Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns

[DainBramaged]

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.”

Heller itself struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun control law, the strictest in the nation. The case was brought by law-abiding people who wanted to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. The cases that have followed it tend to concern more focused laws and less attractive gun owners.

Harvey C. Jackson IV, for instance, argued that he had a constitutional right to carry a gun while selling drugs in a dangerous neighborhood in East St. Louis, Ill. The federal appeals court in Chicago was unimpressed.

“The Constitution does not give anyone the right to be armed while committing a felony,” Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote last month in Mr. Jackson’s case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html?_r=1&hp

[jody]

1. What a pile of lies. Only an idiot who had not read Heller would write unadulterated crap like,

"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."

For anyone who wants to learn the truth, please read DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER.

The writer deserves the top Dung-Beetle trophy.

[Rider Haggard]

4. IMHO, people with such an attachement to a piece of hardware

are strange. You scare me and a lot of other people.

There are a lot of you but you really are a minority. Most people would like to see fewer guns available to anyone anywhere. There are to many people with anger issues that need to be screened out as shown in the last few weeks.

Yes, people kill, but guns make it REALLY efficient.

[virginia mountainman]

6. We are the minority??

Care to back that statement up with facts?

Why does many a politician's first vote for gun control, tend to be one of their last votes???

I could post a very long list of names, including a former Speaker of the House, that was ousted over his support for a gun control law that no longer exists....but I won't, even Bill Clinton admitted as much in one of his state of the union addresses..

How do that jive with YOUR STATEMENT of us being a minority?

[DainBramaged]

8. Your over-aggressiveness to her response is the sole proof needed

If you can't say "meh" and move on, get over your anger.


Oh, and you want to give us some facts about your statement regarding politicians in the last 30 years who voted for gun control who LOST solely over that issue?


Guns, more important than family to too many people.

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. "If you can't say "meh" and move on, get over your anger."

Please lead by example.

[virginia mountainman]

25. Me?? Angry???

If you think I was angry, you have never seen anger before in your life...

[Gold Metal Flake]

26. As you can see from the path of the thread...

I was not replying to you.


:eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

29. Oooops, sorry.. nt

[Rider Haggard]

30. My post was prefaced with IMHO in which the operatice word is OPINION.

I don't have links this is just my opinion which has been formed by reading things on the other side of the coin of which is the antithesis of what you might read. It seems there are enough statisticians on both sides to cloud the figures either way.

This was not a personal attack on those that are against gun regulation, just a statement of how I feel about it which is different than how you feel.

The gun lobby is a very strong lobby. At one time the segregationists were a very strong lobby. An advancing civilization, blood, sweat and sacrifice do make changes.

[virginia mountainman]

31. Yes it does..

We are finally getting away from the "gun ban" bullshit..

BTW, the gun lobby you speak of is MILLIONS of connected, gun owners, who call, write letters, visit congressmen, etc..etc.

Not to mention VOTE

Why just today, at the grocery store, I noticed a several NEW monthly gun publications for sell in the magazine section, and I have NEVER seen a single "Gun Control Monthly" for sell ANYWHERE..


Ahhh, how refreshing!

[jody]

7. Why attack me, please read the Heller decision and point out one statement I made re the cited

paragraph that is wrong.

[Laelth]

20. Um ... the OP isn't about Heller.

The OP is about how the lower Courts are applying the Heller decision. The OP's point is that the lower Courts are not applying Heller to overturn any gun laws.

I haven't studied this issue, but I have no reason to believe that Professor Winkler is lying about that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jody]

21. Please read the Heller decision opinion and dissents by Breyer and Stevens and judge for yourself

unless you prefer to let others do your thinking.

[Laelth]

23. Hmm ... n/t

-Laelth

[jody]

24. Apparently you chose the latter option. Have a good evening and goodbye. n/t

[NeedleCast]

12. Most people would like to see fewer guns available to anyone anywhere

Factual evidence of this claim?

[michreject]

13. Get over it.........................or not

I'm not getting rid of my guns and I have a CCW.

[DainBramaged]

14. If you think ANYONE is trying to take your precious guns, you aren't very smart

or you don't listen to the same news sources we here do.

[Paladin]

19. If Heller Is Such A Potent Pro-Gun Factor....

...how come gun militants like you continue to scream, day after day after day? As long as you continue to make this kind of noise, I'm not going to be that impressed by Heller.....

[jody]

22. Hello Paladin, I see you're still rolling the same old ball. Have a good evening. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

2. LOL Even in the dissenting opinions,

It was UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the second amendment is a individual right..

