FWIW, and I haven't read the full decision, I tend to agree with this decision, on 2nd Amendment and 9th Amendment grounds. Citizens have a right to personal liberty that in my mind absolutely includes the right to bear arms on their own property. This ruling is fairly limited in scope, but we'll see what kind of precedential value it has on decisions in lower courts.

Now, don't hold your breath for Nino et al to hold the same thing for our 4th Amendment freedoms as the Congress moves towards more severely curtailing them in this FISA fiasco, nosirreebob, because those rights conflict with the reactionary right wing wet dream of executive power uber alles. But then again, intellectual consistency has never been a right-wing hallmark. It's nice though to see that Scalia has stopped drinking since he wrote his adolescent diatribe/dissent in the Boumediene case.

The big difference in Canada is enforcement, much as the difference between DC and jurisdictions with a high case closure and conviction rate, such as Fairfax County.  In Canada, if you commit a crime with a firearm, they will find you and lock you up.  Same in Virginia.  In DC, NYC, LA, Miami, and other gun crime capitals, the offenders are rarely caught and, if caught, rarely receive a meaningful sentence.  In most cases, the offenses are plea-bargained down to minor felonies and the miscreant walks in a fraction of the deserved sentence.

I would like to make the case that the death penalty in jurisdictions such as Virginia also makes a difference.  In the case of gun violence that is just not true.  Virginia executes almost as many people who maim and murder without using firearms as those who use firearms.  Robert Yarbrough, who was dispatched last Wednesday evening with an injection of anti-crime vacine, is a case in point.  Although he was armed with a shotgun at the time of his crime, he chose to torture and murder his victim with a pocket knife.  Also, crime is not detered by the severity of punishment but by the certainty of punishment.

So, if DC wants to lower gun violence they don't need stronger gun laws.  They need higher closure rates and conviction rates in gun violence crimes.  Gun laws are a fig leaf that incompetent police forces use to hid their shabby performance in enforcing the law.  

Fair enough. But how do you define "infringed?" Where does your right to bear arms interfere with society's rights or a property owner's rights? Why shouldn't a felon who has served his time not be allowed to carry a gun? "Bear arms" has historically a military connotation, but it isn't very specific, is it? Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to purchase machine guns or bazookas or anything else for that matter?

Yes, the court firmly dismissed the notion that this constitutional right doesn't allow for regulation, but I worry...even the current administration didn't want it to go this far, which tells us something. We already had an individual right, de facto, but to make it official, to do away with 70 years of tradtion; yeah, it's kind of scary.

And now that they've won this decision, will the NRA stop going on about the "slippery slope" every time someone mentions closing the gun show loophole or child-safety locks? Will their fear of a UN-sponsored gun confiscation abate? Will Republicans be able to use this as a wedge issue against Democrats? Even if Al Gore wanted to take away your gun, he can't!

What do you think?      

For being "strict constructionists," the Four Horsemen -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito -- sure ignored the militia clause and read a lot into that amendment. The "security of a free state" language indicates to me that the amendment is a limitation on federal authority and power, and states can enact whatever gun laws they want (if DC gets state status in that respect).

My favorite illogical statement of Scalia's was: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." So if people owned chainsaws, sabers or pit bulls for self-defense then those couldn't be banned? Besides, a majority of Americans don't own any firearms at all, so why does this political and property-owning minority get such preferential judicial treatment?

Breyer's dissent is really well done, with an analysis on gun violence and gun laws' address of it. He writes in part:

If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.

I think Heller makes licensing and testing all the more important because how can you effectively, safely and legally defend your home if you have poor eyesight and marksmanship? If you don't know how to store your gun to keep it away from children and keep it from being stolen? If you're unfamiliar with state self-defense laws? If you don't know when not to use your gun if an uncertain situation arises?

That quote of Breyer's is disturbing, in the sense that it makes it clear that he believes that we should interpret the Constitution based not on rights it guarantees but rather based on what particular policies a government finds it convenient or prudent to implement.

Most Republicans believe that suspending habeus corpus and the right to a fair trial is acceptable because the policy of preventing theoretical acts of terrorism through such limitations of freedom supercedes the value of protecting basic rights in the Constitution. They think we're crazy for valuing civil liberties more than the potential deaths of thousands of people resulting from a terror attack.

The logic that you and Breyer are espousing is THE EXACT SAME THING. You think that a civil right guaranteed explicitly in the Constitution should be warped, scaled back or removed entirely on the basis of your preferred policy of possibly preventing death and injury caused by accidental shooting or domestic violence involving a firearm.

