Decius wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Unfortunately its a narrow margin.

Not only is it a narrow margin, it is such a limited decision it may be a repeat of Bush v. Gore in that it has no application to other questions. All that was established here is that DC's complete ban of handguns, and requirement that rifles/shotguns be either unassembled or trigger locked was excessive. If DC wants to turn around tomorrow and say, "$5000 registration fee, waiver for police officers or for individuals granted a waiver by the police," that would be completely acceptable under the ruling.

More significantly, had this case come up two years ago, I would not have been surprised had O'Conner gone the other way, and brought Kennedy with her making it a 6-3 decision the other direction.

There is also question about whether the same decision applies to a state law which inserts a militia clause, or even if it applies to other municipal laws such as Chicago or San Francisco, which operate under state code rather than direct federal law.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Not only is it a narrow margin, it is such a limited decision it may be a repeat of Bush v. Gore in that it has no application to other questions. All that was established here is that DC's complete ban of handguns, and requirement that rifles/shotguns be either unassembled or trigger locked was excessive. If DC wants to turn around tomorrow and say, "$5000 registration fee, waiver for police officers or for individuals granted a waiver by the police," that would be completely acceptable under the ruling.

I'm not sure. Granted, I haven't had time to read it, but an individual rights interpretation might involve a least restrictive means test, which a $5000 registration fee would not meet. Having said that, one of the reasons I'm comfortable with this decision is that reasonable restrictions are still left on the table.

There is also question about whether the same decision applies to a state law which inserts a militia clause, or even if it applies to other municipal laws such as Chicago or San Francisco, which operate under state code rather than direct federal law.

I don't think either will fly, because I think the amendment is incorporated. The amendment was obviously not written with incorporation in mind (which is, I think, why the tension exists between the concept of a militia and the individual right -- the framers assumed states would do the regulating). Its possible that it shouldn't be incorporated as a policy matter, but in general I think things were incorporated.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Not only is it a narrow margin, it is such a limited decision it may be a repeat of Bush v. Gore in that it has no application to other questions. All that was established here is that DC's complete ban of handguns, and requirement that rifles/shotguns be either unassembled or trigger locked was excessive. If DC wants to turn around tomorrow and say, "$5000 registration fee, waiver for police officers or for individuals granted a waiver by the police," that would be completely acceptable under the ruling.

I'm not sure. Granted, I haven't had time to read it, but an individual rights interpretation might involve a least restrictive means test, which a $5000 registration fee would not meet. Having said that, one of the reasons I'm comfortable with this decision is that reasonable restrictions are still left on the table.

There is also question about whether the same decision applies to a state law which inserts a militia clause, or even if it applies to other municipal laws such as Chicago or San Francisco, which operate under state code rather than direct federal law.

I don't think either will fly, because I think the amendment is incorporated. The amendment was obviously not written with incorporation in mind (which is, I think, why the tension exists between the concept of a militia and the individual right -- the framers assumed states would do the regulating). Its possible that it shouldn't be incorporated as a policy matter, but in general I think things were incorporated.

Well, interestingly, the 2nd amendment never has gone through incorporation cases. 2nd Amendment cases making it to the Supreme Court are rare the most recent one that comes to mind prior to this is Miller in the 30s, which was in response to federal gun control in response to things like Dillinger.

DC is a special case because it is governed under federal rules directly, but let's say a state sets up a law which says, "as a requirement to own a handgun, you are required to volunteer an average of 12 hours per month in the state militia, said service will include gun safety and training, and emergency assistance." Now what? It is working to satisfy both clauses, but it's unconstitutional, on an amendment which has not previously been pushed down to the state level? If someone could get something like that through a state legislature, it would make an interesting case.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well, interestingly, the 2nd amendment never has gone through incorporation cases. 2nd Amendment cases making it to the Supreme Court are rare the most recent one that comes to mind prior to this is Miller in the 30s, which was in response to federal gun control in response to things like Dillinger.

I think thats about to change.

Let's say a state sets up a law which says, "as a requirement to own a handgun, you are required to volunteer an average of 12 hours per month in the state militia, said service will include gun safety and training, and emergency assistance."

I don't think this would fly. The amendment doesn't specify what militia it refers to. Requiring participation in a specific militia may not fly.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well, interestingly, the 2nd amendment never has gone through incorporation cases. 2nd Amendment cases making it to the Supreme Court are rare the most recent one that comes to mind prior to this is Miller in the 30s, which was in response to federal gun control in response to things like Dillinger.

I think thats about to change.

Let's say a state sets up a law which says, "as a requirement to own a handgun, you are required to volunteer an average of 12 hours per month in the state militia, said service will include gun safety and training, and emergency assistance."

I don't think this would fly. The amendment doesn't specify what militia it refers to. Requiring participation in a specific militia may not fly.

I'm going to give you one more thing to chew over on this topic, this was an even thinner decision than you may think. If you read the decision, Scalia's ruling reads not like a decision of the court, but as a dissent. Having spoken to a couple of my lawyer friends who have also read this, it was. Someone flipped.

