Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Well done.
Update (June 30)
I was going to put this in the comments but I figure it's better if more public.
What firearms can you register in DC now?
Semiautomatic handguns are not registered
No weapon can shoot more
than one shot by a single function of the trigger,
or semi-automatically shoot more than 12 shots
without manual reloading or be readily converted
or restored to do so.
I mention this just so people realize that Heller only labels broad and general bans as unconstitutional. Neither the courts nor legislatures have received much guidance by this decision to determine what other types of restrictions might also be unconstitutional. Clearly, it helps to establish the individual right to keep and bear arms and to clarify the self-defense purpose inherent in the 2nd Amendment. It is also helpful to state that "handguns" cannot be prohibited.
It has been observed that the ruling was close. This matters to an extent, but I don't think the narrow outcome is going to be the most significant source of legal activity to follow, at least in the next few years. District v Heller acknowledges the validity of some restrictions and does not go into detail about what those might be limited to. The laws are in a flux now, and both sides see plenty of opportunity to go forward.
With regard to "no semiautomatics," the 'readily converted or restored to' clause covers any weapon for which a >12 round magazine exists by my interpretation. You can buy a 45 round drum for 1911s on GunBroker for $60 or so. Everyone but Nic recognizes the world of difference between semiautomatics and manually fed weapons. This new kind of ban is going to be the new language and style of the debate.
Amusingly, it is not contradictory to support the Heller decision and yet defend the semiautomatic ban. Watch for that from both presidential candidates as they can easily appear to appease both sides. Terms like "common sense" will fly out of mouths as effortlessly as hot air.
6 comments:
I knew you'd be pretty happy with that...I honestly would have been surprised had it been decided any differently.
:-)
It was very close though
I responded significantly with an update rather than a comment.
Clearly I am fond of this outcome, and I would have been shocked if it came out any other way.
One of the dissenting opinions completely ignores the spirit of the Constitution in addition to the text.
Justice Stevens:
"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
I'm fairly certain the Framers' "choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of " ANYTHING is exactly the purpose of the Constitution. Limited government.
... and divided power.
heh, the whole "You people better revolt if the government stops serving you and being 'of the people'" sentiment was very strong.
Having arms is the key way that the general public can fix their governments that are out of control.
When they are in control, you use a softer form of revolution, voting.
Yes, self-defense from tyrannical government was also in mind by the Framers and presumably recognized by the Court in DC v Heller.
With regard to semiautomatic weapons, I would assume the defense purpose of the 2nd Amendment is infringed upon by the semiauto ban.
Thinking:
If there were no material differences between revolvers and pistols, there'd be no justification for the ban. If there is a material difference, and defense professionals tend to prefer semiautos, then the ban infringes. Either way, the Supreme Court can't like issue another ruling that says DC laws are *still* unconstitutional. ugh.
This is one of the reasons the NRA stays out of the courts. It's more effective to have power over legislation rather than enforce preemptive protections.
Post a Comment