Thursday, June 26, 2008

Oyez! Oyez! Round Two.

Heller affirmed. 2A is an individual right. More coming.

EDIT: 5-4. Pretty weak.

EDIT: Awww. Who's the sad clown?

EDIT: Scalia opinion in .pdf format at SCOTUSblog. Downside: Focuses on "in the home"; nothing to nail CCW to (which makes the "...and bear" part seem odd.) Upside: Smacks down "safe useless storage" as the godless pinko abomination it is. The gun might as well be on Mars for all the good it will do by the time you unlock it and reassemble the parts.

EDIT: Turning you over to Unc for updates as VFTP resumes its regularly scheduled snark. And I drink a beer. Because, baby, the sun is over the yardarm early today. :)


Anonymous said...

Happy to break out the bubbly instead of the battlepacks.

Anonymous said...

Well, speaking of battlepacks......this was a 5 to 4 decision, so despite the difficulty most of have with John McCain, I'm confident an Obama court would have ruled 17-2 against us.

JT said...

From your link to the GunGuys, and their post from before the announcement:
So if the Court decides that there is an individual right, it will be a reversal of legal precedent that goes back to the founding of our nation.

Wait, what? Interesting spin ya got there, fella.

Tam said...

Like I said: "Sad Clown". :)

Anonymous said...


alath said...

5-4 is the only weak thing about it.

I guess this puts to rest the "collective right" nonsense, which is a good thing.

Although they affirmed "keeping arms," it looks like they didn't address "bearing arms" (ie, the ruling only covers guns in the home). I also saw some caveats that they were striking down licensing and other restrictions.

My guess is that these "weak" aspects were included (or omitted) in order to get some fence-sitter or other on board and achieve a majority.

Two takes:

1) A win, yes, but about as weak as a win could possibly be

2) It appears we are just one Obama appointment away from a SCOTUS that would not even endorse this weak reading of the 2nd.

alath said...

Ooops - should have said "5-4 ISN'T the only weak thing about it."

alath said...

Another oops - they WEREN'T striking down licensing and other restrictions.

I guess somebody needs to learn to proofread ;-)

Mike W. said...

Damn do I wish I could have a drink, but I'm stuck here at work!

Enjoy an extra cold one for me, preferrably something nice and dark.

JT said...

I'm not sure I agree that a 5-4 decision makes it a weak one. I think the strong language putting to rest the collective right nonsense and how strongly worded the ban-reversal language is, is what made for such a solid line conservative/liberal split. Citing this decision as precedent later on won't cite whether it was 5-4 or 6-3 or whatever, but will cite the language used, because the language used is the opinion of the Court, regardless of the vote split.

IMO (and IANAL), a 6-3 or 7-2 decision that some were hoping for would have meant that the language would have been weaker, in order to get those folks like Ginsburg to join in the majority. That would have been worse, IMO.

Rob K said...

It's a good present for me on my 8th wedding anniversary. I'm going out for a beer at lunch!

Reno Sepulveda said...

Well we had to do it again for only the second time in 8 years. The first was when we recieved our tax rebate back 2001 just in time to buy school clothes for the kids.

Today I see "...SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined..."

So we are joining hands in a circle and assuming our best vanquished Iraqi accents and chanting


Don said...

They weren't considering the question of carrying guns outside the home, so I'm happy with the piece of a bone we got thrown on that issue. More wouldn't have made sense from the court's point of view. This is a big win any way you spin it.
(And if you think Gun Guys are sad little clowns, you should see Daley hopping up and down and turning red in Chicago. It didn't take long for him to lose it in front of the press. Google "Daley scary" and see it.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we should celebrate, but I'd ask everyone to bear something in mind:

- Gun owners have to win EVERY SINGLE TIME people refuse to read the plain English in the Constitution.
- The anti-freedom types only have to win ONCE, and the Constitution is toast.

I guess my main feeling is one of relief...we're still living in the United States of America, rather than the totalitarian state that might now be occupying it. We don't have to "vote from the rooftops" right now, as we might have had to do if the Constitution hadn't been upheld.

Let us thank all of the people who put a tremendous effort into making this decision come out the right way (even though to most people it's the obvious way). You never know what a bunch of judges who used to be lawyers will do.

Anonymous said...

A round for the house and all. But Blackwing, this is just one issue. The constitution is already "toast" (to put it politely) There are still things that need to be unfucked.

Anonymous said...

Re: Sad Clown

Wuh-wuh-wuh-wait! The Deputy Counsel for Illinois is asserting that the principle of states' rights makes Illinois immune from the application of the Heller precedent to their own little machine.