Someone has been drinking from the Republican ran Brady Campaign's fountain again, it is best not to regurgitate their talking points here... Unless you want everyone to know that you wish to shit on the Bill of Rights.

[DainBramaged]

9. WOW you must be a Constitutional scholar? Wow.

[virginia mountainman]

15. No, but unlike some in here....I can read...NT

[NoGOPZone]

17. I can read too.

I read the article, and I don't see what it has to do with dissenting opinions in Heller. It's not a critique of the decision, it's an analysis of the effects of the decision.

[tangent90]

3. Adam Liptak is a dumb fucking idiot.

:grr:

[bread_and_roses]

5. I surely hope this is indeed the case (n/t)

[customerserviceguy]

10. I'm not surprised

Heller affirmed that there were legitimate reasons to restrict some instances of gun ownership, then was vague about what they were. Sometimes a decision gets refined by hair-splitting cases that subsequently come before the Supreme Court that allow it to clarify what it meant.

When some of the aforementioned cases are denied certiorari, then we can start to talk about what Heller really means.

[HughMoran]

11. Those poor ugly gun owners.

It's hard enough to be ugly!

"The cases that have followed it tend to concern more focused laws and less attractive gun owners."

:rofl:

[aikoaiko]

16. "The Constitution does not give anyone the right to be armed while committing a felony,” Brilliant.

The anti-gun folks are really desperate if this is their "win".

[-..__...]

27. In other news...

water is wet.

The author is pretty much correct in his assessment of the Heller decision, but his reasoning is a bit deceptive and/or incomplete.

The SCOTUS in Heller clearly stated that prohibiting felons and drug addicts from possessing firearms and that
banning firearms from specific public locations is allowable.

The issue of concealed firearms, registration and machine guns was not asked of or addressed by the court. In fact, Alan Guara (attorney for Heller), made it a point in his presentation to the court that NFA (full-auto), firearms could be regulated.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of those cases (if not all of them), were filed by current felons and/or prisoners looking for a loophole or 'get out of jail free' card. And it's also a safe bet that the attorneys representing those defendants knew damn well that their clients were grasping at straws.

This statement "the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out that they lose.”, is pure nonsense since no pro-second amendment organization that I'm aware of has even shown the slightest interest in any of those 80 cases... let alone pay/lose any legal expenses.

However... he is spot on regarding the incorporation issue.

Until the court rules on that issue, Heller has no real significance or standing with the states.

Hopefully, one or two of several things will happen...

1) The Chicago case will wind it's way swiftly through the lower courts and the current justices will hear the case. Seeing as the Chicago's handgun ban is very similar to DC's, there leaves little room for doubt that the justices will make a favorable ruling for incorporation.

With that in our favor, we can begin to challenge/repeal/overturn at least some of the more obscene gun control laws ("assault weapons" bans, one gun per month laws, "may issue" licensing, etc), in a number of anti-RKBA states (MA, CA, NY, NJ, IL, etc).

2) A decision in a lower court case happens where the justices rule that Heller does apply to the states.

A split ruling between lower/circuit courts will increase the likelihood of the SCOTUS hearing the case.

Over all... I think the Heller decision was fantastic one and a big win (but, not as big as I would have liked), for gun owners, the 2nd amendment and our Constitutional rights.

The decision is only 9 months old... any expectation that it would change gun control laws overnight is ridiculous.

It's going to take many more years and court challenges before the ramifications and effects of Heller are finally answered (the case took over 5 years from the time it was filed to the time of the final ruling).

I just hope we can get a few more consciences/pro-RKBA justices on the bench in that time.

[Blackhatjack]

28. The line of cases following the Heller decision will distinguish its actual impact on gun ownership

Every case decided by appellate courts is bound to a particular set of underlying facts under review.

Appellate decisions provide guidance to lower courts in deciding future cases with similar factual and legal underpinnings.

However, the impact of an appellate decision lies more with the line of cases which follow that 'distinguish' the present cases from the facts and circumstances that produced the result in the prior appellate decision.

The point of the article is that Heller has not triggered a line of cases widening the rights of individuals to own guns, and it has not impinged upon those laws which reasonably restrict gun ownership(which were in effect before Heller was decided).

As such, Heller has done little to change the status quo that is of utmost interest to gun owners.

Carry on .....

[Jazzgirl]

32. This one is funny, LOL!

Anyone should be allowed to carry a gun anytime they are anywhere in East St. Louis. It's a shithole!!!!

[aikoaiko]

33. Was Roe v Wade inconsequential because it didn't protect infantacide?

And somehow the fact that some cities (mostly in Illinois) have dropped their anti-gun laws instead of fighting them because of Heller didn't register with this columnist.