Les Jones: Supreme Court to Issue Opinion in D.C. vs. Heller Today

June 26, 2008

Guns > Supreme Court to Issue Opinion in D.C. vs. Heller Today

At 10:00 AM Eastern the Supreme Court will issue opinions on all remaining cases. The big case everyone will be watching is D.C. vs Heller, which is a test of the Second Amendment, and whether it is an individual right or a collective right or right given to the state governments.

If the Supreme Court were to decide that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is anything but an individual right, it would presumably mean that the rights "of the people" mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments are also not individual rights, which would be absurd.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

For coverage of the ruling as it unfolds, visit SayUncle, Instapundit, David Hardy, Dave Kopel, Bitter, and Sebastian.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

As I have posted other places, here is my quick look at it. Both the good and the bad. still reading.

I am reading it over now, heard about it on scotusblog.com(iirc) live, and it sounds like a step in the right direction but it still allows way too many limits on what is a right, not a privilege.

My quick notes, still working on this, will update later (read when done reading the damn thing and have better comprehension of it all.)

The good.

Upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

States that the prefatory clause doe not limit the operative clause of the 2a.

Finlay defines militia as all males capable of physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

And Total bans are a bad thing, possibly cause for challenging the bans in places like New York NY, and Chicago IL, and San Francisco CA. This total ban might also give because for challenging the 86 law, and the steel core ammo import ban, could also be a cause for readdress of the 68 GCA, or the 34 NFA. All good things.

Now the bad. (Insert sad panda face here)

2a is a limited right.

Upheld Miller as ok to limit access to weapons not "in common use at the time", but see above the 34 NFA made the fire arms not 'in common use at the time' then and now, so this might be ok to limit non common use, but if the NFA made them non-common use could that be seen as an infringement, would most likely need a case just to prove this. Also this upholding of Miller just about guaranties that they can not pass another 'assault weapon ban' and that’s a very good thing.

Licenses are ok, but you don’t need a license for a right. This is bad because if you need a license then you have it revoked, or not issues in the first place sort a like they do for CCW in CA.

Permits are ok, but you don’t need a permit for a right. See above.

Registration is ok, but you don’t have a registration for a right. See above, and keep in mind that if there is a registration then it is easy to confiscate them after a ban.

And finally the big one, the 2nd amendment might only apply in the house. If this is true, does it mean that we no longer have a right of self defense outside of the house?

Just my quick 2 cents.

Posted by: dagamore at June 27, 2008