Today the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment. They said "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals." They declared that it protects an individual right not connected to the militia to "possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of theright."
"3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia orstanding army to suppress political opponents."
So, some good and other ambiguous/vague statements. It is disappointing that they did not strongly protect the right to own machine guns and such, but on the other hand, I'm sure the 1986 ban will be challenged. Even if we do not get rid of the NFA entirely, to get rid of that 1986 ban on new machine guns would be quite nice and, perhaps, good enough for me as far as NFA items go if that is the best we can do. Maybe I'll have to start saving up money for some NFA tax stamps to get some nice toys. Maybe some grenades or other destructive devices, if the machine gun ban is ever overturned or repealed, I want one of those. Those pre-1986 machine guns are pretty expensive these days.
The ruling has certainly made things more difficult for gun grabbers I think because many of their targets: common handguns, AR's and Ak's, so-called high capacity magazines, etc., are all quite common and protected based on what the court said. The court stated that unless a person is prohibited (that is, a felon) they must issue him a license for his handgun. That obviously leads to several logical extensions and conclusions: if the right to keep arms (the central issue in this case) is protected and therefore the license (the license requirement itself was not challenged by Heller sadly so it was not overturned) must be issued unless there is a valid reason (the person is a felon), then likewise, as the ruling also declared to bear arms a right as well (but not at issue in this case), then DC must allow people to carry (bear) arms, and therefore must issue carry permits. Obviously, Fenty won't like that, so i suspect another lawsuit will be needed for that to be resolved.
Mayor Daley of Chicago nearly had a heart attack judging from the way he spoke today. Chicago's handgun ban is being challenged already by a lawsuit. DC's government is still trying to restrict guns including enforcing the ban on most semi-auto handguns and they do not seem eager to issue carry permits or to even allow registration of handguns yet. They will try their best to hassle gun owners, but I foresee more lawsuits that DC will lose. It would be wonderful if someone would file a lawsuit against the city (and others that attempt to infringe upon this protected right) based on Title 42 of the U.S. Code, or perhaps DC will find itself held in contempt of court. Use the Civil Rights laws to put these thugs in their place! That's why those laws are in place, use them. I will myself should my rights be infringed upon in the future (or perhaps I should now given some of my recent enjoyable experiences with some wannabe thug from the Rutland police). I am looking forward to seeing the gun grabbers on the defensive.
To the four dissenting justices: I read your opinions as well. All I can say is that when such people are found in this country's highest court, clearly there is a problem. You have sworn to uphold the Constitution and guard the rights of Americans, yet you wrote four pieces of trash trying through incoherent rambling to trash the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Do your country a favor and resign and quite the court, you scum!