So what if many or most Americans do not own a firearm? How does the frequency with which a right is exercised bear on the validity of that rights existence?  Most Americans have also never written a letter to their Congressman and never participated in a political protest. Does that diminish the rights granted within the First Amendment?

Again, I say that you are placing the value of your pet policy goals above the value of an intact and meaningful Constitution. This is wrong when Republicans do it and it's wrong when you are doing it.

In a nutshell, 2A is an individual right with the same limitations as all enumerated rights.  States cannot have excessive restrictions on the ownership of "commonly available firearms".  Everyone should be happy except for DC, Chicago, and SanFran where the nanny staters have gone off the deep end.

Also, the NRA had NOTHING to do with this.  They didn't fund it, or support it.

Anyway, Scalia spoke several times of Tyranny in his opinion for the majority.  After the 2000 non-election, Chief Cathy Lanier's round up of protestors during the 2000 inaugural, and 8 long years of Bush the Worst, you'd think some people would understand why the 2A is so important

No, 'bear arms' has historically had a connotation that included a military connotation but was also inclusive of private possession. Again, READ THE DECISION BEFORE YOU CRITIQUE IT. It spends several pages exploring the etymology of the words 'keep' and 'bear,' complete with examples of those words' usage in other laws and works of literature that were contemporary or recently prior to the writing of the 2nd Amendment.

We had an individual right all along. Ever since the framers wrote up the 2nd Amendment with the words 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' we have had that right. If the Constitution says something clearly and nobody ever challenges it court, the right or privilege described still exists all along.

Nothing here does away with the 70 years of tradition that you refer to. This decision builds on the last 2nd Amendment ruling and in no way contradicts it. There was nothing in that last ruling that even suggested that a government would have the right to completely ban all practical access to firearms by law-abiding people.

I am getting really sick of hearing people hyperventilate about this ruling and accuse it of opening up all sorts of doors that it specifically closes when they have obviously not read it. Will everyone please take the time to actually read the decision before attempting to critique it?

this supreme court will, like GW bush, be seen as the worst in history

There is a reason why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. The whole point is that it prevents any government within the United States from restricting certain rights, even if the people in a certain city or state decide that they want to eliminate that right.

Both the child rape decision and Heller v. DC were utterly logical conclusions. Executing someone for a crime other than murder is cruel and unusual. And the Second Amendment does in fact explicitly say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Both of these decisions were no-brainers and I can't imagine why, on the basis of those examples that you give, this Supreme Court would be seen as 'the worst in history.'  

Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

Having studied both Constitional History as well as Constitutional Law, I can tell you that you really can't comment on a decision unless you have actually read it, instead of relying on what others have said about it.  By the way, Court decisions are not difficult to read.  They are not layered in legal technicalities and language, but, like the quote above, they are written in common sense plain English.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/...

What, specifically, are these 'extreme positions' that you are talking about and suggesting will now suddenly be on the table?

All this ruling really does is eliminate the most 'extreme' positions against gun ownership. We've already seen the right to ban certain weapons like sawed-off shotguns endorsed by the Court, so the most extreme positions for the unfettered access to all weapons have already been nixed. Now we're just got a decision that does the same thing with the other end of the spectrum, saying that while government can regulate firearms tightly, it cannot completely ban all access to them for law-abiding citizens.

A ruling that eliminates the most radical possible anti-gun position (completely banning practical access to firearms) is not 'extreme.' It is very much the opposite.

My most fervent hope is that this decision will make the gun advocates irrelevent; that they won't be able to fearmonger their way with American voters (and American politicians)now that the right is constitutionally guaranteed; that the American voter will now simply shrug and say "next?" But that's only a hope; naturally I feel uneasy.

Btw, I am not the one hyperventilating; that would be you. Shouting and swearing at me doesn't advance your cause one little bit. Why are the gun-rights advocates always so angry? You won! Enjoy it!  

The ruling explicitly states that government can do the following:

- Deny access to firearms to certain convicted criminals as well as the mentally ill. Since the only way for government to do this is obviously to run a background check, Scalia strongly implies that criminal background checks are here to stay.

- Prohibit firearms in certain places such as schools and government buildings.

- Deny citizens access to 'unusual' weapons outside the norm of 'small arms.' This means no bazookas, no bombs, certainly means no biological or nuclear weapons, and no super-villian death rays of a type that we have not even imagined yet.

- Regulate commercial sales of firearms.

All of that right there is most of the gun regulation in the United States. Not all, but most of it. Having ruled in very clear terms on most of that, the Court is not likely to take any cases trying to re-visit those issues.

