SCotUS Rules: 2nd Amendment Secures An Individual Right

The Supreme Court announced its decision today in Heller v District of Columbia, stating by a vote of 5-4 that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. See the decision here:

For a summary of quotes from the majority, see here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-...-the-majority/

For the complete opinion of the Court, see here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

This thread will be used to keep track of news and links to information regarding the decision. Any extraneous discussion will be removed.

From scotusblog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a...ight-to-a-gun/

Quote:

---

Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:52 am | Lyle Denniston |

UPDATE 10:52: The opinion can be downloaded here. Relevant quotes from the majority opinion can be found here, and a replay of our LiveBlog can be found here. Tom’s commentary is here.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

Justice Scalia’s recitation from the bench of the majority’s reasoning continued for 16 minutes. Justice John Paul Stevens followed, for seven minutes, summarizing the reasons for two dissenting opinions — his and one written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The decision was the final one of the Term and, after issuing it, the Court recessed for the summer, to return on Monday, Oct. 6. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that concluding orders on pending cases will be released by the Court Clerk at 10 a.m. Friday.

---

Here is the story from cnn

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

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

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.

"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' " See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.

"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.

All AboutGun Control • U.S. Supreme Court • Washington, DC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

WTH is going on. I saw a lot of posts now I dont see many..

---

Read my first post in this thread. This thread is only to post news and information about the decision, so that the thread stays small and is easy to read through. All discussion should continue here, as it was already started before the decision:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-...-26-10-am.html

Sorry for the confusion, Pa. Patriot and I weren't on the same page regarding how to organize this information so it doesn't turn in to a mess.

Audio http://media.libsyn.com/media/guntalk/HellerComp.mp3

If this is a place to post reactions to the decision, here is the Brady Campaign's press release on the decision:

hxxp://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992


(If not, apologies....feel free to re-locate.)

Yes we have won this one, but he fight is not over.

This news release by the opposition is crap.

hxxp://www.bradycampaign.org/media/r...hp?release=992

Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.”

Second Amendment Foundation NEWS RELEASE

SECOND AMENDMENT TRIUMPH: JUSTICES UPHOLD INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!
BELLEVUE, WA – With this morning’s ruling on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, America has begun “its long march back toward liberty under a Second Amendment that means what it says,” the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court should forever put to rest any contention that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental, individual civil right,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “For six decades, anti-gun rights extremists have engaged in a monumental fraud that has been unfortunately perpetuated by activist judges who erroneously insisted that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to service in a militia.

“Wisdom and truth have triumphed over hysteria and falsehood,” he continued. “This decision makes it clear that a right ‘of the people’ is a right enjoyed by, and affirmed for, all citizens. It destroys a cornerstone of anti-gun rights elitism, which has fostered – through years of deceit and political demagoguery – the erosion of this important civil right.

“This ruling also makes it abundantly clear that laws which ban the possession of firearms, or make it simply impossible through regulation for citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional and cannot stand,” Gottlieb stated. “Today, America has taken a small but significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its proper place in our Bill of Rights.

“For too many years,” he observed, “Americans have seen this fundamental civil right under constant and unrelenting attack. We are hopeful that today’s decision will halt an insidious campaign for citizen disarmament through legislation and regulations that have made our neighborhoods less safe, our cities less secure and our people less self-reliant, which is the trait that has made America unique among nations.

“But this fight is hardly over,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today’s ruling is a stepping stone, the foundation upon which we can rebuild this important individual right. Our work has only just begun.”

-END-

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....3eef7ac3.html

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.

But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.

"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," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, who decided to issue the ruling on the final day of the court's annual term – a dramatic gesture that reflected the intensity of the nation's gun debate, and the potentially sweeping implications of a case that pitted public safety concerns against the right to bear arms.

At issue was whether the District of Columbia – and by extension, any city or state – could invoke public safety to ban the ownership of handguns within its jurisdiction. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Second Amendment: ''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.''

Gun-control advocates argued the idea of common defense, not merely protecting oneself or one's own property, is at the heart of that text.

The case was filed by Dick Heller, a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center who was refused permission to keep his handgun at his home in the nation's capital, reviving a decades-old debate that quickly became a cause celebre for both sides of the gun control issue.

In March 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Mr. Heller, ruling that the ban was both unreasonable and unconstitutional. The city appealed.

Mr. Heller's lead attorney, Alan Gura, called it a blockbuster ruling. "Because private gun ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, politicians cannot ban or regulate guns out of existence," he said.

Gun control advocates were disappointed but took more than a little solace in the court's embrace of "reasonable" restrictions. That, said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, means it might even be easier now to find political consensus on such ideas as background checks for buyers at gun shows.

"You can't have gun bans, but you can’t any gun, anywhere any time," he said. "By getting rid of the extremes we can deal with this issue in the common-sense middle."

Washington has long had some of the nation's toughest gun-control laws, a response to a nation-leading murder rate and rampant inner city violence. The case decided Thursday involved three ordinances, one that generally bars the registration of handguns, another than prohibits carrying a handgun without a license, and a third that requires any firearm in the home to be unloaded and kept either disassembled or with a trigger lock.

Even if the court found that the constitution provides for an individual right to self-protection, justices still confronted more gnarly questions regarding the limits of governmental regulation, depending on how they decided the case: Would a ban on firearms in schools or on public transportation still pass muster, or bans on assault weapons never envisioned by 18th Century lawgivers?

Texas was one of 31 states urging the court to embrace the right to keep and bear arms. State Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a brief, joined by 30 other states, calling on the court to strike down the D.C. handgun ban.

The U.S. Solicitor General, representing the Bush administration, weighed in urging the court not to tamper with federal restrictions on machine guns – angering some gun rights groups.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in February, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, argued that the term "militia" wasn't meant to reflect merely a collective right. Rather, she argued, the Framers meant to recognize an individual right to possess firearms. Fifty-four other senators joined her brief, along with Vice President Cheney – in an apparent break with the administration's own policy. Some 250 U.S. House members, including all the Texans except for seven of the 13 Texas Democrats, also signed onto the brief.

Ms. Hutchison called the ruling "a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed."

Advocates of gun control and of gun rights have long argued over the precise meaning of the Second Amendment: "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 case could have implications in presidential politics, as well – by underscoring the president's power to shape the courts through nominations, and by emphasizing the wide gap between the contenders on gun control policy.

The GOP's pick for president, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, was one of 55 senators who signed the Hutchison brief. While some gun rights advocates distrust him – he supports background checks for buyers at gun shows, and championed campaign rules that crimped some political efforts by the NRA and other groups – they find him much more palatable than Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

At a May 16 speech to the NRA, Mr. McCain touted his support for the Second Amendment, noting that he had long opposed efforts to ban guns and ammunition or to "dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group." Mr. Obama, by contrast, says he favors ''common-sense gun laws so that we don't have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago," and he did not sign the Hutchison brief.

The ruling will leave intact many of the restrictions in place at the federal and state level – bans on felons' right to keep guns, for instance, and on M-16 military weapons or sawed-off shotguns, and laws that make it illegal to rob a bank while armed.

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the four dissenters, argued that the ruling leaves to future courts the task of defining the actual contours of the right to bear arms. Clearly, law abiding citizens will be allowed to keep guns at home for self-protection, or for hunting, but that doesn't begin to address the myriad ways in which state legislatures might wish to regulate or restrict gun ownership.

He noted that in the last major gun case, settled in 1939, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the Second Amendment only applied in cases with some "easonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." And he criticized the majority for arguing, in essence, that gun rights were frozen in time. Handguns were in use in the 18th Century, so they cannot be denied now to law abiding citizens. Military-assault rifles had not been invented, so they can be restricted.

"The court 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," Justice Stevens wrot

From the wilkes barre times leader.


