5-4 decision. Surprised it wasn't more of a landslide.

Look for a number of city enacted gun laws to be overturned, like Chicago and Seattle.

MSN Article

I wouldn't count on it...all it says it that you can blanket ban having a handgun in your home for self-defense. I'm pretty sure Seattle doesn't have any laws saying you can't have a handgun in your home for self-defense.

Fish on...

Todd

Their law (Seattle) on all guns in parks goes against state law & state constitution. One thing leads to another, and this unconstiututional law will be challenged shortly as folks who don't want to see a consistent degradation of our rights band together. This ruling will give some fence sitters the nudge that is needed. The SCOTUS decision does not directly apply to Seattle, but it does to Chicago, and you can bet gun rights supporters will begin to challenge a number of restrictive gun laws.

RCW's give the State the ultimate power to make law in WA regarding firearms. 9.41.290 Cities can't be more strict, especially where it concerns the right to self defense.

RCW 9.41.300 says cities can regulate places gun can be shot, except that they cannot violate Article 1, section 24 of the WA State Constitution.

Article 1, section 24 states: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Seattle's law ban's folks with CWP/CPL's, pistols are almost exclusively carried, although there are a few AOW's out there that I know of.


Before you call it a sawed off shotgun, it isn't. Never had a stock, never was assembled as a shotgun. Classified as an "all other weapons" type of firearm. Fits under a wading jacket.

Dogfish, had this court voted 6-3 one of the liberals would have been arrested. Im guessing, was Kennedy part of the five? Often the swing vote now days.

It is a little bigger than that Todd. This decided the age old arguement that the right to arms was just for the militia. They affirmed it was a individual right as is stated in the Const. About damn time.
At least dumby W did one thing right. Put some justices on hte court that uphold our right to arms. Not something very popular with the other side. It could have easily been different.

It's all an illusion people. As a gun owner, I recognize the following:

My guns will not protect me unless I am locked and loaded, gun pointed forward, 24/7

If you are worried about the government taking away your arms, they wouldn't bother, they'll take you out at long distance - you'll never know what hit you

My guns do not protect me from the real problems we all face - enslavement to the corporations. Can you negotiate a lower price for gas, milk, etc.

sorry to be such a downer, it's just another smoke and mirrors issue

If you look at the definition of militia from dictionaries from 1750-1790, it is essentially all men of age fit for military service. It was talking about men, not an organization.

Yes, Kennedy was one of the supporters. Some of the dissenters ahd some ineteresting reasoning, that I don't agree with.

I would expect to see Nickel's law to be tested immediately once enacted. Montesano, WA passed a similar law, and was vetoed by the mayor a week later based on the RCW's and WA Constitution.

A member of the school board I'm on tried to regulate the general population (not students, employees and such) and allow no firearms on campus AT ALL. Only law enforcement/security guards are allowed to have loaded weapons on campus at this time, per the RCW's.

This person was trying to set district policy that covered parents carrying legally concealed weapons in their vehicle, on their persons, while picking up and dropping off students. Sure we could make the policy, but then we couldn't enforce, etc. I quoted the RCW's and Art 1, sec 24, and all discussion on the matter ended.

I also made the following point. In the case of domestic violence, where would an abuser know that the abusee and children would be together at a specific time and place? At school.

Let's not create oasis's of crime through laws that regulate law abiding citizens. Certainly didn't work in DC, or Chicago, did it? Abject failure is what I would call it.

Mike,
This is better than smoke and mirrors. This was an important issue to assure we keep at least a few of the rights we traditionally had. Those rights are very easy to take away and very difficult to get back. No it will not help with the large problems of the country but really could have made things worse at a tough time if it went the other way. People hold on strongly to the right to arms not because of government fear like some believe but because it is tradition and real tradition not made up for monitary gain. People hunt and fish and do these thing because that is their way of life and taking even a small part of that away can be terribly damaging. It was a good decision IMO.

Well said, Mike.

I can already see it now... Jimbo, Ned, and Aunty M.

Kaiser, you forgot me.

Looks like Chicago's ban is the next target!

Quote:

From a press release by the Second Amendment Foundation:
Following Thursday’s (5-4) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit (complaint) challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban.

