the ruling only applies to banning and rendering a weapon unusable, It says that it does not affect registration or other control measures. It also says that it covers only weapons not used by the military (something Scalia doesn't agree with).

Actually out of this court, this is a pretty good decision. It could have been "pack whatever you want."

This is a case involving DC, which is of course not a state, and controlled by the Federal Government. Thus, it means that the court has only deicded that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT cannot ban handguns, which to be honest, is not an unfair reading of the amendment.

However, even if the opinion mentions anything about state regulation, it has no effect on precedent - since the extent to which a STATE could regulate firearms was not at issue in this case.

Interestingly, the Court and others treat D.C. as a state when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to voting, suddenly D.C. is no longer a state.

Go figure.

the Supreme Court has never treated DC as a state becuase it is controlled by CONGRESS. It's not going to start today. In fact the court had to read an equal protection component into the 5th amendment in order to desegregate Washington D.C.s schools, after Brown v. Board of Education (because Brown was based on the 14th amendment which only applies to the states).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe

How they treat DC is immaterial to this decision; the Court held that the individual has a right to bear arms. Period. There's no "only in DC" aspect to this.

Gun-grabbers nationwide have just been put on notice, and for that I am quite joyous.

right against whom?

Every right has a corresponding authority(ies) who cannot infringe it. For example, we have the right to a jury trial for a CIVIL case in FEDERAL court, NOT in STATE court (7th amendment), and we have the right against unreasonable bail in FEDERAL court not STATE court (8th amendment). That means in those situations our rights are only effective against the federal government.

Some rights are guaranteed both by the federal government and the state government, like the right of free speech (found in all state constitutions). Many state constitutions have Bills of Rights that just mirror the federal Bill of Rights.

The court has been known to apply federal constitutional provisions to the states. This is called "incorporation." This is actually done amendment by amendment, right by right. So that means that the court would have to decide that the Second Amendment is such a fundamental right in our system of liberty that it should apply to the states; and it would have to do so when dealing with a case from an actual state, in order for it to be precedent.

Among other things, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. This applies everywhere, not just in D.C.

Unlike the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights is not limited to "states" but also protects individuals (or in the case of the Second Amendment, "the people") from having their rights infringed by other government entities, such as cities, townships and, yes, D.C. That's why the Court used the Fifth Amendment in the instance you cited in the Wikipedia article.

This ruling is binding throughout the country, not just on D.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_incorporation

rights are applied against the states right by right, not in a blanket fashion.

And it's your choice to use Wikipedia as your source, if you like. But I'll continue to rely on my own knowledge and experience based upon my more than 20 years as a civil rights lawyer, law professor and activist when interpreting a Supreme Court decision.

happened on this vote.

In regular english, who now has to handle a gun differently?

In the actual application of the law, what exactly changed, and for who?

Does this change anything about the state rulings, or does it just limit the federal interest in guns?

but the major point of what it actually decided was that D.C., which is run by the Federal Government, CANNOT ban ALL handguns under the 2nd Amendment. That means the Federal Government cannot enact laws in the U.S. banning handguns, as Amercians have a right against the Federal Government to have certain firearms in their homes.

Hope that is clear enough.

Today's ruling was strictly related to federal laws. It applied to DC because that is a federal district. The court was silent (other than an ambiguous footnote) on application to the states.

Reading the ruling, it appears that the court is strongly implying that it will apply to the states, but that wasn't actually part of the ruling since it wasn't the question before them.

It will take another case at a later date to establish the answer to this question.

...until about 2 hours ago, that said DC residents could only own a registered handgun. And they stopped registering handguns in 1976. So, basically, there has been this fixed and steadily-diminishing pool of "legal" handguns in DC for the past 32 years.

Furthermore, the law basically said that you could not own a functioning firearm of any kind. If you owned a gun, it had to be locked up and inaccessable, or disassembed.

Those two laws were struck down. Now people in DC can legally buy handguns, and keep their guns loaded and available as circumstances and good judgement permit.

