Some Surprises, Some Disappointment
Supreme Court Photo by dbking
While many of us are happy to have the Right we cherish upheld and affirmed, as we always knewÂ it should. Many will not be happy.Â There were some surprises in it too. It affirms that it is an individual Right that predates the Bill of Rights. Something that has been at the heart of the gun control debate for many years. The history lesson and logicÂ that is outlined in this decision will be a topic of discussion for many years in law schools.
In Section 3 one of the paragraphs opens the door to interpretation that may have bearing on California law. Prior to Heller the Miller decision said the it (paraphrased) only protected militia type weapons. In the Heller decision it seems to leave the door open for the removal of the assault weapon ban in all states.
(Direct quotes from the court) …We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
Partial footnote 25 See United States vs.. Miller . . . (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have â€˜some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militiaâ€™).â€
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceâ€”M-16 rifles and the likeâ€”may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, theÂ conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendmentâ€™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 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.
Perhaps we will regain the Right to black, ugly,Â non-politically correct, conspicuity protruding,Â semi-automatic firearms. Perhaps even the purchase real magazines again.
The meat of the verdict for Heller;
We must also address the Districtâ€™s requirement (as applied to respondentâ€™s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not â€œhave a problem with . . . licensingâ€ and that the Districtâ€™s
law is permissible so long as it is â€œnot enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.â€ Tr. of Oral Arg. 74â€“75. We therefore assume that petitionersâ€™ issuance of a license will satisfy respondentâ€™s prayer for relief and do not address
the licensing requirement.
The court did not address licensing but did seem to accept it as long as it was fairly applied.
They also said;
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding
â€œinterest-balancingâ€ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmentâ€”even the Third Branch of Governmentâ€”the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judgesâ€™ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
What does all this have to do with you and me? Well it means that we all have a Right, that has now been affirmed by the courts. ItÂ should change future legislation as well as roll back some others. Bans on firearms in public housing, like actions now being filed by NRA in San Francisco, that would protect a gay man who is living in public housing and claims he needs it for protection against hate crimes.
The restrictions and limits on transfers and those who can be denied the Right seem to be left intact. If you’re a felon or mentaly incompetant you are precluded from ownership. We will see some of the blanket bans as in Chicago & Morton GroveÂ probably go off the books and Rights restored in the second city. The fallout will surely not be completely known for some time.
The greatest bonus is we now have a decision that we can balance our future on that is less vague and more concrete than we have had in many many years. Let the debates begin!
Tags1st Supervisor 2nd Amendment Art Pedroza barack obama bush carlos bustamante claudia alvarez clinton commie girl congress crime debbie cook DPOC economy ed chau Election 2008 Gangs Gas Prices gila jones global warming hillary clinton Hoa Van Tran john mccain LGBT liberal O.C. mccain mormons Obama orange juice paul lucas president presidential election prop. 8 Prop. 98 Prop. 99 republicans ron shepston santa ana santa ana city council sapd sarah palin SAUSD Screwdrivers! truth vice-president