View Full Version : Supreme Court rules all weapons protected
Saw this on Facebook. It says that the Supreme Court ruled that all bearable weapons are protected. Anyone have anything from a better source?
http://www.theprepperdome.com/us-supreme-court-second-amendment-protects-all-bearable-arms-huge-victory-for-gun-owners-again/
In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,”.
As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States.
Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns.
horseman234
03-23-16, 19:13
Link to a pdf of the ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Hahahaha **** you Massachusetts hahaha
How many times have I heard gun controllers use this reasoning. Nice to have a Supreme Court quote that says it is "bordering on the frivolous." And it reveals the outrageous political bias of the Mass Court. Progressives cry "victim blaming" while blaming victims. Leave it to the conservative opinion of SCOTUS to actually stand for victims.
Quote from ruling:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are pro* tected by the Second Amendment.” 554 U. S., at 582. The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.
Averageman
03-23-16, 19:46
I'm getting a chubbie
Dist. Expert 26
03-23-16, 19:56
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that any and all local/state bans are now void does it not? And with the ruling that the 2nd protects all bearable arms, SCOTUS will never need to hear an AWB case?
I am absolutely stunned that a judge in the Supreme Court of MASS would use this reasoning in rejecting the appeal.
This is the absurdity of the Left in plain view. Thank goodness at least every member of the US Supreme Court agreed with this decision.
I wonder what this ruling does to the ban on Switchblades that is so common in many States.
I wouldn't go about getting yourselves up in a lather of excitement over this ruling. In the end its a useless piece of paper, like the restraining orders the abuse victim had against her attacker. Much like that restraining order, the left will continue to ignore it and attack anyway.
The irony: Miller stated that FA, Short barrels and Suppressors weren't in common use by the military in 34 so they weren't protected and the NFA rules and bureaucracy sprung to life. Yet today FA, Select fire, short barrels and suppressors are in common use in the military, but the NFA mess remains.
MountainRaven
03-23-16, 20:23
I am absolutely stunned that a judge in the Supreme Court of MASS would use this reasoning in rejecting the appeal.
This is the absurdity of the Left in plain view. Thank goodness at least every member of the US Supreme Court agreed with this decision.
I wonder what this ruling does to the ban on Switchblades that is so common in many States.
Hope springs eternal!
I'm getting a chubbie
a raging chubby
To my non-lawyer mind, this appears to render the NFA, FOPA, GCA, state AWB's and most of the ATF's operations unconstitutional.
All arms includes FA, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs. Suppressors are not an arm, hence cannot be regulated anyways, as the Constitution never authorized that power to begin with.
I expect the Left to fight this, but legally speaking, this seems pretty huge.
Does this mean we can start getting ballistic knives again?
Looks good, almost too good to be true.
I haven't even read it but based on the replies... is this some sort of advanced April Fools joke?
The words 'all', 'Supreme Court', 'guns', 'protected'.... don't belong in the context of our existence do they?
ETA:
Then, as if alluding to the dozens of cases the Supreme Court has declined to hear involving the Second Amendment, Alito closed with this: “If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb
ETA: Am I wrong, or is the thread title incorrect? The SCOTUS has not ruled but rather made a statement.
To my non-lawyer mind, this appears to render the NFA, FOPA, GCA, state AWB's and most of the ATF's operations unconstitutional.
All arms includes FA, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs. Suppressors are not an arm, hence cannot be regulated anyways, as the Constitution never authorized that power to begin with.
I expect the Left to fight this, but legally speaking, this seems pretty huge.
The NFA doesn't prevent you from bearing arms. It simply taxes them. That's sort of what Roberts said about Obamacare. If we were so stupid that we would allow our representatives to tax us on health care we had ourselves to blame. We are no longer the United States but the Constitution still stands. All we need to do is "unite"... but we are all to individually special for that nonsense.
Expect all your guns to be taxed now. Before Hillary is elected she will utter the words that she will tax firearms, ammo, or both as part of her cleansing America of gun violence.
I want a personal copy notarized and in writing.
ETA: Am I wrong, or is the thread title incorrect? The SCOTUS has not ruled but rather made a statement.
They remand or return back to the lower court to allow them to hear the case using the reviewing court's interpretation - in this case the SCOTUS was the reviewing court.
The per curiam opinion (linked here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf) tells the lower court the way the reviewing court wants them to look at it.