“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”

America's problem is that rural residents and urban residents are constantly attempting to impress their values and their rules upon each other and urban rules & values aren't logical to those in the country and rural values & rules are absurd to those in urban areas.

Aunty!

I'm no drag queen - I'm not even a drama queen! Not that there's anything wrong with that

I take at least one of my guns anytime I go camping, and it's not because I'm concerned about being attacked by bears, mountain lions, or billy goats. What I didn't say is that the Patriot Act appears to make the constitution a moot point. When you are declared an "enemy combatant/terrorist" by the Gov't, you have no constitutional rights, ergo, no right to gun possession. Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

Nickels may get by on a technicality - he is proclaiming this as a rule rather than a law and the overlying law is trespass. We'll see. I would expect that both sides are so invested in this battle that we will see a new batch of lawsuits to find out where the limits of the SCOTUS ruling are.

Then there's this guy exercising his rights:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/16718775/detail.html

At least he shot the right person.

Myself I think it's proven time after time that not all people should have the right to own a firearm.

The 5-4 part is scary. Another vote or two on the left....

Stlhead,

I agree with you that there are some mighty boneheaded firearms owners out there.

Same goes for parents (fall asleep and drop child in fire) (beat kids and have them live in garage, then tie up to a tree until the child suffocates themself trying to escape),
drivers (man drives off a pier into the water killing his wife after mistaking brake for gas) (man drives into crowded market, killing many, after mistaking gas for brake),
religious clerics (rape and assault children) (church protects rapists as a matter of policy).

At least for that guy, stupidity did actually hurt. Hope he gets better.

A gun is a tool, just like a car, or a hammer, or a golf club.

Same goes for parents (fall asleep and drop child in fire)


He wasnt fit to be a father let alone own a gun. That fire pit is a long way from the bench.

Nicely phrased dogfish. You can't blame the entire village for the village idiot. There is no way and no # of laws that can stop stupid people fom doing stupid things. If that guy did not shoot himself, he could have broke his bloody neck showing how tough he was jumping off the roof.....who knows. you can not ban the entire population from do something because a few people do it badly or abuse it. Punish the abusers not the rest of us.

Just for arguments sake...how do you punish someone who murders multiple people and then blows his brains out? And, how do the survivors receive justice?

I struggle with that one myself each time it happens. I just wish they would cut to the chase and off themselves. My dad was at the Red Cross apartments in Seattle a few years when the guy went in and shot his girlfriend with the shotgun after the apartment fire. Actually talked to the guy before, and after he shot her, as my dad didn't know he had shot her, just that shots had been fired. Dad told the guy to watch out, then dad saw the shotgun, luckily he spared my dad.

I've also been the one to draw a weapon when a guy with a knife came into a restaurant I managed. I'd kicked him out the night before, and he said he'd be back. Luckily for both of us, and the folks in the restaurant, he immediately dropped the knife. I was about halfway through my trigger pull when the knife hit the ground.

When seconds count, the police will only be minutes away. Been a deputy and have seen that first hand. It up to each individual to take responsibility for their own security themselves, not law enforcement.

I haven't read the decision yet. I'm interested in the reasoning offered by the dissenting opinions.

Sg

I dont why anyone is suprised it was 5-4 Kennedy is often regarded as the swing vote.

Souter [sp] doesnt even respect private property rights.

We have four libs and four conservatives. One switch hitter.

Had John Kerry won, this would have gone a different way.

I wonder how many people in Florida and Ohio are happy today.

Probably the same number as were outraged over the "no death penalty for child rape" decision.

4 libs and 4 conservatives, and yet only two justices were appointed by a Democrat. I guess Republicans are as likely to appoint a liberal judge as a Democrat.

Here you go SG.......43 pages long but an interesting read http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotus-op-heller06262008.pdf

Dan,
Im not defending any presidents on this. Reagan-Oconner was a disappointment Bush-Souter turned out a loser.
We almost ended up with Harriet Meyers.
However, there is little hope, that a Democrat will appoint a conservative to the bench. Im not surprised about the rape case decision. Its tough enough to get a death sentence on a murder, let alone anything else. Letting the animals out, is worse than no death sentence.