So I say that even most gun-control advocates have a lot to be happy about in this ruling. The most radical of anti-gun people, those who advocate for total bans, obviously have reason to be disappointed. But those who have been asking for compromise (rather than a total ban) on gun control should be pleased with this.

Now here's a list of the types of gun laws (other than what was explicitly overturned) that might be targeted for test cases based on this ruling:

- States that allow neither open carry nor concealed carry could be in trouble. The Court's definition of 'keep' and 'bear' are such that there is a clear and logical opening (based on this ruling) to say that if a law-abiding citizen is not allowed to carry an operable weapon with him in some fashion, he has been denied the right to 'bear' arms. The Court's explicit definition of 'bearing' arms is consistent with the etymology of one 'bearing' a heavy load. So I think a reasonable reading of this ruling would be that government has to provide a legal means for citizens to carry a weapon. Since Heller was only asking for the right to possess the handgun in his own home, the Court only addressed the matter of one's own home. I do not happen to think that concealed carry per se is protected by the 2nd, but it is looking like either that or open carry is eventually going to be mandated to be available through some legal process.

- Requiring permits for firearms. The Court explicitly did not address this. So for the time being, they will continue. But I could see a lawsuit by either the NRA or the ACLU (which will now be supporting 2nd Amendment rights, since it has been definitively established that the right to bear arms is not a 'collective' right but rather an individual one) pleading the case that if background checks have been conducted at the time of purchase, there is no longer any excuse for requiring a permit. To require a permit in order to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution is a shabby thing. I cannot imagine the Court allowing the requirement of permits or licenses in order to pray or to place a political bumper sticker on one's car. However, there may be arguments against this that remain consistent with Heller and permits are not necessarily doomed.

- Bans on weapons with common features deemed 'scary.' For example, California bans various combinations of common features of firearms, which they deem to constitute the imaginary category of 'assault weapons.' A barrel shroud is a feature that is in 'common use' in order to prevent one from burning one's finger on a hot barrel after firing a few rounds. So long as one can make the case that a weapon is 'in common use', falls into the 'small arms' category and is not 'unusual,' I believe that the Court will overturn bans on that weapons' possession. There is ZERO question in my mind that NYC's total ban on semi-autos will be history, given that the majority of handguns in private possession in America are in fact semi-autos.

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.  Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

But, his take was/is no different than McCain's.  Whatever gets a vote.

ETA - Thank God for preemption in VA.

The four most liberal judges, chose to try and find a convoluted way of twisting the 2A into a "collective" right.  The BOR, the first 10 amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights, a restriction on the government, that shall not be infringed.  If the 2A is collective then so is the 1A.  Protected speech only as a group?  Idiocy!  And the majority opinion as much as said so.

The next President will most probably get 2-3 Judges on the court.  I hope they can read, and understand, that the Constitution is not a "living" document that morphs to meet the political climate of the day, but exists as the foundation that our society is built on.

Remember it was Bryer that wrote the majority opinion that allows the government (State or local) to TAKE private property for Commercial purposes (shopping malls).

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And it isn't just the NSA, AT&T, and the TSA that cross the line.  The War on Drugs is at least as much to blame.  Remember the ATF motto "Always Think Forefiture".

People here on this Blog, and many Liberal Blog's, seem to believe that Law Enforcement is their friend.  That entrusting Government with their safety is the BEST choice for a safer world.  The Government has it's reasons for doing things, and what it does is not in our interest most of the time.  The Police do not work for the public, they work for the Government.  Remember that the next time you hear of a 3 AM No Knock SWAT raid.

But think of Party Politics as the way to divide and conquer.  Liberal v Conservative - You take that side (Gun Owners), I'll take this side (Abortion Rights), and we'll split the proceeds.  Meanwhile, Congress accomplishes very little that actually benefits the people.

And so it goes.  We worked very hard in 2006 to get a Democratic majority in Congress.  And to what end?  Bush and Cheney are still above the law, and the only one thus far to go before congress is a guy (Scott McCllean) who has a book to sell.

The Constitution (BOR)is not A-La-Carte.  You don't get to pick and choose which part is best just because that is what is most important to you.  Every amendment has someones blood behind it, hard fought and hard won.  If I had one wish to be granted it would be that people would throw off this idiotic "party" politics and start thinking strategically about the future of our country, the preservation of our rights, instead of just throwing money at the latest Republican or Democratic Messiah.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I too look forward to a day when we again have a judiciary that realizes it's #1 function is to protect the peoples liberties from the encroachments of both the political branches.