Heller V. DC Affirmed by SCOTUS

[BadShot]

We won! Read the SCOTUS Opinions here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[westy1970]

Happy Day!

[BadShot]

Yes and no .. it's an interesting ruling. 157 pages of legal speak, but at least we know it's the individual right now.

[ColoradoShooter]

I wouldn't say we WIN, but that we seem to win some and lose some. To quote some of the RKBA groups I am a member of:

National Association of Gun Rights
AND
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Dudley Brown:

"Heller decision reaffirms most gun controls
After an initial assessment of the Supreme Court's Heller decision, this decision may go down as the court ruling that stops gun bans but protects gun control.

Though we'll have a more comprehensive analysis of the case later, there is some good -- and a lot bad -- in the Supreme Court's decision:

* It reaffirms the Second Amendment as an individual rights, and is unconnected with service in a militia

* It overturns trigger lock laws as unconstitutional

However, it reaffirms the ability of government to license, register and regulate all types of firearms.

In short, it gives a green light to most forms of gun control except the banning of entire classes of arms.

Again, we'll have a full analysis shortly.




Second Amendment Foundation:

“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.”



Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:

"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. Both sides 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 gun owners to oppose, politically, gun laws which, though constitutional, are nevertheless unwise and harmful to liberty and safety."

[ColoradoShooter]

Indeed, the first case has already been filed in Chicago, in part by the Second Amendment Foundation:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20080627chicago.pdf

[Luck]

[ColoradoShooter]

What I find "interesting" is this:

Patrick Henry - "The great object is that every man be armed..."


Zachariah Johnson - "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

Thomas Jefferson - "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..."
and "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." Third President of the United States

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

Alexander Hamilton - "The best we can hop for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." The Federalist Papers at 184-8

George Washington - "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself..."

Samuel Adams - "The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." quoted in the Philadelphia Independent
Gazetteer, August 20, 1789.

Therefore:

Four out of Five SCOTUS justices declared the US Constitution (Second Amendment) to be unconstitutional...[Bang]

[HunterCO]

The entire reason the "Bill Of Rights" was created before the finalization of our constitution is because of Patrick Henry.

The constitution simply balanced the powers between the state and federal government. Nothing contained with in acknowledged the right of the people. This horrified Patrick Henry so Hamilton called for a meeting and begged Patrick to ratify the constitution and in the first session of congress they would create a "Bill Of Rights" and Patrick refused.

So the "Bill Of Rights" was created and enumerated into the constitution and are country was born.

In short anybody that ever tells me to my face that the "Bill of Rights" is collective will get bitch slapped so hard their kids will grow up dizzy. The entire purpose of the "Bill Of Rights" was created to acknowledge the rights of we the people.

Before I get myself in trouble since this is a very touchy subject for me I leave you with a quote from Patrick Henry himself.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
----Patrick Henry, during virginias convention to ratify the constitution (1788)----

Pretty damn clear to me what the "Bill Of Rights" was intended to mean.

[ColoradoShooter]

My understanding is essentially the same, and of particular concern and insistence was the RKBA in the BoR. My understanding is also that without a RKBA in the BoR, so many states refused to ratify that our country would not have been born. And, Although I understood the incorporation of the timing to be a different that what you seem to indicate, the overall statement is in agreement.

And so the choir said, Amen.

I don't know about you folks, but this 4th of July will have an even more significant meaning for me! Something akin to a re-affirmation, if not a rebirthing, if you will.

[Weight]