If this were a known decision of the court, Roberts would have written it, not Captain Napalm, Tony Scalia, and you would not have two dissents with all the dissenting parties in agreement. You may still have two dissents, but you have some people on one, some people on another, some people on both, but you do not have 100% crossover. My guess on this is, the dissent was the winning side but someone backed off at the last minute, probably Kennedy, but maybe Alito or Roberts.

This one is beyond razor thin, and I don't think you're going to see this one extend, and it's likely if NRA tries to shove it through in Chicago or San Francisco which have less severe restrictions (no rifle restriction I'm aware of in Chicago, not sure if that's the same in SF) you may see the NRA go down like the Hindenburg.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
I'm going to give you one more thing to chew over on this topic, this was an even thinner decision than you may think. If you read the decision, Scalia's ruling reads not like a decision of the court, but as a dissent. Having spoken to a couple of my lawyer friends who have also read this, it was. Someone flipped.

I've heard that as well. I assume its Kennedy. Its possible that there was some horse trading. In particular, the phrasing of the passage about incorporation is odd. There are two sentences, both seem to imply opposite things.

Add to all of this the legislation that is being put forward to "Serialize" and/or "MicroStamp" ammunition in several states.

These legislative moves are designed to remove ammunition from legal and licensed weapons holders, and make home reloading illegal. It would also require those who own ammunition that is NOT serialized, to destroy it at their own cost, and loss.

Not only would these impending laws remove sport shooting from our country, due to the fact that ammunition would then be "regulated" and therefore more expensive to obtain, but it would not allow the competition shooters to reload their own ammunition to save money. Lastly there would be an amazing shortage of ammunition for the general populous, the police forces, and the military.

Check the list below to see if your state is pursuing this legislation...

As of today's date the following States have put forth this legislation:

Arizona House Bill 2833
California Senate Bill 997 (Carried Over from 2007)
Hawaii House Bill 2392
Hawaii Senate Bill 2020
Hawaii Senate Bill 2076
Hawaii House Resolution 82-07 (Carried Over from 2007)
Hawaii Concurrent Resolution 104-06 (Carried Over from 2007)
Illinois House Bill 4258
Illinois House Bill 4259
Illinois House Bill 4269
Illinois House Bill 4349
Illinois Senate Bill 1095 (Carried Over from 2007)
Indiana House Bill 1260
Maryland House Bill 517
Mississippi Senate Bill 2286
New York House Bill 6920 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York House Bill 7300 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York Senate Bill 1177 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York Senate Bill 3731 (Carried Over from 2007)
Pennsylvania House Bill
Tennessee House Bill 3245
Tennessee Senate Bill 3395
Washington House Bill 3359

2007 Legislation
California Senate Bill 997
Hawaii House Resolution 82-07
Hawaii Concurrent Resolution 104-06
Illinois Senate Bill 1095
Maryland House Bill 1393
New York House Bill 6920
New York House Bill 7300
New York Senate Bill 1177
New York Senate Bill 3731

Courtesy: GOAL Post 2008-4, Legislative Update from Olympia 8 February 2008

Add to all of this the legislation that is being put forward to "Serialize" and/or "MicroStamp" ammunition in several states.

These legislative moves are designed to remove ammunition from legal and licensed weapons holders, and make home reloading illegal. It would also require those who own ammunition that is NOT serialized, to destroy it at their own cost, and loss.

Not only would these impending laws remove sport shooting from our country, due to the fact that ammunition would then be "regulated" and therefore more expensive to obtain, but it would not allow the competition shooters to reload their own ammunition to save money. Lastly there would be an amazing shortage of ammunition for the general populous, the police forces, and the military.

Check the list below to see if your state is pursuing this legislation...

As of today's date the following States have put forth this legislation:

Arizona House Bill 2833
California Senate Bill 997 (Carried Over from 2007)
Hawaii House Bill 2392
Hawaii Senate Bill 2020
Hawaii Senate Bill 2076
Hawaii House Resolution 82-07 (Carried Over from 2007)
Hawaii Concurrent Resolution 104-06 (Carried Over from 2007)
Illinois House Bill 4258
Illinois House Bill 4259
Illinois House Bill 4269
Illinois House Bill 4349
Illinois Senate Bill 1095 (Carried Over from 2007)
Indiana House Bill 1260
Maryland House Bill 517
Mississippi Senate Bill 2286
New York House Bill 6920 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York House Bill 7300 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York Senate Bill 1177 (Carried Over from 2007)
New York Senate Bill 3731 (Carried Over from 2007)
Pennsylvania House Bill
Tennessee House Bill 3245
Tennessee Senate Bill 3395
Washington House Bill 3359

2007 Legislation
California Senate Bill 997
Hawaii House Resolution 82-07
Hawaii Concurrent Resolution 104-06
Illinois Senate Bill 1095
Maryland House Bill 1393
New York House Bill 6920
New York House Bill 7300
New York Senate Bill 1177
New York Senate Bill 3731

Courtesy: GOAL Post 2008-4, Legislative Update from Olympia 8 February 2008