DC v Heller is affirmed

[cryowizard]

5:4 (of course)

In short, the 2nd amendment has been ruled to pertain to individual's right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to only the government militia's. In addition, The Court struck down the DC requirement to keep the weapon unloaded and/or disassembled in one's home as unconsitutional since it violates a person's right to reasonable self-defense.

Majority opinion:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.

* * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I personally am very pleased with The Court's decision. To me, the ability to defend one's home is paramount. We can debate the concealed carry laws till the cows come home but having the right to defend your own house from intruders seems common sense to me.

Comments

Good decision for USSC!

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

i don't think the Second Amendment deals with the protection of your home against intruders as much as the right of people to have law enforcement that is NOT state-imposed. It's a much broader concept, and limiting the right to bear arms to the need for protection of your home you actually support the arguments of the law-makers who passed the law and the 4 dissenting Justices who want to say to you "Let US get professionals to protect you. You don't need a gun. WE will have guns and ensure your safety". That's actually a good argument to make and that's why the Supreme Court is leaving the door open to limiting the gun possession. The fundamental civic right, however, is the individual's right to defend his/her life, liberty and property against ANYONE, be it a foreigner, intruder or the state. FYI - the original drafters had the "State" in mind.

Re: Good decision for USSC!

[rkatsyv.livejournal.com]

the original drafters had the "State" in mind

+1

Re: Good decision for USSC!

[rkatsyv.livejournal.com]

"The fundamental civic right, however, is the individual's right to defend his/her life, liberty and property against ANYONE, be it a foreigner, intruder or the state"

Nice to see a liberal, who's in favour of ALL civil liberties and rights, not just some. Respect.