11:52 AM
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court 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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

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 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."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

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.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...terstitialskip

Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual right to own guns, in a 5-4 decision likely to reverberate nationwide and spawn wide controversy over firearms control.
The momentous decision striking down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban came on the last day of the 2007-2008 term.

From the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia declared for the majority that the Second Amendment provides an "individual right to have and use arms in the home."

He rejected the notion that the gun right must be connected to service in the militia, as many lower court judges had ruled and Washington, D.C. officials had argued.

Scalia noted, however, that the gun right is not absolute.

He said long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of arms in government buildings would stand.

Scalia noted that government's ability to regulate arms under the court's new interpretation of the Second Amendment would be worked out in later cases.

Yet he emphasized the court's rejection of any "absolute prohibition on handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Thursday's decision is likely to generate immediate debate in Chicago and other urban areas where local officials have tried to implement strict gun control.

The National Rifle Association, which hailed the ruling as "a great moment in American history," said Thursday it will file lawsuits in at least five cities including San Francisco and possibly Chicago challenging handgun restrictions.

"I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA.

"Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right," NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said. "All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right."

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the House Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, called the court's decision "one of the most important rulings in our lifetime."

"This is a resounding victory for the American people and sets a strong precedent that the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution may be regulated but cannot be extinguished by the law," Smith says.

But others strongly disagreed with the ruling.

"I'm disappointed in the court's ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence," said Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty. "But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce."

Fenty said that until the decision becomes law in the district, it remains illegal to possess firearms inside or outside the home. He said he has directed the police department to come up with regulations that would allow for the registration of all firearms.

"I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said at a Judiciary Committee business meeting Thursday. "I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who lost a youngster that I mentored, who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found ... I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate."

Scalia was joined by the more conservative members of the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Dissenting were the four more liberal justices: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, Stevens listed eight reasons why he believes the majority got it wrong.

He said the historical roots of the Second Amendment and enduring judicial and legislative interpretations connect the right to own guns to military purposes.

He warned that the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller would launch a new and potentially burdensome round of litigation over an issue that should be left to legislators and the political realm.

Thursday's decision comes nearly 70 years since the Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment, which says, "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."

Most lower court judges had ruled in recent decades that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms associated with service in state militia, such as a National Guard unit.

That was also the general consensus of legal scholars. Still, gun rights appear to be so much a part of American identity that a USA TODAY Poll earlier this year found that 73% of people polled believed the Constitution contained an individual right to guns.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set the stage for Thursday's case in 2001 when it challenged the legal trend and ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for such activities as hunting and self-defense." The appeals court's interpretation of the Second Amendment came as it invalidated Washington, D.C.'s 1976 ban on handguns in the home.

Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington, D.C., home for self-defense, had started the case.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholds the D.C. Circuit's ruling favoring Heller.

Scalia's 64-page opinion, mostly devoted to historical interpretations of the Second Amendment's text, acknowledges the contemporary problems of urban crime.

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns." He concluded that much is still debatable on the scope of the Second Amendment and said, "What is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

In a statement released Thursday presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain said: "Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense."

Democratic nominee Barack Obama said "today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

This is also on guntalktv
http://www.guntalk.tv/site.php?pageID=54&newsID=33

Dick Anthony Heller

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...P16yU/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...zc1nL/610x.jpg

Thank you !!

Bill

.

Again folks, a reminder that this is not meant to be a discussion thread, just a place to store references to information and news on the decision. This way, we have a relatively short thread that's easy to get through with information readily accessible. Please keep discussion here:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-...-26-10-am.html

Thanks!

For Immediate Release
June 26, 2008 Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550


Statement by John McCain on Today's Supreme Court Ruling on Second Amendment Rights



ARLINGTON, VA-- U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today's United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

###

http://www.delcotimes.com/WebApp/app..._Story_2272910

Excperts from high court ruling knocking down D.C. gun ban
Here are excerpts from Thursday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority:

“As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ’arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home ’the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one’s home and family,’ would fail constitutional muster.”

Scalia, on the requirement that handguns be kept inoperable:

“We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”


Scalia, on the scope of the ruling:

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”


Scalia’s concluding remarks:

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of the nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

*



Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent:

“Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.”

*

Justice Stephen Breyer, in dissent:

“The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens — namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But, self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

“The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/wa...ss&oref=slogin

Impact of Gun Ruling Limited, Experts Say

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: June 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s historic decision on the right to bear arms on Thursday was a sweeping pronouncement of constitutional principles that will nonetheless have little practical impact in most of the country, legal experts said.

Most state and city gun restrictions appear to be allowed under the ruling, which appears to permit licensing laws, bans on possession by felons or the mentally ill, and prohibitions against carrying concealed weapons or guns in schools or government buildings. Justice Antonin Scalia said that list was not exhaustive.

“Dangerous” weapons can also be banned, although the term was not defined.

But Washington’s comprehensive ban on handguns used for self-defense in the home will have to be revised, and similar laws in several major cities are also vulnerable.

“It’s really the municipalities that are the offenders,” said Robert A. Levy, one of the lawyers on the winning side of the case.

“There is likely to be quite a flood of litigation to try to flesh out precisely what regulations are to be permitted and which ones are not,” Mr. Levy said. “The challenges are likely to be in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and Detroit.”

Adrian M. Fenty, the mayor of Washington, said that officials here are considering an amnesty period during which people who own handguns can register them without penalty.

Mr. Fenty emphasized that it remains illegal to carry handguns outside the home and that only registered guns may be may be kept at home. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons will generally remain illegal, Mr. Fenty said.

Chicago has a law very similar to the one struck down in Washington, and many of its suburbs, including Evanston, Morton Grove, Oak Park, Winnetka and Wilmette, also ban the possession of handguns in many settings. Toledo, Ohio, also bans some kinds of handguns, and San Francisco would have a similar ban had it not been pre-empted by state law.

As the list of affected localities demonstrates, gun control laws of the sort likely to be affected by Thursday’s decision are almost exclusively urban. Indeed, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in a dissent, some 41 states pre-empt local gun regulations, indicating significant tensions between state lawmakers and municipal officials.

The status of laws that ban certain types of weapons is not clear, and that question is also likely to generate litigation. Six states, Puerto Rico and at least 14 municipalities ban assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons, Justice Breyer wrote.

Justice Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment’s protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols. “Dangerous and unusual” weapons, including ones used by the military, may be banned, Justice Scalia said.

Because the case before the court arose from the District of Columbia and thus involved only federal law, the court did not resolve the important question of whether the Second Amendment’s protections apply to limit state and local laws. Most legal experts said the court is likely to apply the amendment to the states in a later case.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
June 26th 2008
JPFO ALERT:THE PROS AND CONS OF HELLER

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. This case represents the first time the Court has considered in detail the nature and scope of the Second Amendment. At issue were the District of Columbia's laws which largely ban all handgun possession within the city and which require all long armsto be unloaded and either disassembled or fitted with a triggerlock, rendering them essentially unavailable for self defense as"functional firearms."
The Court, in a 5-4 decision which struck down both the outrighthandgun ban and the "functional firearms" ban, held that the Second Amendment guarantees a strong individual right to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to have arms for self defense in the home.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this is an excellentresult which gun owners should be very pleased with. The decision clearly and unambiguously establishes the strong and fundamental nature of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Significantly, however, the Court noted that the right to keep and bear arms is not without limitations, just as the right to free speech is not unlimited.
The Court stated that its decision should not be read to cast doubt on such laws as long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or in such sensitive places as schools or government buildings and the like. Thus, the Court clearly signaled that there are a variety of gun laws which are permissible under the Second Amendment.
This has two significant implications for the future. First, it will take many future lawsuits to establish precisely what sort of laws are and are not permissible under the Second Amendment.
Bothsides will likely find themselves fighting that battle vigorously. Second, those laws that are, in fact, permitted under the Second Amendment will form the fertile ground upon which future political activity will rest.
It will remain the province of law abiding gunowners to oppose, politically, gun laws which, though constitutional, are nevertheless unwise and harmful to liberty andsafety.
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080626.htm The Liberty Crew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please support JPFO with donations, memberships and purchase of our materials ( http://shop.jpfo.org/ ) - so we can continue to provide you with these alerts and defend your rights.Also be sure to check out our free offers at JPFO.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS - Visit our alert archive / sign up to receive email alerts - http://www.jpfo.org/alerts.htm

NEWS RELEASE

SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CHICAGO’S HANDGUN BAN
BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”

In addition to SAF and ISRA, plaintiffs include Chicago residents Otis McDonald, a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers, and who wants to have a handgun at his home; Adam Orlov, a former Evanston police officer; software engineer David Lawson and his wife, Colleen, a hypnotherapist, whose home has been targeted by burglars. Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the high court, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.