At this point, are the NRA people calling it a victory?

the court WILL incorporate the 2nd amendment? or has it tried to?

I'm taking the bar exam in July, so I have at least a little understanding of the Constitution.

But based on your experience, please tell me where the Wikipedia article is wrong about selective incorporation? I am curious to know the basis for your opinion that this ruling applies everywhere.

will be binding throughout the country in any case interpreting the Second Amendment.

The Court has never explictly incorporated the Second Amendment, but it is generally understood that the Second Amendment also applies to states.

Good luck with the bar!

It is unreliable and makes you personally look less credible.

I am studying for the bar exam including constitutional law, right now, and I'm posting on DU, not writing a law review article.

Even a habitual liar speaks the truth occasionally.

your opinion is duly noted.

;-)

Just as the court incoporated parts of the first amendment in the 1920s.

D.C. is not considered a state and can't be the subject of an incorporation decision.

The reason it can't is because the lawyers arguing the case wouldn't be studying incorporation doctrine or making arguments about issues that won't help them win THAT PARTICULAR CASE. So the Courts deems it unfair to make a firm decision on issues it hasn't heard a full argument on (e.g. whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states).

Serves me right for mouthing off without reading the ruling.

I was just reviewing this ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=176996&mesg_id=177022

DC was specifically picked by the attorneys behind this case because of its special status.

DC is not a state. DC is not a city within a state. DC is a federal district. DC laws are effectively federal laws, with jurisdiction over a limited territory. By analogy, consider laws that only applied in a National Park; those are still federal laws because National Parks are federal territory.

This ruling was specifically in regards to DC as a federal district. Application to the states is not automatic, but will take later cases to settle definitively.

that establish a state religion, allow the police to search your house without a warrant, or forbid jury trials.

See footnote 23 in the opinion.

I believe incorporation will come, but it didn't come today.

it wouldn't have been a necessary issue to resolve in order to decide the case, becuase this deals with D.C. not a state.

I like that you read the footnotes though, that's a good habit that the professors try to instill in us.

This ruling was explicitly about the 2A in a federal district (non-state). This ruling specifically does not apply to the states at this time. (see footnote 23 in the ruling).

Sorry, they've declared the second amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms. No State shall have the power to abridge that right.

was eviscerated of almost any meaning in The Slaughterhouse Cases back in 1873. Now it currenly only applies to bar a state's infringement upon the right to travel. The main means of enforcing equal treatment between states and state citizens are the Equal Protection Clause,and the Privilege AND immunities clause of Article IV, neither of which apply to make a Supreme Court decision about DC binding on a state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe

is the clause the ACLU uses to insure that individual states do not establish religion.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,1646975.story

They see Chicago's long-time ban on handguns as "under threat."

its very possible a litigant could bring another case and get the exact same result, but it is not precedentially required.

In this case the Court did not have to worry about "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" becuase DC is not a state.

Why use scary words like "under threat"? That's about as biased as reporting gun rights are "about to be rescued".

are still acceptable. For the most part, I expect there to be more gun regulation laws, not less.

They can't restrict my right to own any fucking weapon I want.

Boo ya.

:(

the decision specifically did NOT strike down the National Firearms Act. Meaning, that if you go out and buy a black-market M203, you are looking at 10 years in Federal prison for the launcher, and another 10 years for every grenade, if your sentencing judge runs your sentence consecutively.

my god those gun grabbers! How will the masses protect themselves from this government and it's military if it ever becomes totalitarian.... ooops.

But the Justices that voted for it and those that voted against it... are making it a little hard for me to go yeah great ruling.

I can see it now, everybody who can carry a gun will be required to have one.

Just what this country does not need is more guns. We need less gun ownership by private individuals, not more.

On the same side of that absurd logic, would loosening up anti-drug laws lead to more people using drugs?

1. Think
2. Speak

Try it in that order next time, please.