Sniff...sniff...smells like irony.

Anonymous said...

Sad Clowns, indeed... where did you ever dig up that site? Some Soros funder "grassroots" organization, no doubt.

I do like the way they make it look so gun friendly and rustic and homey and then... they start typing and it all goes poof!

TW: Zrhvoyw. I was thinking about buying one of those, but didn't want to add another caliber to my stock, in this case 7.62mmx54R.

JPG said...

Uhmmmm - - "5 to 4, pretty weak?"

Well, hell, Sis - - Certainly we'd all LIKE to have seen a bunch of real freedom-avowing justices affirm, 9 - 0. Or 8 - 1, or even only 6 - 3. But, when you come to think of it, Roe vs Wade was a 5 to 4 decision, and look at how long, and how strongly, THAT one has stood. Also, the issue at bar that time was one about which a LOT more folks were emotionally involved.

And, sure, there were some additional issues I wish had been decided. One more time (Watch my lips, friends and neighbors): THOSE issues were not even included as part of this particular action. The basis for this action was carefully chosen so it would be winnable. And won it was. We'll fight another action on another day. At least now, D.C. residents can KEEP arms. And we have Hizzoner the Chicago Mayor whining plaintively.

Yeah, the victory was not perfect, BUT WE WON!

And, the observation about the sun and the yardarm and other nautical stuff - - Entirely valid. A quantity of non-blended spirits was distilled at Craigellachie in 1979 and thence laid up in oaken sherry casks for 18 years before bottling. Matt and I drew the cork, poured two generous measures and toasted the outcome of Heller. That dark amber fluid went for a worthy cause.


John A said...

Heller affirmed. 2A is an individual right. More coming.

EDIT: 5-4. Pretty weak.

Look again: technically, we can call it 9-0 as every Justice agreed on individual right, the dissent was in how far "regulation" could go and/or whether that alone should have been the ruling with the case then returned to the lower courts.

Anonymous said...

I've had my beefs with the NRA, but they pulled almost all the weight on this one, and skillfully too.
I just went on line and rejoined them after a five year absence. And tomorrow, I'll go back to the ol'sweatshop, and when all the liberal jackasses (redundant?)try to draw me into a debate, I'll just smile and look busy.
And, since everyone else seems to be celebrating, there's a bottle of Jamieson 1780 in the cupboard that's been calling me. I think I should answer. :-)

Don said...

The NRA did good, but they don't deserve all the credit. They jumped on the bandwagon after they tried and failed to stop it.

Yes, we should celebrate, but I'd ask everyone to bear something in mind:

- Gun owners have to win EVERY SINGLE TIME people refuse to read the plain English in the Constitution.
- The anti-freedom types only have to win ONCE, and the Constitution is toast.

Call me Pollyanna, but if that were true, Miller v. U.S. would have settled everything in 1934.

We've got a long fight ahead of us, and we're going to lose sometimes, so it would be good if we got tough first.

Anonymous said...

"I've had my beefs with the NRA, but they pulled almost all the weight on this one, and skillfully too."

What? WHAT? This case was planned and advanced by Cato Institute scholar and lawyer Robert Levy, and tried by attorney Alan Gura. They began without the cooperation of the NRA and against the advice of the NRA, whose leadership feared the precedent if they lost. Initially the NRA even tried to derail it in two ways: one, by finding their own plaintiffs and rushing to file a similar case in DC, which could have been combined with Levy's case and bogged it down, and two, by trying twice to get DC's gun ban overturned by Congress before the case reached the Supreme Court. (Which is an achievement I would have welcomed, but the timing was such that it would have prevented the Supreme Court from hearing the case at all, thus denying us this victory and precedent.)

The NRA only got on board and started lobbying Congress for it's friend of the court brief after the case had gone past the point of no return.

If you read law bolgs like or, they're not giving much credit to the NRA. They're giving credit to the non-NRA team of Levy, Gura and Neilly, as well as a number of researchers and lawyers who did work on the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment that was cited by the majority opinion.

I'm glad the NRA's gotten on board now because they have the widest base and the deepest pockets on our side. I've been a member of both the NRA and GOA for several years now. But I don't believe our side is going to make good strategic decisions if we airbrush history just to flatter one group on our side.

Anonymous said...

The NRA really had nothing to do with this. In fact, they tried to derail it early on or take control of the suit.

The man to thank is Robert Levy. He funded and planned the suit himself. He's not even a gun owner, but just wanted to "make a difference" in civil rights!