“Our goal,” Gura said “is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Chicago’s handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements, are clearly unconstitutional.”

“The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded,” Sigale said. “It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right.”

“Chicago's registration scheme cries out for common-sense reform,” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added.

Under the gun law currently in place, firearms must be re-registered annually.

“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”

He further noted that Chicago’s bizarre requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired often times makes registration impossible. The penalty for failure to comply with the registration scheme is that a gun not re-registered on time can never be registered again. Gura likened it to a requirement to dispose of a car if it is not re-registered on time with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Find out more by visiting: www.ChicagoGunCase.com

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_9713922

Link to comments

Quote:

---

Supreme Court's gun ruling has support in Franklin County area
By JIM HOOK Senior writer

Local gun owners welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

"I think this was a good first step," said Greg Rotz, a Chambersburg man who carries his handgun in a holster. "It is just the first step. Nationally, I think this is the beginning of many more court cases."

The National Rifle Association has indicated it will file lawsuits challenging handgun restrictions in Chicago, San Francisco and other areas.

The next fight for gun owners will be over what are reasonable restrictions, what's allowable under the U.S. Constitution, Rotz said.

"I'm glad they ruled that way," said George W. Martin, president of the Chambersburg Pistol and Rifle Club. "I believe in self-protection. Maybe if the bad guys got a taste of their own medicine, we'd be better off."

Big-city governments try to control crime by taking guns away from residents, Martin said.

"I don't think there's any quick fix to remedy the situation with guns and violence," Martin said. "I don't wish anybody any harm. I think one of God's given rights is self-protection. I think if they were threatened with violence, people (for gun control) would wish for something to defend themselves. I just think the private citizen has got some rights."

George R. Naugle, an avid outdoorsman from St. Thomas, said the crime rate probably will go down in Washington, D.C., because law-abiding citizens will be able to lawfully own guns to protect themselves from armed criminals.

Naugle said he doesn't know how to solve gun violence in the cities.

"Maybe what we need is a complete revamp of the permissiveness in society," Naugle said. "I'm not a politician. I don't have any solutions. Politicians say they have solutions. Unfortunately they won't make any hard choices."

Both candidates for the 9th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives welcomed the court ruling:

- "For decades, the Second Amendment has been attacked by elitist special interest groups and politicians who considered gun owners to be 'bitter' and marginalized them as second class citizens," said incumbent Bill Shuster, R-Hollidaysburg. "Today, those opponents were silenced when the court rightly decided in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right as vital as the right to free speech and freedom of assembly."

- "As a hunter and a gun owner myself, I'm happy that the court upheld the individual's right to keep and bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment," said challenger Tony Barr of Blue Knob. "As a father of two young boys and a school teacher, I agree with Justice (Anthony) Scalia when he wrote in the majority opinion that 'It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'"

State politicians see the decision as dampening future efforts to legislate gun control in Pennsylvania.

"It's really great news for those of us who support the Second Amendment and believe it was meant for people to have firearms for self protection," said state Rep. Rob Kauffman, R-Chambersburg. "It's going to mean a great deal as we move forward in Pennsylvania. Every time we turn around, the anti-gun people in Philadelphia want to step on gun rights."

"The Pennsylvania constitution says it best: The right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves shall not be questioned," said state Rep. Mark Keller, R-Landisburg. "I'm glad to see the ruling came the way it did."

Naugle is puzzled that the Supreme Court margin was narrow.

The decision could be threatened when a justice is replaced.

"The ruling is the same whether it was 5-4 or 9-0," Rotz said. "It took a long time to get a case like this heard the first time. I guess it would take a long time before it would come to the court again."

----------

Jim Hook can be reached at 262-4759 or jhook@publicopinionnews.com.

---

Wilkes barre times leader.


June 27
Local gun owners cheer court ruling

By Tom Venesky tvenesky@timesleader.com
Sports Reporter

Gun owner Jerry Schutz was thrilled with Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right to own firearms under the Second Amendment.

But he wasn’t surprised.

After all, Schutz reasoned, the amendment is worded so conclusively that it can’t be misinterpreted.

“There was never a doubt in my mind that this is the ruling they would hand down,” he said.

Schutz is president of the Luzerne Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and a lifetime National Rifle Association member. He said the ruling – the first time the court had conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment -- sends a simple but important message to gun owners.

The high court’s 5-4 ruling struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., reaffirming Americans’ right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

“It tells them they have the right to own a gun for self-defense,” Schutz said. “It’s stated in the amendment in plain English. It’s an individual right, and we’ve been advocating that all along.”

Carl Mozeleski, chairman of the Northeast PA Friends of NRA, had a similar reaction.

He said the ruling will clear up questions pertaining to how the amendment should be interpreted and put the onus on areas with restrictive gun laws.

“What’s going to happen now is every state and municipality is going to have to look at their gun laws,” Mozeleski said.

Mountain Top resident Don Pry, who said he has owned guns most of his life, said he was relieved by the ruling because it will make it nearly impossible to challenge the amendment in the future.

Locally, Pry said, the issue is important to gun owners and hunters who should all benefit from the interpretation.

“The Supreme Court is as high as you can go, so it’s going to be very tough to challenge now,” Pry said. “The amendment is written very plain and simple, so I don’t see how anybody can interpret any other way.”

Mozeleski agreed with Pry and added the only surprise for him was that four Supreme Court justices went against the ruling.

“It was a little scary that only one vote decided this,” he said.
Candidates agree

All four candidates for the two congressional seats in the region favored Thursday’s Second Amendment ruling.

U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke - “For the first time in history, the Supreme Court has finally acknowledged a freedom which many of us have always known – that our Constitution protects the right for Americans to bear arms. I joined many of my colleagues in expressing this opinion to the Court. Protecting one’s individual liberty is a fundamental American right, as the Supreme Court today recognized.”

Republican congressional candidate Lou Barletta – “It is a great day for the Second Amendment. It is a great day for Americans. I believe this decision was proper.”

U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Dimock Township - “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for responsible gun owners everywhere. The Second Amendment applies equally to us all. The right to bear arms is paramount, and no local, state or federal government should be able to compromise that right.”

Republican congressional candidate Chris Hackett – “This ruling protects the individual freedoms guaranteed in the Second Amendment, which for 32 years has been denied to Washington, D.C., residents. The Court has kept laws intact that are meant to protect citizens from unnecessary gun violence, but also guaranteed the individual rights that are explicitly written in our Constitution."

Wilkes barre citizens voice.
Gun ban ruling has Chicago thinking it's next

By DON BABWIN
Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- As news spread of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., one thing was clear in Chicago: The city's own ban now faces a challenge as serious as any in its 26-year history.

