Big day for you today. Congratulations my friend.

:)

A better thread title should have been used ;). I was about to start an individual gun rights thread.

Though from the reading, it appears that while total handgun bans are right out, other restrictions are ok.

NY Times article:


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: ''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia/index.html?inline=nyt-per), writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit ''the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.''

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/john_paul_stevens/index.html?inline=nyt-per) wrote that the majority ''would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.''

He said such evidence ''is nowhere to be found.''

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_g_jr_roberts/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Justices Samuel Alito (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per). The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/ruth_bader_ginsburg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should ''cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.''

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
<NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_TEXT>

That would have violated my self imposed ban on starting political threads. :)

So this means anyone can walk around streets packing heat?

You couldn't have emailed or sent a PM, I guess.

So this means anyone can walk around streets packing heat?

No, the government can still regulate the shit out of gun ownership, they just can't have a blanket ban on hand guns. The decision only changes things in DC, but the opposite decision might have had more far-reaching effects. (If I remember right, the NRA was actually against this suit being filed, scared to death that the ban might be upheld, and then perhaps attempted in other jurisdictions).

It's been a pretty high-profile week for the court. We also learned yesterday that the death penalty is off the table in any crime that doesn't result in a death (no child rapists).

You couldn't have emailed or sent a PM, I guess.

I could. I didn't want to. :)

NThe decision only changes things in DC, but the opposite decision might have had more far-reaching effects.

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I don't think this is the case. I believe a decision by the Supreme Court effects the entire nation, not just one locality.

At least it does when it's a tax law case. :)

We also learned yesterday that the death penalty is off the table in any crime that doesn't result in a death (no child rapists).

We learned that earlier, the Court just restated it ;).

In essense, linking the two, the Court seems to making major judgements, but really kind of restates positions (or rather they aren't as big as they seem on first glance). On the gun issue, sure it is now considered an individual right for the first time, but gun restrictions are still allowed as long as you don't outright ban them... which seemed to be what most people thought.

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I don't think this is the case. I believe a decision by the Supreme Court effects the entire nation, not just one locality.

At least it does when it's a tax law case. :)

Right, I'm just saying that DC is the only jurisidction (that I'm aware of), with a handgun ban (but I know nothing about gun laws). But ya, any other handgun bans out there would be struck down today as well.

Right, I'm just saying that DC is the only jurisidction (that I'm aware of), with a handgun ban (but I know nothing about gun laws). But ya, any other handgun bans out there would be struck down today as well.

Chicago has a ban similar to DC's. I don't know how that works administratively...is it automatically struck down or does someone have to file a court challenge to Chicago's ban citing DC vs. Heller and then it gets struck down? Probably has to file and push the paperwork through the record.

Another interesting decision this week was Giles v. California, which dealt with the Confrontation clause. The defendant was accused of killing his girlfriend, and during the trial they used statements from her as evidence, but the Supreme Court ruled that violated the confrontation clause because he couldn't cross examine her. (The state court had ruled that he forfeited his confrontation clause rights because he killed the witness in question.)

The interesting thing is the breakdown of the result. Scalia wrote the opinion that sided with the defendant, and was joined by his fellow conservatives, while three of the liberals sided with the prosecution and dissented.

Another interesting decision this week was Giles v. California, which dealt with the Confrontation clause. The defendant was accused of killing his girlfriend, and during the trial they used statements from her as evidence, but the Supreme Court ruled that violated the confrontation clause because he couldn't cross examine her. (The state court had ruled that he forfeited his confrontation clause rights because he killed the witness in question.)

The interesting thing is the breakdown of the result. Scalia wrote the opinion that sided with the defendant, and was joined by his fellow conservatives, while three of the liberals sided with the prosecution and dissented.

One of my prosecutor friends is flipping out about that decision.

The breakdown surprised me too, I don't understand that decision at all.

Chicago has a ban similar to DC's. I don't know how that works administratively...is it automatically struck down or does someone have to file a court challenge to Chicago's ban citing DC vs. Heller and then it gets struck down? Probably has to file and push the paperwork through the record.

No, that won't work either, because you have to show standing. The law will stay on the books until Chicago applies it in an arrest and the defendant appeals.

Well, I can understand the decision. The hearsay rule does exist for a reason. There are exceptions to hearsay, of course, that can be used if a witness/defendant isn't available.

Well, I can understand the decision. The hearsay rule does exist for a reason. There are exceptions to hearsay, of course, that can be used if a witness/defendant isn't available.

