[semlin]

this summary from wob's site seems pretty good...

Originally Posted by scotusblog

Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense. The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill. And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks. The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.

D.C.’s laws are invalidated. The handgun ban is unconstitutional. The Court treats the District’s trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a “lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.

[Zimm]

Originally Posted by greytandy

Has that ever happened? I'm pretty sure that won't be a deterrent to crime, but it'd be nice if I was wrong.

oddly enough it has. kinda. crime dropped in states that adopted shall issue over may issue, as the NRA will gleefully point out...

but....

its just a correlation. unemployment also went down during the same time periods.

since one cant really study this without other influences mucking up the statistics, my gut leans towards there not being much short term effect. thats still a win for the NRA, but is kinda vanilla, so they hype up the drop.

[Zimm]

Originally Posted by semlin

this summary from wob's site seems pretty good...

i dont think theres any question that its incorporated against the states, or that the majority believes so. in fact, you may pick up a vote on this count.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Zimm

i dont think theres any question that its incorporated against the states, or that the majority believes so. in fact, you may pick up a vote on this count.

Not so fast. My understanding is that Scalia does not believe that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States. That may have changed, but he has said so in the past.

[Zimm]

Originally Posted by Atticus

Not so fast. My understanding is that Scalia does not believe that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States. That may have changed, but he has said so in the past.

i think youll snag a couple on the other side though.

(the first phrase of the initial post was MY opinion, not my opinion of the courts thinking)

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Zimm

i think youll snag a couple on the other side though.

I doubt the agenda of most of those who are in the minority in the Heller case will allow that.

[Zimm]

Originally Posted by Atticus

I doubt the agenda of most of those who are in the minority in the Heller case will allow that.

justices are always full of surprises. now that heller is lost, the bias may be lifted.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by Zimm

justices are always full of surprises. now that heller is lost, the bias may be lifted.

good one

I was really surprised that Kennedy wrote the death penalty opinion, and that he came down in favor of restricting the use of that penalty.


















Really surprised.

[PHBeerman]

Originally Posted by Atticus

good one

I was really surprised that Kennedy wrote the death penalty opinion, and that he came down in favor of restricting the use of that penalty.


















Really surprised.

I was shocked as well. Souter or Stevens would not have surprised me. But Kennedy??

He must be a much better Catholic than I am.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by PHBeerman

I was shocked as well. Souter or Stevens would not have surprised me. But Kennedy??

He must be a much better Catholic than I am.

I was joking. I hope you are too.

[PHBeerman]

Originally Posted by Atticus

I was joking. I hope you are too.

Damn, usually your sarcasm detector is strong. All of this Constitutional law over the last 2 days must have you off your game.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by PHBeerman

Damn, usually your sarcasm detector is strong. All of this Constitutional law over the last 2 days must have you off your game.

My sarcasm meter was knocked out of whack while I was reading Shahram's "The Happening" thread and reading all of the stupid responses.

[semlin]

Originally Posted by Atticus

My sarcasm meter was knocked out of whack while I was reading Shahram's "The Happening" thread and reading all of the stupid responses.

yeah that amazed me too

[LoveTractor]

Originally Posted by semlin

yeah that amazed me too

Me too.

[semlin]

Originally Posted by LoveTractor

Me too.

no way

[wob]

Originally Posted by Atticus

My sarcasm meter was knocked out of whack while I was reading Shahram's "The Happening" thread and reading all of the stupid responses.

I read his original post, and I figured it was bullshit - but with some of the crap Hwood puts out, that story line didn't sound completely unfeasible. Plus, I had never heard of The Happening, or seen any trailers for it.

[carboncycles]

Originally Posted by wob

Plus, I had never heard of The Happening, or seen any trailers for it.

Consider yourself fortunate

[Bogo]

Originally Posted by LoveTractor

Probably not. I'm just presenting the flipside of the argument.



But I will speculate that the cocky criminals will go nuts because of the ruling prompting fear in the DC citizenry leading to a mass arming of the law-abiding DC population. Which may or may not deter crime.

When Florida adopted a concealed carry law the violent crime rate dropped in relationship to the rest of the nation.

[Brian in Oregon]

Washington DC is STILL banning semi-auto handguns. This limits practical defense handguns to revolvers. The link follows, but the WX DC police website often stalls out because of high Internet traffic load, so I've cut and pasted (please forgive me) the text from there. It looks like Wash DC is continuing to act in the belief that SOME guns can be banned regardless of the SCOTUS ruling.

Metropolitan Police Department: Gun Registration

In case it's timing out when you hit this, I'll try to paste the stuff below...formatting will almost certainly be hosed up.

