Score one for the Supremes.

[Mr. Whippy]

DC handgun ban is stuck down as unconstitutional (although most thinking, educated Americans already knew this).

[jim schmidt]

Time Warp.

[BigArn]

Time Warp???

[dave b]

Originally Posted by Mr. Whippy

DC handgun ban is stuck down as unconstitutional (although most thinking, educated Americans already knew this).

AFT.

db

[baldheadeddork]

Wow. Did they decide it because DC is not a state, or did they go all the way and overturn the precedents going back to Presser v. Illinois?

[Mr. Whippy]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

Wow. Did they decide it because DC is not a state, or did they go all the way and overturn the precedents going back to Presser v. Illinois?

News is still spotty, but it appears to be 5-4 with Scalia saying the constitution does not allow for absolute banning of handguns. Stevens in dissent (weak at that) wrote that this ruling limits the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons.

Nothing related to special status of DC

[baldheadeddork]

Yeah, I'm looking at summaries now and it appears the majority opinion purposely avoided addressing Presser or the rights of local governments to enforce restrictions that are less than an absolute ban. Scalia repeatedly used the words "in the home" when writing about the Second Amendment right to own a firearm, but he also said:

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.

What does Scalia specifically say? This:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

I'll yield to people who do this for a living, but this seems to be a pretty narrow ruling. The majority upheld state laws, upheld Miller's ruling that the government has the right to restrict ownership of uncommon types of guns, and limited the ruling to the trigger lock/disassembly requirement and the absolute ban of handguns in the home. They did not strike down registration requirements for guns in the home.

Edit to add: Here is the actual summary of the ruling from the court:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. 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.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. 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 andmust issue him a license to carry it in the home.

I like it. Good ruling.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by Mr. Whippy

Stevens in dissent (weak at that) wrote that this ruling limits the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons.

Uh, duh...

[baldheadeddork]

Oh, and I'm waiting for the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about these activist judges making laws from the bench...

[dave b]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

Oh, and I'm waiting for the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about these activist judges making laws from the bench...

In yer dreams, foo.

db

[baldheadeddork]

Here's a good observation from John Cole at Balloon Juice:

Kennedy was once again the swing vote, and it seems to me that anyone who thinks this is the Chief Justice Roberts’s Supreme Court is sadly mistaken. This is the Kennedy court, because he is the only one that matters.

Yep.

If anyone is wondering, Kennedy is 72 this year. So is Scalia. Ginsberg is 75 and Stevens is 88, while Breyer turns 70.

If the next president gets two terms he will probably get to appoint at least three justices, the most of any president since Reagan. Four or even five is not out of the question.

[Mr. Whippy]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

Here's a good observation from John Cole at Balloon Juice:



Yep.

If anyone is wondering, Kennedy is 72 this year. So is Scalia. Ginsberg is 75 and Stevens is 88, while Breyer turns 70.

If the next president gets two terms he will probably get to appoint at least three justices, the most of any president since Reagan. Four or even five is not out of the question.

The MOST important issue in this election cycle. The entire tenor of US law will be set for the next half century by the next POTUS.


Obama in 08

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

If the next president gets two terms he will probably get to appoint at least three justices, the most of any president since Reagan. Four or even five is not out of the question.

That's why I would have voted for Hillary had she been the Democratic nominee, even though I am not exactly a Hillary Clinton fan.

[Tripped1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Whippy

The MOST important issue in this election cycle. The entire tenor of US law will be set for the next half century by the next POTUS.


Obama in 08

Considering how far left Obama is. That is not exactly comforting.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by Tripped1

Considering how far left Obama is. That is not exactly comforting.

It is not comforting. It is frightening.