Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns (Heller)

[davepc]

About nine months ago, the Supreme Court breathed new life into the Second Amendment, ruling for the first time that it protects an individual right to own guns. Since then, lower federal courts have decided more than 80 cases interpreting the decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, and it is now possible to make a preliminary assessment of its impact.

So far, Heller is firing blanks.

The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. And they have upheld laws concerning concealed and unregistered weapons.

“The Heller case is a landmark decision that has not changed very much at all,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who keeps a running tally of decisions based on the case. “To date, the federal courts have not invalidated a single gun control law on the basis of the Second Amendment since Heller.”

Heller itself struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun control law, the strictest in the nation. The case was brought by law-abiding people who wanted to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. The cases that have followed it tend to concern more focused laws and less attractive gun owners.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html?_r=2&hp

[jeepnstein]

1. Heller wasn't intended...

to repeal every gun law in the nation. The text of the decision is clear on that. NFA '34 is still a good law because it doesn't outright ban ownership of anything. Concealed carry can and should be regulated by the states, doesn't have a thing to do with ownership. The restrictions placed on felons, addicts, and illegal aliens, non-issue. Outright bans are a different animal than legislation intended to afford lawful citizens their rights while limiting access to firearms for people who really shouldn't have one based on their past performance.

All it is going to take is one more case to the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment will look very different. Anyone reading Heller and not understanding where the Court is heading is doomed.

[Joe Steel]

4. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Heller wasn't intended...

to repeal every gun law in the nation. The text of the decision is clear on that. NFA '34 is still a good law because it doesn't outright ban ownership of anything. Concealed carry can and should be regulated by the states, doesn't have a thing to do with ownership. The restrictions placed on felons, addicts, and illegal aliens, non-issue. Outright bans are a different animal than legislation intended to afford lawful citizens their rights while limiting access to firearms for people who really shouldn't have one based on their past performance.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Gun nuts believe gun rights are sacred and inviolable. No regulation is permissible based on the text of the Second Amendment. Permitting any regulation to remain at any level invalidates Heller which presumed to interpret the text.

[jeepnstein]

5. This part...

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.

Wanna guess where this text can be found?

[Joe Steel]

6. Curiously, Fat Tony found these infringements in the same text...

Wanna guess where this text can be found?

Curiously, Fat Tony found these infringements permissible by the same text which says gun rights can't be infringed.

Don't you think that puts the integrity of the decision in doubt?

[jeepnstein]

7. So you would have...

preferred that Heller was used to strike down the NFA and the '68 Gun Control Act? You're OK with buying pistols mail order? How about ordering a new Ma Deuce out of the back of Soldier of Fortune? I didn't think so. You're upset because someone has a right that conflicts with your world view.

Your extreme claims about what Heller actually says don't carry any weight at all. Reading is fundamental.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. How about this part of the "guess the document" contest?

It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of theright.

[X_Digger]

2. Incorporation is coming..

You have to have a good foundation before you build a house.

Heller is a good foundation for doing away with the most egregious bans. It's going to take a few cases making their way all the way to the SCOTUS before Heller's application becomes common at lower levels via incorporation and the 14th.

[TheWraith]

3. Please let them take out the Sullivan Act.

In an age when I can walk out the door with a shotgun and ten boxes of ammo in 20 minutes, it's absurd to have to pay $150 and wait up to a year to even possibly own a handgun.

[spin]

8. The Sullivan Act is dates back to 1911..

and like many other gun control laws of that time, was a form of racial discrimination: With the $150 fee and the waiting period it is probably still a form of discrimination.

Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile

Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. Sponsor "Big Tim" Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

Note: if you visit the link, check out the list of notable citizens who are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in New York City.

The law granted the right to carry concealed weapons to the privileged few right from the start:

"Big Tim" Sullivan was a politician and organized crime boss in this period. He was a part of the Tammany Hall political machine that controlled a corrupt New York City Police Department (and thereby the future Pistol Licensing Bureau). He also owned the Hesper Club, a successful gambling establishment on the lower east side. This is the man who proposed the Sullivan Act and it is named after.

By writing the law as it was, Sullivan provided himself several advantages. He could:

* guarantee his body guards could be armed,
* guarantee his opponent's body guards should not be armed,
* and use a corrupt police force to arrest his opponents for violations, guilty or not.

It is said that one political opponent had all his pockets sewn closed after three arrests for carrying guns without a permit.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html