From a visibly angry Mayor Richard Daley to a federal lawsuit filed within hours that challenges Chicago's ban as unconstitutional, there was no mistaking that the high court's opinion Thursday puts the city's law squarely in the middle of a long legal fight.

While swift, the lawsuit wasn't a surprise given that Justice Stephen Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, noted "Chicago has a law very similar to the District's."

"In the sense the Supreme Court has found this is an individual right to bear arms, we recognize (the ruling) is a significant threat," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's law department. "It gives people an opening to challenge the ordinance in a way it hasn't been challenged in many years."

Hoyle said the high court's ruling that Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense does not invalidate Chicago's law, and attorneys are confident they can successfully fight any challenge to the 1982 ordinance that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.

"We have very strong legal arguments to make at every level of the courts," she said, pointing out that the law establishes reasonable restrictions for densely populated urban areas.

Still, Hoyle fully expects legal challenges.

In fact, even as Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, was saying his organization may give Chicago and other Illinois municipalities time to change their laws, his group and others were filing a lawsuit against the city and Daley.

"By banning handguns, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprives individuals ... of their right to keep and bear arms," reads the lawsuit filed by the ISRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and four individuals.

The National Rifle Association planned to file a similar complaint against San Francisco, which bars people from carrying handguns on county property, including in parks, schools and community centers.

The quick action is welcome news to gun enthusiasts, who say such laws have chipped away at their rights.

"The justices just ruled today to uphold the Constitution," said Deb Gales, who owns Deb's Gun Range in Hammond, Ind., just across the state line from Chicago. "We all know that these anti-gun laws have been passed to the detriment of law-abiding citizens."

But all the talk about greater freedoms for gun owners doesn't begin to explain what the ruling means in Chicago, which has seen a recent spate of gun violence.

Nine people were killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring. The next week, five people were found shot to death inside a South Side home.

Chicago Public Schools officials say 27 students have been killed by gunfire since September.

Pamela Bosley lost her 18-year-old son two years ago, when a bullet struck him as he helped a fellow student unload instruments outside a South Side Church.

"If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children," she said.

Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son was killed on a city bus last spring when someone sprayed bullets inside it, was livid with the court's decision.

"I'm still trying to figure out who we are more in love with, our children or our guns," she said. "It's crazy. I'm safer being a deer knowing people are hunting you."

Daley was also troubled by the ruling.

He predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.

"It's a very frightening decision," said the mayor, who routinely speaks out against guns, as he did after the fatal mass shootings at Northern Illinois University and a suburban women's clothing store. "We believe every mayor will be outraged by this."

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the ruling "just flies in the face of reality. You just wish the Supreme Court could spend a week in public housing and then come out with this decision. It's very easy and comfortable to stand there with security guards and metal detectors and make these decisions."

Back in Chicago, Nance-Holt agreed.

"They live in safe neighborhoods," she said. "They don't have this. Until it's their family member, they're going to keep voting that way."

---

Associated Press writers Michael Tarm, Ashley M. Heher, Jenny Song and Carla K. Johnson in Chicago, Daniel J. Yovich in Hammond, Ind., Tracie Cone in San Francisco, and Stephen Manning, Brian Westley and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
[Get Copyright Permissions]Click here for copyright permissions!

Got this by email today, its the Department of Justice Spokespersons Comments on DC V Heller





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 26, 2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOVOPA
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Statement of Brian Roehrkasse, Director of Public Affairs, on Reaction to the Supreme Court's Decision in District of Columbia V. Heller
"The Department is pleased with the Court’s ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The Court’s ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment. The Department is also pleased that the Court recognized that, like other constitutional rights, that individual right is ‘not unlimited.’ Thus, the Court appropriately made clear that nothing in today’s ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of ‘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.’ In addition, the Court appropriately recognized that the ‘carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,’ such as machine guns, is not protected by the Amendment. The Justice Department is studying the decision but, as was made clear in its 2001 guidance recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, the Department ‘will continue to defend vigorously the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of all existing federal firearms laws.’"

###

AG propaganda

Quote:

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2008

CONTACT:
Ladd Everitt
(202) 408-0061, x. 103
leveritt@csgv.org


REACTION TO DECISION IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER CASE

Statement of Josh Horwitz, Executive Director, Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence



Washington, D.C. - Today, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court departed from over 100 years of earlier judicial decisions and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia. Despite the sweeping tone of the holding, the majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia is relatively narrow in scope, and leaves more questions open than it answers.

Struck down in the case were the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession in the home and its law requiring that trigger locks be affixed to firearms in the home. The majority opinion refused to announce any test or level of scrutiny for its decision invalidating the laws. The Court determined instead that the District’s handgun ban was an absolute ban on home possession of an entire class of weapons that Americans “overwhelmingly choose for lawful self-defense” (i.e., handguns) and therefore it failed any constitutional test. The Court also struck down D.C.’s trigger lock requirement because the law did not contain an explicit exception for removal of a trigger lock for lawful self-defense use in the home.

By deliberately omitting what test the Court is using to decide that the challenged laws unreasonably burden this newly proclaimed individual right to possess firearms, the Court leaves legislators and lower courts adrift at a time when public health data clearly shows the harm associated with handguns far outweighs any benefit from their use for lawful self defense. We hope and predict that future decisions attempting to apply Heller will reveal its shortcomings, and that the Court will soon have an opportunity to reconsider whether an Amendment the Court says was intended to protect “the people” should be interpreted in a context that gives weight to public health and safety.

Because the District of Columbia is not a state, the Court did not address whether its holding is “incorporated” by the 14th Amendment. However, in a footnote, the Court criticized earlier cases limiting the Second Amendment to acts of Congress.

The majority stressed that the ruling leaves intact certain traditional areas of firearm regulation, such as prohibitions on possession by certain classes of individuals, bans on guns in government buildings and schools, and regulations of firearms sales—but failed to explain why these areas of regulation do not implicate the “individual right” identified by the Court. The decision does not clearly foreclose firearms licensing requirements, provided they are not vulnerable to arbitrary and capricious enforcement.

Now that the Court has determined the Second Amendment protects an individual right and made it clear that right is not absolute, the single biggest excuse for not passing tough gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals is gone. While we are disappointed with the Court’s decision, we hope legislators will now use a broad array of public policy options that are clearly constitutional to address the epidemic of gun violence that continues in our country.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about the Heller case, please visit the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence's webpage on the topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (Ed Fund) seeks to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy. For more information about the Ed Fund, visit www.efsgv.org.

To prevent mailbox filters from deleting mailings from Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, add efsgv@efsgv.org to your address book.

---

Randy Barnett, a legal scholar that I admire, has a commentary on the Heller decision in the Wall Street Journal today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...n_commentaries

News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says

By RANDY E. BARNETT
June 27, 2008; Page A13

Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is historic in its implications and exemplary in its reasoning.


A federal ban on an entire class of guns in ordinary use for self-defense – such as the handgun ban adopted by the District of Columbia – is now off the table. Every gun controller's fondest desire has become a constitutional pipe dream.


Two important practical issues remain. First, will this ruling also apply to states and municipalities? That will depend on whether the Supreme Court decides to "incorporate" the right to keep and bear arms into the 14th Amendment. But in the middle of his opinion Justice Scalia acknowledges that the 39th Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment did so, in part, to protect the individual right to arms of freedmen and Southern Republicans so they might defend themselves from violence.


My prediction: This ruling will eventually be extended to the states.


