The most important court decision about firearms in history

[DaveK]

For those that don't know, the United States Supreme Court is taking arguments this week regarding the DC ban on handguns. The scope of this decision is monumental as the court most likely will be deciding whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects a personal freedom to own and possess firearms. This decision will have far reaching effects on the rights of gun owners. If you are not following the arguments, you should. A great explanation of the case and what it means can be found on the NRA website at http://www.nra.org/ .

[Hardluck]

With the decision in Heller probably coming down soon, I'd thought I'd post this link to a well thought out primer of what to look for in the decision, assuming the Court interprets the Second Amendment as securing an individual right.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... .html#more

In my opinion, fwiw, the most important aspect of the decision, assuming an individual right to bear arms, is the level of scrutiny the Courts will apply and whether it will be incorporated through the 14 amendment and apply to the states.

[DaveK]

Assuming that the court affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms, it will be important to see how far the court is willing to let "reasonable restrictions" be imposed. Since there is no such thing as an absolute right, we must assume that we will see some limitations. Just as you can't exercise your right to free speech by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, my GUESS is that we are likely to see some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, perhaps just limitations which are already in place. Honestly, I am a little concerned how THIS court will decide this issue, especially after their most recent decision.

[Hardluck]

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that the court will hold that there is an individual right to bear arms, that at this point the level of scrutiny, and therefore what type of restrictions can be placed on that right, does not have to be determined at this juncture because the DC law would fail under any level of scrutiny. Further, the court will punt on the incorporation issue because this is a DC, not a state, law, so at this juncture, the individual right will not apply to state laws.

So in the end we'll have an individual right to bear arms (which is an important first step), and many, many years of litigation to determine the nature of this right and what its boundaries are.

[DaveK]

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that the court will hold that there is an individual right to bear arms, that at this point the level of scrutiny, and therefore what type of restrictions can be placed on that right, does not have to be determined at this juncture because the DC law would fail under any level of scrutiny. Further, the court will punt on the incorporation issue because this is a DC, not a state, law, so at this juncture, the individual right will not apply to state laws.

So in the end we'll have an individual right to bear arms (which is an important first step), and many, many years of litigation to determine the nature of this right and what its boundaries are.

Agreed. Now, maybe I can get in on some of that litigation. Where is that damn smiley with the wringing hands and the evil laugh?

[big dave]

A great explanation of the case and what it means can be found on the NRA website at http://www.nra.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

So you expect us to go directly to the NRA website for a fair and accurate evaluation of the matter?

[DaveK]

A great explanation of the case and what it means can be found on the NRA website at http://www.nra.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

So you expect us to go directly to the NRA website for a fair and accurate evaluation of the matter?

Damn straight!

[traveltoad]

So the rumour is that Scalia is writing the majority opinion...

[traveltoad]

OH YEAH BABY!!!!!

Quoting the syllabus of the opinion delivered by Scalia: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[DaveK]

Whoooo - Hooooooooo

In your face Dianne Feinstein and Barbra Boxer. Add a new national holiday to your schedule, folks! June 26, 2008, the day we returned to our senses, at least some of them.

I'll be celebrating later with the purchase of several guns!!!!