There are some striking similarities between the Heller decision and Bush v. Gore. In both cases, the Court articulates a "new" right to be recognized by the Courts: a right to bear arms in Heller and a right to have votes tabulated equally in Bush v. Gore. Yet in both decisions, the Court makes clear that this right is not likely to be something that results in the invalidation of many laws -- or perhaps even any laws other than the ones directly at issue in the case.
In Bush v. Gore, the Court warned that nothing in the opinion was meant to call into question the many difficult, technical issues of vote tabulation and the many different laws on the books for how to count votes. As a result, the opinion was severely criticized by many for being like a railroad ticket good for this train only. Indeed, in the wake of Bush v. Gore, the equal vote tabulation principle has all but died. As law professor Rick Hasen has shown in an excellent article forthcoming in the Stanford Law Journal, the Court has not cited Bush v. Gore since the decision came down and the lower courts have refused to closely scrutinize vote tabulation laws, even when those laws effectively give excess voting power to some individuals.
In Heller, the majority says that the decision is not meant "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." Sounds like the Court is once again trying to avoid the obvious implications of its broad statement of the right to bear arms. Indeed, the Court does not provide any more indication of what laws might be undermined by the newly recognized right other than to say that a handgun ban and a dissembled long gun requirement are invalid. Don't be surprised if the lower courts refuse to invalidate many other gun laws, citing the quoted statement above. If so, Heller would be the high-water mark for the individual right to bear arms -- and we'll be writing articles years from now about the birth and sudden death of a strong Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Nearly every judge appointed by a Republican President since Reagan took office is a right wing idealogue and should be impeached for being part of a criminal conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and rightfully enacted laws of the United States.
The Republican Party should be disbanded using the RICO laws that were instituted to reign in organized crime. The Republican Party is nothing more than a crime syndicate.
George W. Bush should be prosecuted for 1st degree murder.
Nader is a symptom of our disease, not the disease itself.
So really... At the end of the day... How full of crap are you? Or do you now want to make the lunatic fantasy argument that we would have all of this and EVEN BETTER if the USA just had never existed? Such idiocy. Why cant people just learn how to be critical AND thoughtful without spiraling off the edge into hyperbolic insanity?
They assumed that this body of like-minded person's would naturally come to dominate one or more state governments and those states would have the right to avail themselves of rebelling against the central oppressive government.
That was how this country was founded and why they were adamant about insuring that everyone that wished to do so has a gun with which to fight with. The implied threat of civil war was supposed to keep the governmnet honest (balance of powers - people verses gov't).
They never assumed both that the Federal government would so dominate the states nor that people as a whole would become so truly disinterested in politics. We've become ignorant sheeple and that is why all of these problems have come to pass.
Good lawyers and judges are the rocket scientists of their profession. Scalia is GED level. He is no more qualified to make law than he is to build a rocket.
I rarely agree with Scalia about anything, but he got this one right. The Washington DC handgun ban could not stand because, being a "ban" rather than a reasonable "regulation," it conflicted with a constitutional right specifically enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As the decision states, DC is free to adopt reasonable regulations on gun ownership, such as background checks, waiting periods, etc. that do not "regulate" gun ownership so stringently as to make it impossible for citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. What that is will have to be resolved on a case by case basis.
That is a ludicrous statement. You overlook the number of different viewpoints expressed in amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. Non-lawyers just don't have a clue about how the law works, and over-simplify it.
A well written decision would reduce the need to decide each possible law on a case by case basis.
Yes, I am aware that there are "different viewpoints." They are simply wrong. The 2nd amendment applies to citizens. Get over it. The supreme court has spoken. And what they said left plenty of room for reasonable regulation of gun purchase and ownership.
I am one Democrat who believes that the sooner the Democratic Party establishment acknowledges the 2nd amendment, the better of we'll all be. After all, Democrats have no trouble with the other nine ,whereas Republicans love the 2nd amendment, but do not seem to think much of the rest of the Bill of Rights..which is why I'm a Democrat.
Separate and apart from the 2nd amendment issue: I just don't believe that the public is "safer" when law abiding citizens are disarmed. And it may be a truism, but its a true one: When owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will own guns. Does that make you feel safer? The "research" supporting gun control has holes you can drive a truck through. Its just not persuasive.
It would also help if more Democrats read the history of the gun control movement. It originally was begun for the specific purpose of making sure newly freed African Americans were disarmed. Its roots are in racism.