If you haven't already read DC vs Heller, you really need to

[friendly_iconoclast]

I say this as there has been some rather severe misinformation posted here at DU
recently as to what the majority (and the minority, for that matter) actually said.

This is *the* decision controlling gun laws at the moment, and liable to be the benchmark
for a decade or two (at least).

You may not change your mind, but at least you will know what you are talking about.

SCOTUS on DC vs. Heller (*.pdf format)

Amici For Respondents & Petitioner

Thanks to DUer jody for the links

[Joe Steel]

1. I don't think so.

This is *the* decision controlling gun laws at the moment, and liable to be the benchmark for a decade or two (at least).

I don't think so.

Heller has had very little effect on enforcement of gun control laws and as more more are tested in court we'll see how stupid Heller really is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. It can't be overturned if you don't know what it actually says

What parts do you object to, Joe?

Something more than "It's stupid" would be helpful here.

If you're going to oppose something, does it not help to know what it is
you are opposing?

[Joe Steel]

6. Scalia dismissed half the amendment

In the majority opinion, Scalia dismissed half the amendment, the "prefatory" clause and the phrase "shall not be infringed," to create the individual right. That destroys any credibility the opinion might have had.

[bossy22]

8. and it can be said

that the dissenting opinion forgot about the operative clause. In fact Scalia didnt forget about the prefatory clause....if im right there were a few pages dedicated soley to that clause.

You may disagree with his interpretation of the prefatory clause but he didnt just "dismiss" it

So you agree with the dissent that the second amendment was basically a powerless amendment?

i think you should read this article by Akhil Reed Amar http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf

he explains why scalia's ultimate decision was correct (though the means were not as concrete)

[bossy22]

3. in fact the lower courts seem to welcome

the clarification

i'd say without the "miller precedent" most courts would probably be split on the individual v collective rights arguements

some laws are going to be struck down (such as the Chicago handgun ban) and parts of the adam walsh act (the part that says those accused of child porn crimes must give u ptheir guns)

[rl6214]

4. How can you possibly say that the Heller decision

"has had very little effect on enforcement of gun control laws"?

Can you cite any examples or is this just your opinion?

[Joe Steel]

5. Not just my opinion...

Not just my opinion...

About nine months ago, the Supreme Court breathed new life into the Second Amendment, ruling for the first time that it protects an individual right to own guns. Since then, lower federal courts have decided more than 80 cases interpreting the decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, and it is now possible to make a preliminary assessment of its impact.

So far, Heller is firing blanks.

The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. And they have upheld laws concerning concealed and unregistered weapons.

"The Heller case is a landmark decision that has not changed very much at all," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who keeps a running tally of decisions based on the case. "To date, the federal courts have not invalidated a single gun control law on the basis of the Second Amendment since Heller."

Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns

[bossy22]

7. that article fails to look at state laws

and smaller changes

there isnt going to be any big publicized cases at the moment but there are changes being made due to the Heller Case.

read up on the adam walsh act