UPDATE: OPINION HEREUPDATE: Door left open for infringements (you knew they would):
f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. 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.
UPDATE: Chicago next?
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.
UPDATE: Licensing and registration not deemed infringements (technically, "not addressed"):
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
UPDATE: Personal comments:
This is pretty much the outcome most of us expected--an individual rights ruling that leaves the door open for gun control--although at what level remains to be seen. I'm no lawyer and will be interested in seeing what people in the know have to say, but my untutored read on this says the scrutiny question has been dodged.
The other thing that immediately sticks out for me is this business of not addressing licensing and registration--theoretically, that leaves such laws open to future challenge--but here's the thing--there's nothing that says a future court needs to hear such a challenge, and I would expect them to not touch this with a 10-foot pole.
There's one other thing I've been meaning to say, but held off pending the decision: If this had been left up to our "leaders" at the NRA, specifically
Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, we would not have this ruling.
This case was not initiatedby NRA, and in fact the Association and some well-know names in 2A legal circles
attempted to derail it. NRA did not join until after it was clear things were going forward.
We would have been facing the strong potential for an
Obama presidency and democrat congress with no ruling, and the almost certain liklihood that new Supreme Court appointments would significantly alter the composition of the court's narrow 5-4 pro-individual rights contingent.
Fairfax apologists can go ahead and accuse me of "attacking" NRA, but it's the truth and they know it. And it's a hell of a thing for any serious gun rights activist to come to grips with.
UPDATE:Brady CampaignOur fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case.
Because if we could admit we were wrong, we wouldn't be fanatics.
Violence Policy Center:
...Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.
Hell hath no fury...
UPDATE: Guess who agrees with me about Chicago?
UPDATE: Mr. Hardy skims some key points--as always, good insights.
UPDATE: Fenty Foolishness [This update link via Zachary G] :
*First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
*Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
*Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home...
We knew that, but it's important to hear it from him just so we can see that he's intent on infringing as much as possible. I'd also look at the DC administration to drag their feet to the brink of stonewalling. SCOTUS will be out until October and I'd look at Fenty & Co. to take full advantage of that.
But here's the part that demonstrates what absurd theater this is more than anything I could say:
In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.
I call on Mayor Fenty to physically demonstrate what that would look like. Any bets on whether any of the "Authorized Journalists" with access to him will press him in a public forum on just how the hell someone would be able to protect themself that way?
UPDATE: This is troubling, pointed out by
Uncivil Defense from the footnote on pg. 48 (see "Opinion" link, above):
Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
UPDATE: Yep--expect
this to be one of the anti's major new rallying points:
City officials expressed confidence the city would prevail in any court challenge, asserting, among other things, that the 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government and does not apply to state and local governments.
Before, it was there's no individual right. Now it's there
is, but it doesn't apply to what
we can do.
If that's upheld in a liberal appeals venue, SCOTUS would need to agree to hear
another 2A case to get it resolved.
