The Decision

As of this morning, most American citizens did not technically have an individual right to own firearms, at least according to the Federal government. That's because the Circuit Courts for the majority of the country had interpreted the 2nd Amendment as conferring a collective right to gun ownership; one related to militia service or eligibility.

As Mazurlanders know, last year the DC Circuit Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment did in fact acknowledge an individual right to own guns, thus creating a "Circuit split" and setting into motion the process that resulted in the Supreme Court hearing the case of DC v.Heller.

There has been great anticipation in the gun community over recent weeks, awaiting results of the momentous decision. When it became evident that Justice Scalia would write the decision (since he was the only remaining Justice who hadn't written one from the March sessions), there was jubilation. A couple of Scalia's quotes from the oral arguments gave a great sense of confidence for our side:

"I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a --as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need
a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

"The principal purpose here is the militia, but the -- but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Now, you may say the kind of arms is colored by the militia. But it speaks of the right of the people. So why not acknowledge that it's -- it's broader than the first clause? "

Well, as is common with SCOTUS, they saved their biggest decision for last, releasing it at the final minute so they could then "get out of Dodge". It was the last decision of the last day. During the last several potential release dates, I happened to be off work, and spent the time around 10AM glued to the internet. Unfortunately, today I'm stuck at work, so this post will be somewhat briefer than I'd like.

In a word (or two), WE WON!! The DC Circuit decision was affirmed. The 2nd Amendment protects a individual right to possess a firearm. DC's laws violate the 2nd Amendment. Justice Scalia wrote the decision (as anticipated). There were two dissenting opinions, but only one majority opinion (no concurrences). Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented.

From SCOTUSBlog:

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.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place.  The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

A 5-4 decision. Scary that it was that close, and that limited in scope. It's Bush's fault. His SCOTUS picks may be the greatest part of his legacy.

For those interested, there will be a great deal of analysis available at sites like Instapundit, The Volokh Conspiracy, Arms And The Law, and of course AR15.com.

Also, a link the entire decision can be found here. Yay!!! But, Whew! Some juicy bits:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional."

Update: Here's a link to important quotes from the ruling.

Comments

[Marty]

This is a great day. And given all the other idiotic close ones that have come out in recent days, it was by no means guaranteed. If feel elated. I feel like going out and firing some guns into the air. But I live in a residential neighborhood, so maybe I'll just blow off some M-80s, or head out to the shooting range.

[Chris]

One thing this ruling clearly disallows is an outright ban on a class of weapons in common use. This especially applies to handguns (Scalia appropriately notes they're the most common firearm for home defense), as well as (probably) "assault weapons" (these are also very prevalent. This makes another AW ban unlikely.

Also, the NRA has announced it intends to file suit in Chicago (as well as other places with strict handgun bans). That will hopefully lead to incorporation of the amendment.

It'll also allow people to ask Obama how he feels about the NRA lawsuit on his turf. Or how he feels about the SCOTUS decision, given his previous statements on handguns.

[Hank]

I'm gonna buy my wife a Lady(Smith&Wesson)smith this year. Gonna go look at a few this weekend. Can't decide whether it will be a .380, .38 or .357, but she's getting one.

A Ladysmith has a concealed hammer, so you can pull it out of a purse without the hammer getting caught or snagged on something. They're designed for a smaller hand, and a lighter than the "K" frame revolver (Model 19 and others) or the "N" frame (Hog Leg) .357 I carried for a duty weapon. (model586/686,difference chrome or blue steel)

I like ALL guns, but IMO in a revolver, the best way to "get what you're paying for" is a S&W. I like the Colt Anaconda and Python, the Rugers, and even a Taurus if you want a .38 or .357 for light duty.

NEVER buy a Taurus for daily carrying, they're made from old Beretta castings in Brazil, and the notches on the cylinder get oversized quick,the forcing cone doesn't line up well and you begin to shear bullets, windmilling into the target instead of piercing.

Perhaps I'll blow off a few boxes this weekend with my partner Rich's Thompson sub-machine gun to celebrate the SCOTUS pulling it's collective head out of its ass for almost the first time this session.

[LC Scotty]

Hank,

Go with the .357. That gives you the .38 or .38+P for lower recoil practice, but a hella nice round in the Federal HydraShok for carrying about.

Plus Marlin makes a real nice lever gun chambered in.357...

[Chris]

Hank,
I didn't realize S&W made a .380 Lady Smith. I thout the LS models were basically their J-frames in .38 +/- .357

[hank]

Chris--they may not--I'm just gonna give her the option of a .380 auto if she feels more comfortable with it.