Skimming Heller decision for key points

Over 30 years of work, David. You deserve a gold star today!

"Arms in common use is the key"

Laws removed machineguns from common use therefore laws removing machineguns from common use are constitutional.

This circular logic could be applied to all arms.

BRUTAL on the dissent - Scalia basically laid out a road map for future litigation in a pro-2a FASHION, esp. standard of review. My favorite line was, as a friend pointed out, a poke in the eye to the notoriously 2nd A averse ACLU:

We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.

LOLOL

The biggest thing that I have not heard people comment on is the part of the opinion addressing the right to BEAR arms.

Arguably this decision constitutionally declares the right to open carry in the U.S. outside of "special" areas.

It certainly gives a nudge in the right direction for concealed carry permit reciprocity.

The court was not asked to give an answer on the "bear arms" issue but they clearly did, and they gave the right one.

congratulations!

"Laws removed machineguns from common use therefore laws removing machineguns from common use are constitutional.

This circular logic could be applied to all arms."

Well, now we know that one of the next tasks of pro-2d amendment lobbying groups must be to relax the restrictions on fully automatic weapons. If the restrictions are relaxed, the weapons will become more common and then keeping such weapons will be entitled to Constitutional protection. Sure, it's A$$backward, but so what? Today we got an orange with a side order of lemon. Let's make some lemonaid to go with our orange.

According to the Washington Post's website:

"Justice John Paul Stevens spoke from the bench to denounce the decision, which he said violated the court's precedent that the Second Amendment refers to a right to bear arms only for military purposes.

"He spoke dismissively of the court's "newly discovered right" and said decisions about gun control should be made by legislatures.

"This court should stay out of that political thicket," he said. Stevens was joined in dissent by the court's most consistent liberals: David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer."

HA!! The irony is thick and raw. "Newly discovered right," my sweet Aunt Fanny.

Hmmm... lemme think... which side of Kelo was he on?

"arms in common use"

well it just so happens that true assualt rifles are in common use for military activity in the army, navy, national guard, and so on.

and just what is a militia for? plinking?

it does not follow that, because they have been heavily restricted since 1934 and not in common use among private citizens, that the meaning of the militia can be rewritten to suit the status quo.

so nevermind the circular aspect, it's not even wrong: "common use" has absolutely nothing to do with who is using what, and everything to do with the function served by the armament.

look at the 68 GCA: were felons getting guns "the problem" ..or were the black panthers the problem? this same ban-happy logic just fails outright. really, all possession laws do, to the extent that the possessions in question are inanimate objects (and chemically stable, i suppose).

er, i use quotes there (but forgot one set) because the BPP probably wasn't actually a "problem," per se -- despite a few of their more militant members who clearly could be described as such.

Did Scalia establish a "unusual and dangerous" test to see if an arm is constitutionally protected?

It's hard to argue that a fully automatic M4 is "unusual and dangerous" when it is used by many in the military and by law enforcement. Its also hard to argue that pre 1986 MGs are "unusual and dangerous."

Hand grenades, okay those are unusual and dangerous. But it seems that AWB laws and the machine gun ban are vulnerable to attack now.

In the pile of sophistry that Breyer penned in dissent he included one good lick against the majority opinion. Breyer wrote that he would have accepted DC's (novel) assertion that DC's ordinance requiring firearms to be kept inoperable includes an unwritten self-defense exception. Then Breyer wrote, in what might have been his only concession, however faint, to Heller's interests, that he would have prevented DC from retracting that assertion by having the Supreme Court bind DC to it. Finally Breyer wrote: "I am puzzled by the majority’s unwillingness to adopt a
similar approach. It readily reads unspoken self-defense exceptions into every colonial law, but it refuses to accept the District’s concession that this law has one."

That's close enough to truth to bite. The majority opinion does contain a weakness which suggests an apparent contradiction. Scalia could and should have averted the situation by noting that a self-defense exception can't save the inoperable-firearm requirement because modern American courts require one who asserts a se defendo affirmative defense to prove immediate threat to life or limb to justify his actions. A defendant charged by DC (after a home search based on a purported tip or some such) with keeping a loaded firearm wouldn't be able to show the immediacy of any deadly threat, because keeping his gun loaded is precautionary. (A self-defense firearm must be kept ready for use pending the appearance of a deadly threat. When a housebreaker smashes in your window, you may have time to pick up your pistol but you won't have time to retrieve its disassembled parts from locked storage, put them together, load the piece, then turn back to confront the intruder. Before you get past the step of fumbling for the key to your safe you will have your head bashed in.)

DC's purported concession that one charged with improper storage could plead self-defense is nugatory, and Breyer's offer to make DC's concession binding is a distraction.

Scalia roasted that argument, IIRC, he cited a case in which DC did NOT accept self-defense as an exemption to the rule.

I just think this is a rather
weak ruling if we ever hope
to have the National Firearms
Act of 1934 stricken on 2nd
Amendment grounds.

I must remind everyone
of the role of the militia:

To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792

How is the militia ever going to be able to
carry out those roles without modern
military armaments?

This is something the Swiss understood
or at least did until recently...

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/The-Swiss-and-their-Guns.htm

Aren't guns supposed to be dangerous?