Second, how will the court deal with firearms regulations that fall short of a ban? The majority opinion strongly suggests that such regulations must now be subjected to meaningful judicial scrutiny. The exact nature of this scrutiny is not clear, but Justice Scalia explicitly rejects the extremely deferential "rationality" review advocated by Justice Stephen Breyer.
Most likely, gun laws will receive the same sort of judicial scrutiny that is now used to evaluate "time, place and manner" regulations of speech and assembly. Such regulations of First Amendment freedoms are today upheld if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a truly important government purpose, but not if they are really a pretext for undermining protected liberties.


My prediction? Because gun-rights groups like the NRA have so successfully prevented enactment of unreasonable gun laws, most existing gun regulations falling short of a ban will eventually be upheld. But more extreme or merely symbolic laws that are sometimes proposed – whose aim is to impose an "undue burden" by raising the cost of gun production, ownership and sale – would likely be found unconstitutional. All gun regulations – for example, safe storage laws and licensing – will have to be shown to be consistent with an effective right of self-defense by law-abiding citizens.


Justice Scalia's opinion is exemplary for the way it was reasoned. It will be studied by law professors and students for years to come. It is the clearest, most careful interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution ever to be adopted by a majority of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia begins with the text, and carefully parses the grammatical relationship of the "operative clause" identifying "the right to keep and bear arms" to the "prefatory clause" about the importance of a "well-regulated militia." Only then does he consider the extensive evidence of original meaning that has been uncovered by scholars over the past 20 years – evidence that was presented to the Court in numerous "friends of the court" briefs.
Justice Scalia's opinion is the finest example of what is now called "original public meaning" jurisprudence ever adopted by the Supreme Court. This approach stands in sharp contrast to Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion that largely focused on "original intent" – the method that many historians employ to explain away the text of the Second Amendment by placing its words in what they call a "larger context." Although original-intent jurisprudence was discredited years ago among constitutional law professors, that has not stopped nonoriginalists from using "original intent" – or the original principles "underlying" the text – to negate its original public meaning.


Of course, the originalism of both Justices Scalia's and Stevens's opinions are in stark contrast with Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion, in which he advocates balancing an enumerated constitutional right against what some consider a pressing need to prohibit its exercise. Guess which wins out in the balancing? As Justice Scalia notes, this is not how we normally protect individual rights, and was certainly not how Justice Breyer protected the individual right of habeas corpus in the military tribunals case decided just two weeks ago.


So what larger lessons does Heller teach? First, the differing methods of interpretation employed by the majority and the dissent demonstrate why appointments to the Supreme Court are so important. In the future, we should be vetting Supreme Court nominees to see if they understand how Justice Scalia reasoned in Heller and if they are committed to doing the same.


We should also seek to get a majority of the Supreme Court to reconsider its previous decisions or "precedents" that are inconsistent with the original public meaning of the text. This shows why elections matter – especially presidential elections – and why we should vet our politicians to see if they appreciate how the Constitution ought to be interpreted.


Good legal scholarship was absolutely crucial to this outcome. No justice is capable of producing the historical research and analysis upon which Justice Scalia relied. Brilliant as it was in its execution, his opinion rested on the work of many scholars of the Second Amendment, as I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge. (Disclosure: I joined a brief by Academics for the Second Amendment supporting the individual rights interpretation; one of my articles was cited by Justice Scalia and another by Justice Breyer in his dissent.)


Due to the political orthodoxy among most constitutional law professors, some of the most important and earliest of this scholarship was produced by nonacademics like Don Kates, Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, Clayton Cramer and others. Believe it or not, Heller was a case of nearly first impression, uninhibited by any prior decisions misinterpreting the Second Amendment.


Last but not least, tribute must be paid to the plaintiffs – Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon – who went where the National Rifle Association feared to tread, and to their lawyers Robert Levy, Clark Neily, and lead counsel Alan Gura. I was privileged to witness Mr. Gura argue the case – his first Supreme Court argument ever – and he was outstanding. Heller provides yet another reminder of the crucial role that private lawyers play in the preservation of our liberties.


Mr. Barnett, a professor at Georgetown Law, is the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2004).

a "quote" in the 6/27 PatriotPost.us email digest:

Quote:

---

“Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.”
—Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

---

Got this email from Kim Stolfer who helped work on one of the briefs for the Heller case and Kim forward the following email On Behalf Of Firearms Coalition.

Quote:

---

This is pretty much the best synopsis of this decision thus far. The court
"affirmed" but does specifically reject two standards proposed by the
dissent that would make the right effectively meaningless. The majority
rejected a "interests balancing test" and a "rational basis test." These
two paper-thin standards of review would have made the decision meaningless,
and something stricter will be used to review these cases in the future.
This is very good news, because just about any remaining sort of standard of
review is going to involve requiring the government to prove the proposed
laws actually accomplish something.


All in all it is just about what we could have hoped for considering the
parameters of the case.


Semper Fi!


Kim Stolfer

(412) 221-3346, Home Phone

(412) 257-1099, Home Fax

(412) 352-5018, Cell

---

Quote:

---

On Behalf Of Firearms Coalition
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:44 PM


Supreme Court Victory -ish.


We won! Mostly.

The Supreme Court concluded today that the Second Amendment does
indeed protect an individual right to arms and that the DC handgun ban and
requirement that all guns be rendered inoperable within the home, were
violations of that protection and must be changed. Specifically, the Court
ordered that the District of Columbia must allow Richard Heller to register
a handgun and be issued a permit to carry it about within the confines of
his home in a functional condition for purposes of self-defense.

The Court did not delve deeply into what restrictions would or would
not be acceptable under the Second Amendment though their order that Heller
be allowed to register a handgun and be issued a permit clearly suggest that
they consider such registration and permitting acceptable limitations.

In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia also stated that prohibiting
felons and mental incompetents from firearms was clearly constitutional and
repeated the thoroughly specious argument that he expressed during aural
arguments to the effect that weapons which are not, "in common use," are not
included within the Second Amendment's guarantees. He specifically gave the
example of M-16 rifles being common to military use, but uncommon to
civilian possession - completely ignoring the fact that the only reason
M-16's are not commonly possessed is that their sale to private citizens was
extremely complicated and cost prohibitive for the first twenty years of
that arm's existence and has been completely banned for the past twenty two
years.

No doubt Scalia and his co-signers included this information - which
has absolutely no bearing on the case at hand - to assuage the fears of the
Solicitor General and others who have suggested that an "individual right"
decision would open a floodgate of assaults on existing federal laws
restricting machineguns and "destructive devices." Regardless of the motive
for the position, it is as totally nonsensical as the ridiculous suggestions
put forward in the two minority opinions.

The length to which the dissenting Justices are willing to twist
history and contort language in attempts to justify their outrageous
positions is nothing less than staggering. The intellectual gymnastics
engaged in by the Justices in their efforts to support their idiotic, fore
drawn conclusions should seriously shake the faith of the most trusting
citizen. It is simply outrageous that men and women of intellect and
learning would take up a position and then selectively sort through history
for tiny threads of support for that position while completely ignoring the
full, rich tapestry which displays a clear picture of an absolutely opposite
position.

The intellectual dishonesty displayed by the dissenting Justices -
and to a much lesser degree by the majority - should be deeply disturbing to
every thinking American. These are not trivial matters that are being dealt
with by the Court. These are issues that reach down to the basic founding
principles of our republic. How can we entrust matters of such great import
to people who demonstrate a willingness to contort history to their own
personal beliefs and philosophies rather than examining evidence and drawing
rational conclusions based on that evidence.

Today's decision by the Supreme Court makes two things abundantly
clear:

* Defenders of liberty and our Constitutional Republic face a long and
tedious battle to secure and defend our rights.

* It is absolutely critical that the next President, and every President
thereafter, is committed to appointing judges and justices who will
interpret law and the Constitution based on history and facts, not their own
agendas.



The courts have the potential to undermine and ultimately destroy our
nation and our way of life. It is incumbent upon all of us to diligently
work against the erosion that is eating away at the very foundations of our
society.



