Skeptomania - Paranormal / UFOs, etc.

Yaish · Intel Chief

No time to go into detail right now, but the Supreme Court announced it's ruling today in the case of District of Columbia Vs. Heller. It was a challenge to an outright ban on handguns in D.C., and the Court affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is indeed and individual right and not a right held collectively.

It effectively strikes down the gun ban and should prevent future or similar bans from being enacted. It should still allow for gun control measures like registration, safety classes, etc... and it isn't going to do anything to make full auto or other restricted weapons available to the public. It might do something about laws like California ban on "assault weapons" but that will probably take another court case to decide.

asmodee

This is good news. My wife said to me last night that someone had made the claim that the right to bear arms was intended for militia, not individuals. Militia was nothing more than army that could quit at any time. Of course the army has the right to bear arms. Sounded like a weak argument to me, but I did hear it second hand and have no idea where she heard that.

Cat Nip

The wording of the 2nd Amend. has long been a heated debate.

The original text brought to the first session of Congress in 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Yaish · Intel Chief

Here is a link to the entire decision.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

My analysis on what this decision does.

It opens the way to overturn similar bans on handguns, shotguns, and other common weapons, and allows for them to be used in the home for self defense.
It will prohibit states and cities from creating legislation that restricts a citizen from owning a weapon, or keeping that weapon in an operable state in the home.
It further seems to allow for the use of weapons to be owned, used, and carried for legitimate purposes, such as self defense and sporting purposes.

What this ruling does NOT do.

It does not overturn existing registration laws, laws restricting carrying or transporting weapons, laws restricting concealed carry, or laws banning weapons in sensitive areas such as schools and government buildings.

It specifically does not allow felons or the mentally ill to possess weapons with this ruling. It also was carefully worded so that it applies only to "common" weapons of the day, and not to military arms or especially "dangerous" weapons. This means assault weapons bans are still enforceable, and items like full auto weapons, grenades, or short barreled shotguns will still be restricted.

It was a good ruling, but not the strike against gun control that some had hoped for. It is extremely important because it defines the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and affirms that the militia being discussed consisted of all male citizens capable of bearing arms, and not a specific or restricted class.

It's an important victory but one that certainly leaves a lot of room for the gun control advocates to create additional legislation.