[wob]

SCOTUSblog

[greytandy]

Oh crap, now DC will be rampant with guns.

[koop]

Brian just busted a nut.

[tcb]

Originally Posted by greytandy

Oh crap, now DC will be rampant with guns.

DC will no longer be safe!

[LoveTractor]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[nat]

I am hoping some stupid California laws can now be challenged.

[JJS]

It's about time the nation's crapitol has recognized the 2A.


And, yes, BiO has indeed busted a nut.

[BeefBarley]

i am all for gun control....











































no one likes a horrible grouping...

[miked]

This new ruling is going to be awesome. I can finally do some crime with a handgun in DC again.
Remember way back in the day when you could do violence with a handgun, then they banned them and you couldn't anymore... yeah baby! It'll be just like the old days!

[carboncycles]

Originally Posted by nat

I am hoping some stupid California laws can now be challenged.

Unfortunately, wishful thinking.

[nat]

Originally Posted by miked

This new ruling is going to be awesome. I can finally do some crime with a handgun in DC again.
Remember way back in the day when you could do violence with a handgun, then they banned them and you couldn't anymore... yeah baby! It'll be just like the old days!

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

[JJS]

Originally Posted by nat

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

I detect a lot of sarcasm in that post.

[nat]

Originally Posted by carboncycles

Unfortunately, wishful thinking.

Maybe not:

III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, 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

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55
Opinion of the Court

arms.26

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.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in 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 as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
——————
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

56 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court

tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right

[nat]

Maybe a good place to begin a discussion.

[LoveTractor]

Originally Posted by nat

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

My "sarcasm meter" is reading it in the red.
My brother in DC seems to feel the same way. I immediately sent him a text message upon hearing the verdict saying, "Go buy an HK USP Compact 9mm, mofo!" He replied that he was not thrilled about the outcome. I hate him now.

[nat]

Originally Posted by JJS

I detect a lot of sarcasm in that post.

I am leaning towards that, but it can be read as sarcasm against the ruling.

[JJS]

Originally Posted by nat

I am leaning towards that, but it can be read as sarcasm against the ruling.

I could be wrong, but it seems as though he's poking fun at the fact that the handgun ban never reduced crime in DC.

[PHBeerman]

Originally Posted by nat

I am leaning towards that, but it can be read as sarcasm against the ruling.

I read it the same way.

[Zimm]

i swore id never read another opinion. but im interested in stevens dissent. the news blurb made it sound as if he wont be satisfied unless we disprove a negative.

i.e. its as if hes not interpreting the text, but instead says theres a lack proof that the founding fathers didnt want regulation, because theres no direct text stating they dont want any regulation.

gotta find some time this weekend.

[greytandy]

The ruling means that thugs/criminals/drug dealers/pimps will no longer have to go to Maryland or Virginia to get their guns.

[LoveTractor]

Originally Posted by greytandy

The ruling means that thugs/criminals/drug dealers/pimps will no longer have to go to Maryland or Virginia to get their guns.

It also means that innocent citizens no longer have to go to Maryland or Virginia to get their guns to protect themselves from the thugs/criminals/drug dealers/pimps who have had guns in the District regardless of the handgun ban.

[wob]

Originally Posted by greytandy

The ruling means that thugs/criminals/drug dealers/pimps will no longer have to go to Maryland or Virginia to get their guns.

I don't think that this ruling makes it legal to sell guns in DC, just that citizens of DC can own them legally.

[carboncycles]

Originally Posted by greytandy

The ruling means that thugs/criminals/drug dealers/pimps will no longer have to go to Maryland or Virginia to get their guns.

Or you pretend to be above the federal law and outright ban handguns within the city, similar to the san fagsicans did in commifornia.

[greytandy]

Originally Posted by LoveTractor

It also means that innocent citizens no longer have to go to Maryland or Virginia to get their guns to protect themselves from the thugs/criminals/drug dealers/pimps who have had guns in the District regardless of the handgun ban.

I'm pretty sure we're not going to see an onslaught of shootings in self defense.

[greytandy]

Originally Posted by carboncycles

Or you pretend to be above the federal law and outright ban handguns within the city, similar to the san fagsicans did in commifornia.

My point - nothing in DC will change. The ban did nothing to prevent gun violence. The gun ban was irrelevant. The legalities of the ban I couldn't care less about.

[LoveTractor]

Originally Posted by greytandy

I'm pretty sure we're not going to see an onslaught of shootings in self defense.

But you might see a decline in crimes considering the criminals now know the innocent citizens may be armed with handguns.

[greytandy]

Originally Posted by LoveTractor

But you might see a decline in crimes considering the criminals know the innocent citizens may be armed with handguns.

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.

[LoveTractor]

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.

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.

[greytandy]

Originally Posted by LoveTractor

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

Ah, a shit stirrer. I'll be sure to look you up a Christmastime when I'm visiting family in Summerville.

[LoveTractor]

Originally Posted by greytandy

Ah, a shit stirrer. ...

I know you are, but what am I.

I'm not stirring shit, just presenting the other side of the case.

Group A says the gun ban stops criminals from owning handguns in DC.
Group B says the gun ban stops innocent citizens from owning handguns in DC to protect themselves from criminals who couldn't give a shit about the ban and have handguns in DC anyway.

Group A says lifting the ban means more guns for criminals.
Group B says lifting the ban means more guns for innocent citizens to protect themselves from criminals who now have guns(and probably even had them before the ban was lifted).

Both groups can be viewed as shit stirrers. I'm a Group B shit stirrer.