Below is the official syllabus (summary) from the Court "Reporter of
Decisions."

It pretty well sums up the majority opinion.

---

Quote:

---

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008-Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime

to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of

handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed

handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;

and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms

unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a

handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He

filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the

city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
requirement

insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in

the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the

use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed

the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second

Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and

that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that

firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for

self-defense, violated that right.

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.

Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation

of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically

capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists

feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing

army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress

power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear

arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing

rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious

interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Pp. 30-32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the

late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individualrights

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.

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.

Pp. 54-56.

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 and

must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a

dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,

joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,

SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

---

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/20...n_supreme.html

Quote:

---

Police Chief's Memo on Supreme Court Ruling
Police Chief Cathy Lanier sent the following memo to District residents yesterday evening in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on the city's gun ban.

From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update

Residents,

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:

a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.

a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.

a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.

Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked.

I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.

Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.

Sincerely,

Cathy Lanier

Chief of Police

By Marcia Davis | June 27, 2008; 6:57 AM ET

---

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park."The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said.Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed.Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare.The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense.Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter declined to comment on the high court's ruling, saying he had not yet had a chance to read the decision or review it with village staff.

Copyright 2008, Chicago Sun-Times Inc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFeather

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/20...n_supreme.html

---

Is this real??? no semi-auto handguns? You're joking, right?
What was this whole thing (D.C. v. Heller) over?

Kim Stolfer made up this Heller review as handout for Firearm Owners Against Crime table at Washington County gun show.

Quote:

---

The affirming and two dissenting opinions are in a 157 page document that can be downloaded here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/ uploads/2008/ 06/07-290. pdf

These are our conclusions after reading the USSC Heller decision the first time:

1. It says a blanket ban on popular self-defense guns, like handguns, are unconstitutional ( Chicago , here we come!).

2. It held a trigger lock and disassembly requirement, which makes the firearm useless for self-defense, is also unconstitutional. (Yes!)

3. It does allow for a locality to require a license to possess a firearm in the home (ugh), but requires that such license be forthcoming and not denied arbitrarily and capriciously.

4. It says that carrying a gun in a person's home is protected, but is silent on carrying outside the home. (That's because the Heller case didn't address carry outside the home.)

5. It says that carrying CONCEALED firearms can be restricted or prohibited (ugh).

6. It says that long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons (they should have said 'violent felons' in my opinion) and the mentally ill are OK.

7. It also says that prohibiting carry in "sensitive" locations like schools and government buildings are OK. (This is way too broad and most government buildings are not sensitive. Military and government intelligence buildings, yes. DMV or most other local/state government buildings, no.)

8. Conditions and qualifications can be imposed on the commercial sale of arms (like requiring a background check, apparently). Such conditions and qualifications not being overly restrictive is not addressed.

9. "Dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected (they consider machine guns to be such a weapon since most people do not own them).

Overview:
• The logic in saying machine guns are not protected because most people don't own one for self--defense (and hence are "unusual") is a circular one. More people WOULD own machine guns if they were EASY and INEXPENSIVE to get! But they aren't because of existing laws that infringed on the ownership of such guns put in place back in 1934 and 1968. Sheesh.

• So the end result is a mixed bag. People in DC (and hopefully soon, Chicago) can now have a loaded gun, including a handgun, in their home for self-defense and can move said gun around freely within their home.

• It allows for a license requirement to have such a gun, but requires the license be forthcoming and not denied on a whim.

• It does not protect concealed carry in any way nor does it require permits to do so not be arbitrarily and capriciously denied. This is a battle that will have to be fought another day and one that is quite possibly winnable.

• Bans on carry in schools and government buildings and perhaps other "sensitive" locations are constitutional. Because "sensitive" is not clearly defined, this is going to be a headache.

---

Quote:

---

3. It does allow for a locality to require a license to possess a firearm in the home (ugh), but requires that such license be forthcoming and not denied arbitrarily and capriciously.

---

On my understanding, the Court didn't even consider the question of whether licensing is constitutional, since Heller indicated that a license would answer his prayer for relief: "We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement" (page 59).

Quote:

---

6. It says that long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons (they should have said 'violent felons' in my opinion) and the mentally ill are OK.

---

It seems that these were just mentioned in passing as examples of what might be constitutional. If the prohibited-felon issue is put before them in an actual case, then the Court is not bound by stare decisis to give any weight to what was said in Heller about felons being prohibited. Of course, what the nine Justices say about felons here is a good indication that the prohibition will be upheld if it comes before them in a future case, but perhaps in an actual case they'll treat it with more nuance (such as only applying it to violent felons, or not applying it to a felon whose other civil rights have been duly restored.)

Quote:

---

7. It also says that prohibiting carry in "sensitive" locations like schools and government buildings are OK. (This is way too broad and most government buildings are not sensitive. Military and government intelligence buildings, yes. DMV or most other local/state government buildings, no.)

---

Again, just mentioned as what might be upheld as not infringing the right to bear arms. Prohibiting firearms in court-houses will almost certainly be upheld, but perhaps they might rule that weapon lockers need to be provided to the public. No-carry in schools might be upheld just because of the "ZOMG!! THE CHILDREN!!!" factor, in defiance of all rational argument.

Quote:

---

8. Conditions and qualifications can be imposed on the commercial sale of arms (like requiring a background check, apparently). Such conditions and qualifications not being overly restrictive is not addressed.

---

Again, just obiter dicta, not an actual holding of the Court. No arguments were presented that licensing would infringe. If good arguments are presented in a future case, then background checks might be invalidated as akin to prior restraint. (But I'm not holding my breath waiting.)


Also, incorporation against the several states, via the 14th Amendment, is still up in the air. The court commented that Cruikshank's holding (that the 2nd Amendment limits only the federal gov't, not the states) is of questionable continuing validity, since its analysis of the 14th Amendment has been overturned by later decisions beginning in the 1920s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...pinion_main_re

Quote:

---

Silver Bullet
June 27, 2008; Page A12

The 2008 Supreme Court term ended with a bang yesterday as the Justices issued their most important ruling ever in upholding an individual right to bear arms. The dismaying surprise is that the Second Amendment came within a single vote of becoming a dead Constitutional letter.

That's the larger meaning of yesterday's landmark 5-4 ruling in D.C. v. Heller, the first gun control case to come before the Court in 70 years. Richard Heller brought his case after the Washington, D.C. government refused to grant him a permit to keep a handgun in his home. The District has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the country – essentially a total ban. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision by Judge Laurence Silberman, overturned the ban in an opinion that set up yesterday's ruling by taking a panoramic view of gun rights and American legal history.

In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia follows the Silberman Constitutional roadmap in finding that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an individual right. The alternative view – argued by the District of Columbia – is that the Second Amendment is merely a collective right for individuals who belong to a government militia.

Justice Scalia shreds the collective interpretation as a matter of both common law and Constitutional history. He writes that the Founders, as well as nearly all Constitutional scholars over the decades, believed in the individual right. Many Supreme Court opinions invoke the Founders, but this one is refreshing in its resort to first American principles and its affirmation of a basic liberty. It's not too much to say that Heller is every bit as important to the Second Amendment as Near v. Minnesota (prior restraint) or N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (libel) are to the First Amendment.

Which makes it all the more troubling that no less than four Justices were willing to explain this right away. These are the same four liberal Justices who routinely invoke the "right to privacy" – which is nowhere in the text of the Constitution – as a justification for asserting various social rights. Yet in his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a right to bear arms that is plainly in the text adheres to an individual only if he is sanctioned by government.

