SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[Tchocky]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a...ight-to-a-gun/

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

[JetSnake]

Keep them? They never would have been able to take them.

[SUBMAN1]

What this does is screw Washington DC's ban on firearms.

It also brings into question the National Firearms Act and its legality. We may once again be able to own machine guns like we rightfully should. Not to say that a citizen couldn't own one now, but it had to be made prior to the 1986 ban, and they are extremely expensive. $12K for an M-16 last time I checked.

-S

PS. All the Brady idiots just lost a job.

[Tchocky]

However, Scalia was careful not to strike down all gun laws. "The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns," Scalia wrote. Additionally, he said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Licensing requirements were also held to be constitutional.

from salon

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

from salon

Yep. Sawed off shotguns would be considered unusual. No real need for a sawed off shotgun.
No one makes one like that either, and if they do, it would be a rarity.

An M-16 however is not unusual in that millions of them are in existence and they were manufactured that way.

-S

PS. A sawed off shotgun may even be in question:

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States."

[SUBMAN1]

I should point out here -

This is a Great Day for America!!!

:p

I'm tired of liberals constantly chipping away at our Constitution. They do it daily. The only way to stop them is to get the Supreme Court involved. If left unattended, we wouldn't have any rights left!

Time for SCOTUS to go after the chipping away of free speech now. That is what I want to see next.

-S

[danurve]

I would thank the 5 that helped and voted with common sence.

To the 4 that voted against I would wish their genitals to be infested with 1000 swamp leeches.

[SUBMAN1]

McCain on the subject:

John McCain issued the following statement regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbias ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

“This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a...ight-to-a-gun/

Back to the original news item of the thread....

I'm wondering though how this practically plays out? I mean, there are no FFL gun stores in D.C., so not only is there nowhere to buy a new gun, but you can't go to Maryland or Virginia either, since there is no FFL dealer to send it to in order to get it into D.C.? Prior to the ban the ruling stuck down, D.C. also had some of the most stringent restrictions of gun store licensing requirements in the nation, so it may be financially pretty tough to successfully run a gun shop in D.C. And didn't they require a pre-purchase permit or something, like N. Carolina's pistol permits (or maybe I'm confusing that with something else).

I'm just wondering, as I watch these folks on the t.v. news saying how happy they are with the ruling now that they can go out and buy their gun(s) for home defense, but how? Even an ATF agent was quoted in Wall St. Journal as saying he didn't see how they could, not until at least one FFL licensed dealer opens shop within D.C.

Or maybe that will be the first way to do it? Someone gets an FFL but without a physical full service store location and just acts as an agent for purchases made out of D.C.? Or does D.C. have some way to prohibit that (eg. city ordnance precludes operating such a business out of a non-commercial physical store location, or some such local restrictions).

Regardless of the ruling, I'm just pondering how much this actually changes things for people in D.C., from a practical POV (I find D.C. a confusing entity, since it is a city without a state and all).

[August]

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by August

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?

If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

[August]

Originally Posted by seafarer

If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by August

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I.

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers). Federal Law mandates that the way such sales are supposed to be done is you pay for the handgun at the out of state dealer, but he/she must ship it directly to another FFL dealer in your state of residence, where you will then go, have your NICS background check done (and meet all local and state requirements) and then finally receive your handgun. The local FFL dealer will of course charge some nominal fee (it's usually not very much) for handling the transaction for you.

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by August

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I.

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers).

But, 10 years ago I wasn't even living in the US, so maybe it was different then?