What about forfeiture by wrongdoing, has that now just been obliterated as an exception?

What about forfeiture by wrongdoing, has that now just been obliterated as an exception?

The problem I have with that is he has not been convicted of the wrongdoing yet, so I don't see how he can forfeit his rights for an actiont hat hasn't been proven.

However, that wasn't really the question before the court. Scalia said that the exception only exists if his intent was to kill the witness so they wouldn't be able to testify. The California court didn't consider intent, because they didn't think it mattered. So the case still isn't resolved. It was just sent back to California so they can consider the intent and proceed from there.

Ah Scalia. Never letting common sense get in the way of strictly constructionism. :D

The problem I have with that is he has not been convicted of the wrongdoing yet, so I don't see how he can forfeit his rights for an actiont hat hasn't been proven.

However, that wasn't really the question before the court. Scalia said that the exception only exists if his intent was to kill the witness so they wouldn't be able to testify. The California court didn't consider intent, because they didn't think it mattered. So the case still isn't resolved. It was just sent back to California so they can consider the intent and proceed from there.

Gotcha.

Unfortunately, this does make murder a lot easier to get away with.

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but I don't think this is the case. I believe a decision by the Supreme Court effects the entire nation, not just one locality.

At least it does when it's a tax law case. :)

I haven't had a chance to read the decision fully, but whether a holding applies to the nation as a whole depends on the case and the constitutional provision at issue. The DC case involves a jurisdiction that is controlled by the federal government so it involves the national government's regulation of guns. On its face, it doesn't apply to state governments. For the decision to apply to state governments, it would have to be applied via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which limits state powers (which is called incorporation). Until such time that this happens, which will likely happen once a state law is challenged, one can argue that this holding is limited to the District of Columbia. It does not invalidate state laws that prohibit gun ownership. But, with the NRA lawsuits filed in California and Chicago, I suspect that this issue will be resolved soon enough.

The Court did not incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states (through the 14th), but they certainly gave the impression that they would view that favorably. They also didn't articulate a standard of review for future cases, but suggested that it will require at least intermediate scrutiny.

The Court did not rule on D.C.'s licensing requirement, which wasn't challenged by the attorneys for Mr. Heller, so the District will certainly keep that in place. They are also talking about continuing the ban on semi-automatic firearms (which will almost certainly prompt another court case, IMO). A person could register a revolver or a single-shot pistol, a rifle or shotgun, but not a semi-automatic.

There are a TON of questions left open by this case, and frankly I think we're going to see a shitload (yes, that's the legal term) of litigation around the country.

BTW, if you want to geek out on this issue, I'd invite you to tune in to NRAnews.com tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern/ 6 p.m. Pacific. We'll have complete coverage for three hours.

So what does this ruling say? If the bottom-line is that the court is saying blanket bans are unconstitutional, I can get behind that, in the same way that I believe allowing anyone to have any type of weapon they desire is also unconstitutional.

So what does this ruling say? If the bottom-line is that the court is saying blanket bans are unconstitutional, I can get behind that, in the same way that I believe allowing anyone to have any type of weapon they desire is also unconstitutional.

How would that be unconstitutional?

How would that be unconstitutional?

Good point. Let me take that back.

I'd agree with Stevens' dissent that it seems unlikely that the Founders would have wanted the government to have no ability to regulate the possession of weapons. And of course there's the idea that the Founders would have had no idea of the kinds of weapons we'd have these days.

Of course if you're Scalia, this doesn't matter.

I'd agree with Stevens' dissent that it seems unlikely that the Founders would have wanted the government to have no ability to regulate the possession of weapons.

I think that is true. The government does and should have the right to regulate the possession of weapons. As Scalia points out, no Constitutional right is absolute. But I also think they didn't support blanket bans either.

Well, not blanket bans of guns, anyway.

Actually, the whole point of that line in the constitution is to protect the people FROM the government. The only reason there is much debate is thanks to the introduction of the tommy gun back in the 20s and the fact that it packs so much firepower in such a small package. That was also the first time that civilians had a weapon more powerful than the military did, thanks to the military rejecting it at first. Up until that point, there wasn't much interference in what folks could own.

I just don't see how "shall not be infringed" gets such a liberal interpretation by folks.

But that's all I'll say on it.

Same way "Congress shall make no law" gets a liberal interpretation. No right is absolute.

Solid ruling.

Now we just need to get voting rights for folks in DC and we'll be all set.