Justice Breyer, who wrote a companion dissent, takes a more devious tack. He wants to establish an "interest-balancing test" to weigh the Constitutionality of particular restrictions on gun ownership. This balancing test is best understood as a roadmap for vitiating the practical effects of Heller going forward.

Using Justice Breyer's "test," judges could accept the existence of an individual right to bear arms in theory, while whittling it down to nothing by weighing that right against the interests of the government in preventing gun-related violence. Having set forth this supposedly neutral standard, Justice Breyer shows his policy hand by arguing that under this standard the interests of the District of Columbia would outweigh Mr. Heller's interest in defending himself, and the ban should thus be upheld.

But as Justice Scalia writes, no other Constitutional right is subjected to this sort of interest-balancing. "The very enumeration of the right takes [it] out of the hands of government" – even the hands of Olympian judges like Stephen Breyer. "Like the First, [the Second Amendment] is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people – which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew."

In that one sentence, Justice Scalia illuminates a main fault line on this current Supreme Court. The four liberals are far more willing to empower the government and judges to restrict individual liberty, save on matters of personal lifestyle (abortion, gay rights) or perhaps crime. The four conservatives are far more willing to defend individuals against government power – for example, in owning firearms, or private property (the 2005 Kelo case on eminent domain). Justice Anthony Kennedy swings both ways, and in Heller he sided with the people.

Heller leaves many questions unanswered. Contrary to the worries expressed by the Bush Administration in its embarrassing amicus brief, the ruling does not bar the government from regulating machine guns or other heavy weapons; or from limiting gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill. Any broad restriction on handguns or hunting rifles will be Constitutionally suspect, but legislatures will still have room to protect public safety.

Heller reveals the High Court at its best, upholding individual liberty as the Founders intended. Yet it is also precarious because the switch of a single Justice would have rendered the Second Amendment a nullity. With the next President likely to appoint as many as three Justices, the right to bear arms has been affirmed but still isn't safe.

---

http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/2adecision.htm

Quote:

---

Understanding the 2A Decision
by Jennifer Freeman


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.

On Thursday, June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of D.C. vs. Heller. The majority of the 5-4 decision clarified, for the first time in U.S. history, the legal understanding of the Second Amendment. The comprehensive opinion states unequivocally that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens.

The majority opinion also addresses a variety of issues associated with the Second Amendment including licensing, background checks, and types of firearms allowed. These issues are addressed broadly, however, so we can expect additional legislation, debate, protests, and potential lawsuits in the coming years as we attempt to narrow down the Court's opinion.

We would like to take this opportunity to review the Court's opinion and discuss its possible ramifications. This article will provide relevant quotes to give the reader an understanding of the majority view, without quoting the entire opinion. If you would like to read the opinion in full, please click here.

Individual Right

"The Second Amendmend 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." (page 1)

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'" (19)

"We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisiting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents." (25)

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia." (26)

Semi-Automatic Firearms / Background Checks / Concealed Carry

"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." (2)

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997) and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie to all instruments that consitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." (8)

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase 'part of ordinary military equipment' could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's 'ordinary military equipment' language must be read in tandem with what comes after: '[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and the kind in common use at the time.'" (52)

"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." (53)

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" (55)

THE GOOD NEWS:

The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self and national defense.


The D.C. ban on handgun ownership and possession in the home is unconstitutional and therefore is null and void, effective approximately 21 days from 6/26/08. Check with local law enforcement before exercising this right.


Laws requiring mandatory use of trigger locks is unconstitutional.


The Second Amendment applies to firearms in common use of our time; i.e., it is not limited to muskets.

THE BAD NEWS:

Government can require firearm ownership licensing and firearm registration.

Government can ban private-party transfer of firearms.

Government can ban certain types of firearms. This will be debated heavily in the future as to what constitutes firearms of "common use" is expected to be challenged in court.

Government can deny Concealed Carry Weapon permits.

THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO

Expect anti-gun cities and states to impose a very narrow interpretation of this ruling which will likely be debated in the legislature and argued in the courts.

Ban on all firearms with the exception of handgun revolvers.

Mandatory (and possibly expensive and complicated) licensing procedures.

Ban on concealed carry permits.

Lengthy waiting periods despite passing an instant background check.

Magazine capacity restrictions.

Unwarranted government red tape, lost paperwork, incorrectly denied paperwork, etc.

BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO

Pro-gun cities and states can expect to maintain the status quo including:

Private party transfers.
Instant background checks with no waiting periods.
No restrictions on semi-automatic firearms or revolvers.
Shall issue concealed carry.

It is also possible that legislators at the federal level may attempt national: Licensing requirements, bans on certain types of firearms, waiting periods, etc. Your vote is just as essential today as it was yesterday. The fat lady isn't singing just yet.


Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.

---

http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

Thought this article would fit best here.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7778286.story
Guns still elusive for D.C. residents
Those looking to buy firearms after the Supreme Court ruling against the District of Columbia's gun ban are out of luck. Purchasing regulations have yet to be written.

July 5, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Days after the Supreme Court ruled that residents of the nation's capital can keep handguns at home for self-defense, George Harley walked out of a Maryland gun shop disheartened, his goal of legally having a gun to protect his family put on hold.

Since before Harley, 30, was born, the District of Columbia has restricted its residents' ownership of handguns. After the high court's ruling was handed down late last month, Harley was one of several dozen Washington residents who came to the Atlantic Guns shop in Silver Spring, Md., just over the district line, to ask about buying a gun.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------FOR THE RECORD:
Handgun ban —An article in Saturday's Section A on District of Columbia residents interested in legally purchasing handguns referred to a federal ban on the transport of firearms across state lines. In fact, the ban prohibits the purchase of a handgun in a state in which the buyer is not a resident unless the weapon is transferred for pickup to a federally licensed firearms dealer in the buyer's home state.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


They were all told the same thing: Go home.

"Presently, there's no change to anything," said Atlantic Guns owner Stephen Schneider. "There's no procedure in place for them to purchase a handgun because regulations haven't been written."

Washington Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has vowed to have the strictest gun laws possible, and the city's plans for the registration process, expected to be released in about two weeks, is being closely watched.

"If the mayor was smart, he would have kept his mouth shut," said Deborah Curtis, co-owner and general manager of Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Va., referring to Fenty's vocal support of strict regulations. "It just got people up in arms. He should have just let it play out."

On Tuesday, District of Columbia Council member Phil Mendelson introduced legislation to put the city in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling by allowing residents to have handguns in their homes for self-defense. Under normal circumstances, the bill, which has unanimous support, would be voted on in September, after the council returns from a summer break, but action could come sooner if emergency legislation is introduced, said Jason J. Shedlock, an aide to Mendelson. The council's last session before the recess is July 15.

Even after guidelines are finalized, though, it's unclear how long it will take for Washingtonians to legally have handguns in their homes.

For instance, the federal ban on the transport of firearms across state lines means that gun shops outside the district could sell to a city resident, but the buyer could not leave the store with a weapon. The seller would have to transfer the gun to a federally licensed dealer in Washington, and the buyer would pick it up there. But there are no federally licensed gun shops in the district, police said.

Nor does there appear to be a rush by gun dealers to open a shop in the city. The firearms registration section of the Metropolitan Police Department has received only a trickle of inquiries. As of Thursday afternoon, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the first contact for anyone wanting to open a gun shop, had received no applications, said Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Washington field division.

If city officials "were to impose regulations [for opening gun shops] that imposed bureaucratic hurdles, they would face legal battles," said Robert A. Levy, a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian policy research center. Levy recruited the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case and served as co-counsel. "If we find that those requirements are too burdensome, it would be a . . . violation of the court's ruling."

Curtis, whose gun shop is about 30 miles west of the Capitol, said she wouldn't consider opening a store in Washington. "For the average gun shop owner, you're not going to get rich selling," she said. "We don't live like that Nicholas Cage movie, 'Lord of War' " -- the story of an illegal arms dealer.

