Ammo For Sale

« « Givin’ ’em Heller | Home | Quote of the Year » »

Hell(er) Yeah!

Affirmed.

More as I get it.

Update: The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

Update 2: 5-4? Srsly?

So much for speculation that Ginsburg was on our side.

Update: 3 opinions. One for, two dissents.

Update: awaiting opinion. Details will matter.

Update: Opinion here.

Later kids. Off to read.

Update: Thanks to Mr. Levy and Mr. Gura. It’s a good day.

23 Responses to “Hell(er) Yeah!”

  1. Robert Says:

    Whew!

  2. Jack Burton Says:

    Glad Kennedy decided to flip to the right on this one. Now it’s just waiting to see what Scalia wrote.

  3. Jay Johnson Says:

    Set in for a long read. 157 page PDF. It’s going to take a while to work through all of the substance. If I can avoid working as an actual lawyer for pay today, I’ll see if I can help with some review, too.

  4. chris Says:

    ive got it linked too… sitting in to read it now

  5. GrumpyUnk Says:

    We can all be glad that the right thing was done here today. WooHoo! Given the amount of data that directly quotes the Founders thoughts and intent on this subject, it’s amazing that there could be any dissent on this.

    Now what am I gonna do with all this PVC pipe?

  6. Robert Says:

    They barely got right what they should have gotten right without a second thought. Now the quibbling begins.

  7. Bruce Says:

    Let the PSHitstorm commence!

  8. #9 Says:

    It is ridiculous it was not 9-0.

    Close call for Liberty.

  9. David Says:

    Celebratory gun porn over at Random Nuclear Strikes blog.

  10. SayUncle Says:

    It is ridiculous it was not 9-0.

    Who cares? This was pass/fail.

  11. KCSteve Says:

    Because Heller conceded at oral argument
    that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
    and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
    his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
    Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
    rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
    must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

    This bit sounds like licensing is ok but only if it’s ‘shall issue’. Might also have some effects on what limits they can place on the licenses.

    Other bits I saw in my quick glance may mean that this does not apply to CCW though.

  12. ben Says:

    I am very curious to see what the other four “justices” were thinking. I am very surprised that this wasn’t at least 6-3 if not 7-2. The four “liberal” justices seem to have confirmed that they don’t need no stinking constitution.

  13. Jay Johnson Says:

    Some PSH from a wacky regular on the left coast on Brendan Loy’s blog…

    FWIW.

  14. #9 Says:

    Who cares? This was pass/fail.

    We are one heart attack away from a failing grade. It matters.

  15. Alcibiades McZombie Says:

    It really is Peanut Butter Heller Time! Someone needs to link to a clip of that song…

  16. Jeffersonian Says:

    This is very good news, mitigated only by the four Justices who pant to bestow rights on terrorists and child rapists while straining at their leashes to strip those of law-abiding Americans.

  17. anon Says:

    From the decision:

    “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

    Could be playing CYA on NFA?

  18. Nomen Nescio Says:

    certainly they’re covering their NFAsses. was fairly clear they would way back at oral arguments time. what matters is how they do the rectum-concealing, and how much leeway they leave (or not) for possibly undoing that at a later date; i’m still too early on in my reading of the opinion to say.

  19. Stormy Dragon Says:

    I don’t get why everyone is so happy about this ruling. It seems to leave every manner of control short of an outright ban intact, and even then only in federally controlled areas like DC. And despite this incredibly weak gruel, the only got a 5-4 affirmation.

    It seems like the bar has been lowered to the point where anything but an outright disaster is now considered a ‘victory’. Is that really a state worth celebrating?

  20. SayUncle Says:

    I don’t get why everyone is so happy about this ruling

    Dude, I sometimes wonder about you.

  21. straightarrow Says:

    when the euphoria dies down, Uncle, take a better look at Stormy’s wonderment. A template was handed to the banners as to how to proceed without running afoul of the court, but still allowing almost any infringement except absolute ban. That one word considerably weakens the opinion, suggesting anything short of an absolute ban will be tolerated by this court. Along with other weasel words througout just the little I have yet read. This is not a great victory. It is just a great feeling that it was any kind of victory. Let’s just hope we’re smart enough and committed enough to keep it from bein a temporary victory. You can be damn sure the opposition is already drawing a map of the route subliminally suggested in this decision.

    May not work out that way over time, but the stage has been set and our work has become more difficult and possibly of much longer duration than we had previously expected, which was a considerable length of time, anyway.

  22. Stormy Dragon Says:

    Dude, I sometimes wonder about you.

    What do you wonder about me?

    My whole expectation about this from the beginning is that we were going to end up with a Kelo-style ruling that professes a theoretical right to keep and bear arms, but with so many limitations that it’s useless in practice. This ruling does nothing to disabuse me of that expectation.

    The right isn’t incorporated, so it’s quite likely that a state-passed ban would be valid in any city other than DC. Even in DC, it’s quite possible that New York style licensing that prevents nearly everyone but the well-connected from getting a license would still past muster, so it’s unlikely this ruling will result in significant easier access to firearms by the generally public.

    And again, even with all those problem they still only got a 5-4 ruling, which means this is likely going to be considered a ‘fake ruling’ that can be ignored as soon as the composition of the court shifts a little.

    I’m just not really in the mood for celebrating a purely symbolic victory.

  23. ATLien Says:

    I still say we harass/punish/deport the dissenters.