Impact on the Court Ruling in DC v. Heller

In the coming days the District of Columbia will be implementing new rules and regulations regarding the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller (handgun) case. The Supreme Court ruled that residents will be allowed to possess handguns in their homes. It is critical that all Metropolitan Police Department members know the immediate impact of this ruling:

*

All Firearms including handguns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be legally possessed.

*

Automatic and semi-automatic handguns remain ineligible for registration.

*

The Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not affect the legality of firearms carried outside of the home.

*

The Metropolitan Police Department will urge residents that do obtain licenses to carry weapons in the home to also keep that weapon either disassembled or secured with a locking device (not a current legal requirement).

Resources

* District Government Reacts to Heller Ruling (Press Release, 6/26/08)

* Firearms Registration Requirements*

* Registering a Firearm in the District of Columbia* (Brochure)

* Data: Crimes with Guns* (CY 1998 - YTD through 6/26/08)

* Gun Safety Information

Frequently Asked Questions about Registering a Firearm

1. What happens now?

2. Can people go out and get handguns right now? If not, when will they be able to do it?

3. What can people do right now?

4. Will there be restrictions on who can register a handgun?

5. Are there restrictions on what kinds of handguns residents will be able to register and possess?

6. What other restrictions will there be on handguns?

7. What will you do about residents who already own handguns despite the handgun ban?

8. Can people register as many handguns as they like?

9. Under existing law can District residents use properly registered firearms in lawful self-defense in their homes?
10. How does one go about registering a firearm?

What Happens Now?
The Supreme Court will formally issue its mandate within the next month, possibly as early as July 17, 2008. The U.S. Court of Appeals will then send the case to the U.S. District Court to enter an injunction. The injunction is the court order that will officially prevent the District government from enforcing the handgun ban. That process may take a few months. Within 21 days, the Metropolitan Police Department will promulgate regulations to accommodate the process of registering handguns for lawful possession.

Can people go out and get handguns right now?
If not, when will they be able to do it?
No. Residents may not go out and get handguns, though they will soon be able to do so. There is further court action before the Supreme Court’s decision is implemented and the handgun ban is officially lifted, though that should happen within the next few months. It should be emphasized that even after the handgun ban is lifted, those who wish to possess handguns will first be required to register them with the Metropolitan Police Department, as they must do with all firearms, in order for the possession to be legal. Furthermore, under the Supreme Court’s decision, possession of properly registered handguns will still be legal only in one’s own home.

What can people do right now?

Although people cannot yet register handguns for legal possession in the home, they will be able to do so soon, and the District government will fully comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. Residents should wait for the regulations that the Metropolitan Police Department will prepare within the next 21 days for further instructions. In the meantime, if residents have specific questions, they may contact the Firearms Registration Section of the Metropolitan Police Department at (202) 727-9490 or visit the Department’s website at Metropolitan Police Department: Gun Registration.

Will there be restrictions on who can register a handgun?

Yes, under District law that the Supreme Court did not disturb, someone who seeks to register any firearm must meet certain requirements. Among these are that the would-be registrant must be 21 years of age and cannot have been convicted of a felony or other crime of violence or weapons crime, or have been committed to a mental hospital within the past five years. Registrants also must be fingerprinted and pass a test regarding knowledge of District gun laws.

Are there restrictions on what kinds of handguns residents will be able to register and possess?

Yes, under District law that the Supreme Court did not disturb, automatic and semi-automatic handguns generally may not be registered. Revolvers in the home will be legal and, as before, residents remain free to register most shotguns and rifles. Those with questions about specific firearms should contact the Firearms Registration Section of the Metropolitan Police Department at (202) 727-9490 or visit the Department’s website at Metropolitan Police Department: Gun Registration.

What other restrictions will there be on handguns?

The new rules will allow handgun possession in the home only, and only by those who properly register their handguns with the Metropolitan Police Department. The Supreme Court has not altered the legality of carrying handguns outside the home. Given the potentially tragic consequences of storing a firearm without a trigger lock, residents are strongly urged to utilize such locks which may be obtained free of charge from the Metropolitan Police Department.

What will you do about residents who already own handguns despite the handgun ban?

The District government will establish an amnesty program under which they can register their handguns without fear of prosecution for having possessed a handgun in violation of District law. Of course, the program will not protect anyone who committed a separate crime under District or Federal law with that handgun.

Can people register as many handguns as they like?

The forthcoming regulations to be issued by the Metropolitan Police Department will answer questions such as how many weapons residents can register, and will likely limit registrants at least initially to one handgun each.

Under existing law can District residents use properly registered firearms in lawful self-defense in their homes?

Yes.

How does one go about registering a firearm?

For the specific details on how to register a firearm, residents should contact the Firearms Registration Section of the Metropolitan Police Department at (202) 727-9490 or visit the Department’s website at Metropolitan Police Department: Gun Registration.

[Brian in Oregon]

And.... Morton Grove has eliminated its handgun ban.