Bernie Conatser, owner of Virginia Arms Co. in Manassas, Va., said he watched the Supreme Court decision closely, but not strictly for business reasons.

"I don't think we had anything to gain from a financial perspective, at least in the short term," he said. "But the decision will have a far-reaching impact on 2nd Amendment rights."

The Supreme Court ruling has intensified a long-standing debate in the city, which battled a high crime rate both before and after the 1976 gun ban took effect. Last year, 181 homicides were recorded, a significant decline that came amid a national decrease in violent crime.

Harley, who lives in northeast Washington, just inside the district, said he wouldn't describe himself as a gun enthusiast. If he really wanted a gun, he said, he would be living a mile away in Maryland.

But he said he remembers when the city was dubbed the "murder capital" in the early 1990s.

He reads the newspaper daily, he said, and hears about home-invasion robberies. And if something like that happens in his home, he said, he wants the security of a firearm to protect his wife and his 5-year-old daughter.

"Sit and wait," he said. "That's all we can do."

As he walked his dog in the Dupont Circle neighborhood Tuesday evening, another city resident, Costa Tsantalis said that he once opposed the gun ban -- but that was before he was a police officer in Norfolk, Va.

"I used to say, 'We should let the good guys have them, too,' " Tsantalis said as his Rhodesian ridgeback-pit bull mix eyed a squirrel. "But just seeing the staggering stupidity of people and their inability to control themselves, even good people, changed my mind."

Still, he said, he wants to buy a handgun for self-defense as soon as the law allowed.

It's been awhile since this thread has seen any activity, and I came across these articles this morning.

First, a Washington Post editorial claiming that Mr. Gura and his colleagues are "holding up taxpayers":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090503715.html

Quote:

---

Holding Up Taxpayers
Lawyers in the D.C. gun case are demanding that the city pay them outsized fees.

Saturday, September 6, 2008; Page A16

TALK ABOUT adding insult to injury. The lawyers who successfully challenged the D.C. gun ban are now asking the city's taxpayers to pay their legal fees. The tab: more than $3.5 million.

Under long-established law, plaintiffs lawyers who prevail in certain kinds of civil rights cases are entitled to demand that the loser pay their legal bills. These fee-shifting statutes were enacted in large part to encourage competent lawyers to take on important civil rights cases even though many do not result in money awards. The team of lawyers that took on the District's gun ban sued under such a provision, arguing that prohibiting District residents from possessing handguns in their homes violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Having won the landmark case this summer before the Supreme Court, the lawyers are entitled to compensation. What they are not entitled to is the kind of windfall they are seeking.

The lead lawyer in the case, Alan Gura, logged 1,661 hours on the case since taking it on in 2003, according to an Aug. 25 court submission. He has asked the D.C. federal trial judge overseeing the case to pay him $557 per hour; four other lawyers in the case are also seeking that rate. Two other, less experienced lawyers who worked on the case are asking for rates of $494 and $285 an hour, respectively.
ad_icon

Mr. Gura and his colleagues claim the $557 figure is fair because it reflects the going rate for District lawyers who have the same number of years of experience as they do. But this does not take into account the fact that these lawyers are usually with Washington megafirms that have Fortune 500 companies as clients -- and that even these companies get discounts from those astronomical rates.

For Mr. Gura, $557 an hour for 1,661 hours would mean a payday of $925,177. But it doesn't stop there. He argues that because of the "exceptional" nature of the case and the excellent results he secured for his client, he and the others are entitled to double the fees. In Mr. Gura's case, that translates to about $1.85 million -- or roughly $1,100 an hour. Even superstar lawyers in the District do not routinely command such rates.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan should pare back the hourly rate using an index of legal fees calculated by the Justice Department for such cases. At the very least, he should deny the request for double fees. The law requires that Mr. Gura and team receive compensation, but it does not require District residents to foot a bill that would make millionaires of its former adversaries.

---

And next, Mr. Gura's response:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091703064.html

Quote:

---

We Earned the Fees in the Gun Case

Thursday, September 18, 2008; Page A20

Vindication of fundamental civil rights is not an "injury," and asking that the government be held liable for the cost of enforcing our civil rights laws is no "insult" ["Holding Up Taxpayers," editorial, Sept. 6].

Enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws depends on attracting qualified lawyers to fight government agencies with endless resources on behalf of ordinary people who cannot afford legal services.

Awarding successful civil rights lawyers below-market rates for taking such enormous risks would send the bar a terrible message: Ignore injustice, unless you can afford to fight it.

Our requested rates are based on documented market realities, not on the government's wishes about what it would like to pay.

I was shocked at The Post's suggestion that civil rights lawyers are somehow the lesser relations of those who work in "megafirms" serving the Fortune 500. In any event, I and three other members of our team have worked or are still working in those "megafirms."
ad_icon

And if we are such lousy lawyers, how did we manage to beat the city's militia of lawyers, including three of the biggest of the "megafirms" in town?

The Supreme Court also instructs that civil rights victories in exceptional cases entitle the prevailing lawyers to enhanced fees. Our request for fee enhancement is in line with what cases involving abortion, gay rights, police misconduct and other important issues have earned the lawyers who were brave enough to back them. Would The Post feel differently if we had vindicated a right about which it were more enthusiastic, say, freedom of the press?

If the city doesn't want to pay civil rights lawyers' fees, it should obey the Constitution. Freedom isn't free.

ALAN GURA
Washington

---

I encourage everyone to form their own opinion on the matter, but it's my belief that a lawyer willing to risk his practice and take on such a case unaware of the reward before the fact should be compensated if the case is won. And given we're talking about one of the most basic, fundamental civil rights, the right to self-defense, I believe he and his colleagues earned every bit of that money.

Like Mr. Gura said: if you don't want to pay, then don't break the law.

As a general concept I usually don't favor the loser paying the winner's legal fees since it can be used as a scare tactic against those filing lawsuits against larger more powerful players. I guess maybe it can also be argued the other way around too....so let them at least try to get some payment so they are finically healthy for any possible future lawsuits.

On the broader Heller issue I still think its just the foundation for other more sweeping court cases. Once "collective rights" was tossed out the world of possiblities is open if the court stays 5-4. A big "IF".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

I encourage everyone to form their own opinion on the matter, but it's my belief that a lawyer willing to risk his practice and take on such a case unaware of the reward before the fact should be compensated if the case is won. And given we're talking about one of the most basic, fundamental civil rights, the right to self-defense, I believe he and his colleagues earned every bit of that money.

---

I agree. They stuck their necks out for a basic right and did a fine job EARNING the compesation.

I say pay the man and shake his hand!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phillyd2

As a general concept I usually don't favor the loser paying the winner's legal fees since it can be used as a scare tactic against those filing lawsuits against larger more powerful players.

---

Well, this is the way I look at it: If you did me wrong, then the cost of fixing the situation is your problem. Part of the cost of fixing the situation is the lawsuit to force you to fix it, so you have to cover that, too. We wouldn't be in court if you didn't do me wrong. I'm just referring to cases with legit cause, rather than the ever-present frivolous silliness. The latter need not apply.

The article says:

Quote:

---

Under long-established law, plaintiffs lawyers who prevail in certain kinds of civil rights cases are entitled to demand that the loser pay their legal bills. These fee-shifting statutes were enacted in large part to encourage competent lawyers to take on important civil rights cases even though many do not result in money awards.

---

If this is actually the case, I have zero problem with it. Civil Rights are more important than money. If a bum on the street has had his civil rights genuinely violated, I'd sure as hell want him to be able to get justice/redress. Civil rights are free, so defending them should be also (to the one who has been harmed).