Snowflakes in Hell » Small Town Gun Bans

[Brian in Oregon]

I see someone here tried to "out" me at the link above in the comments section:

Heller affirmed.... - Page 2 - IH8MUD™ Forums says:

June 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

[...] Morton Grove has eliminated its handgun ban. Snowflakes in Hell � Small Town Gun Bans __________________ 1971 FJ40 w/ Chevy 350, Mark’s of Australia bellhousing kit, 1979 4-spd [...]

I want to thank you for providing me with a valid reason for cutting and pasting, instead of providing links. I will cite your work when someone complains about cutting and pasting.

[Brian in Oregon]

And instead of providing a link, here's a cut and paste in your honor:

June 29, 2008
How Gun Control Lost
By Steve Chapman

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, pessimistically, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He would probably not have been surprised to see the proliferation of gun control laws in our time. But he might not have anticipated that the water would run back uphill.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision affirming that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to own firearms for self-defense was a vindication of those who have long argued that position. But it was an even more stunning defeat for advocates of gun control, who not so long ago seemed to have history, law and public sympathy on their side. Back then, they couldn't have dreamed that the Supreme Court would say, "You know what? The National Rifle Association is right."

In the 1980s and 1990s, as violence raged at epidemic levels, the preferred remedy of policymakers was to restrict the manufacture, sale and ownership of firearms. Washington, D.C. had banned handguns in 1976, and in 1982, Chicago did likewise, prompting several of its suburbs to follow suit.

New York required anyone who wanted a handgun to acquire a special permit, which was expensive and hard to get. Meanwhile, the federal government and several states outlawed "assault weapons" -- semiautomatic guns with a military appearance.

It looked as though ever-stricter gun control was the wave of the future. But the future had different ideas. What happened? Three main things:

-- Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.

During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined -- but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.

-- Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated -- with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention -- and notoriety -- by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.

People elsewhere took heed, and today, according to the NRA, 40 states have "right-to-carry" laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rate has fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.

-- The Second Amendment got a second look. In 1983, a San Francisco lawyer named Don Kates published an article in the University of Michigan Law Review arguing that, contrary to prevailing wisdom in the judiciary and law schools, the Constitution upholds an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous legal scholars, spurred to examine the record, reached the same surprising conclusion. Before long, even some liberal law professors were coming around.

In 2000, Harvard's Laurence Tribe published a new edition of his influential constitutional law textbook, asserting that the Second Amendment had an undeniable meaning: "The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes..."

The majority opinion last week, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, drew heavily on this stack of scholarship to argue that the framers did not limit the right to the context of service in a state militia. Without the stimulus provided by these contrarian thinkers, the decision would never have come to pass. And the Second Amendment would have remained what it was for so long: a curious irrelevancy.

Instead, the right to keep and bear arms has finally taken its rightful place with our other fundamental liberties. It may be the natural course of things for government control to expand and freedom to shrink. But as Jefferson knew, America was founded to reverse that process.
schapman@tribune.com

[semlin]

Originally Posted by Brian in Oregon

I see someone here tried to "out" me at the link above in the comments section:

Heller affirmed.... - Page 2 - IH8MUD™ Forums says:

June 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

[...] Morton Grove has eliminated its handgun ban. Snowflakes in Hell � Small Town Gun Bans __________________ 1971 FJ40 w/ Chevy 350, Mark’s of Australia bellhousing kit, 1979 4-spd [...]

I want to thank you for providing me with a valid reason for cutting and pasting, instead of providing links. I will cite your work when someone complains about cutting and pasting.

I am pretty sure that is the blog software automatically picking up the hotlink as a trackback. many blogs do that.

of course you should continue to wear the tinfoil hat just in case

[IronYuppy]

Originally Posted by semlin

no way

way..

[Brian in Oregon]

That's interesting. My post there was sans an email address or website, thus lacking an electronic signature other than my IP address. The connection would have to have been made from myself or someone else utilizing my link. Another legitimate reason for not linking directly to blogs, but cutting and pasting info from there, assuming one wishes to remain anon on a blog or not show a referral back to a website.

[Skillet]

yay. just fucking yay.

[Mr. Toad]

So what's the Supreme Court going to say when it hears a challenge to a non-federal gun ownership law?

[firetruck41]

Originally Posted by Mr. Toad

So what's the Supreme Court going to say when it hears a challenge to a non-federal gun ownership law?

Hopefully the same as it would be for a non-federal freedom of speech registration law.

[Mr. Toad]

Originally Posted by firetruck41

Hopefully the same as it would be for a non-federal freedom of speech registration law.

Read the footnotes?

[firetruck41]

Originally Posted by Mr. Toad

Read the footnotes?

Nope, just "hopeful" they would do the same as with free speech...