I do not believe that in this case the SCOTUS heard any oral arguments and disposed of it fairly quickly, because the Massachusetts Court essentially shat all over itself.
To them, the Supremes, it was pretty cut and dried.
They remand or return back to the lower court to allow them to hear the case using the reviewing court's interpretation - in this case the SCOTUS was the reviewing court.
The per curiam opinion (linked here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf) tells the lower court the way the reviewing court wants them to look at it.
I do not believe that in this case the SCOTUS heard any oral arguments and disposed of it fairly quickly, because the Massachusetts Court essentially shat all over itself.
To them, the Supremes, it was pretty cut and dried.
Read this one - one of my favorite roadblock cases - it isn't long - what the court is saying here is that they want the lower court to determine if fleeing and evading in a stolen car is a crime that warrants the use of deadly force to apprehend the fugitive - in this case a 'killer' roadblock.
What is interesting in these types of cases is that once they are remanded, the cases often disappear because the side the ruling went against settles the suit. It takes some digging to track them down and see what happens.
MountainRaven
03-23-16, 23:07
The NFA doesn't prevent you from bearing arms. It simply taxes them. That's sort of what Roberts said about Obamacare. If we were so stupid that we would allow our representatives to tax us on health care we had ourselves to blame. We are no longer the United States but the Constitution still stands. All we need to do is "unite"... but we are all to individually special for that nonsense.
Expect all your guns to be taxed now. Before Hillary is elected she will utter the words that she will tax firearms, ammo, or both as part of her cleansing America of gun violence.
Your guns are already taxed. And so is your ammo. (And I'm not talking about the companies making them paying payroll taxes, property taxes, income taxes, or whatever. The federal government has taxed firearms and ammunition for years.)
SomeOtherGuy
03-23-16, 23:29
I haven't even read it but based on the replies... is this some sort of advanced April Fools joke?
The words 'all', 'Supreme Court', 'guns', 'protected'.... don't belong in the context of our existence do they?
ETA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb
ETA: Am I wrong, or is the thread title incorrect? The SCOTUS has not ruled but rather made a statement.
It's a real ruling, but a lot of the stuff people are getting excited about is in a two-Justice concurring opinion, which has limited (if any) value as precedent or guiding law.
The legally operative part of the ruling is a per curiam opinion, which is unsigned and has limited value as precedent.
This is a good ruling, but it's not anything magic. I would interpret it as likely invalidating any state laws against electronic stun devices (handheld and Taser). It could reasonably be interpreted as also invalidating laws against owning or carrying various kinds of knives and other weapons, but I wouldn't rely on any other court reading it that way - let someone else be the test case!
Finally, the outcome and concurring opinion are both good for the possibility of doing away with a lot of state and federal gun laws, but I think this is several steps removed from that actually happening.
Your guns are already taxed. And so is your ammo. (And I'm not talking about the companies making them paying payroll taxes, property taxes, income taxes, or whatever. The federal government has taxed firearms and ammunition for years.)
Understood... I'm speaking of escalation. $400 Glock becomes $740 Glock.
This is a good ruling, but it's not anything magic. I would interpret it as likely invalidating any state laws against electronic stun devices (handheld and Taser). It could reasonably be interpreted as also invalidating laws against owning or carrying various kinds of knives and other weapons, but I wouldn't rely on any other court reading it that way - let someone else be the test case!
I don't understand all the legal terms but that's how I understood it as your basic dumb ass. It's good, but it's like the old cowboy movies. The bad guys or Indians show up and get run off. Then they show up again for some serious action... and you never know just which way it's going to go. Could be a victory or could be a slaughter.
I can't appreciate the gravity of Alito's comments. What did Ginsberg have to say? There seems like a massive piece of puzzle missing. There appears to be uniform clarity which to me makes no sense.
I hope it's true. I just can't believe it. I almost wonder if it's a feign by the left to say.. 'go ahead and appoint a moderate judge, everything will be ok'.
Something isn't right.
The letter is correct but something is wrong.
I want a personal copy notarized and in writing.
On official US letterhead and signed by house majority leader, majority whip, homeland security advisory council at least 2 senators, 2 congressmen, 2 federal judges and acting Director of BATFE and secretary of Dept. of Justice
That way, its legit.
Moose-Knuckle
03-24-16, 03:08
Cool, so when is every bit of anti 2nd Amendment legislation going to be repealed and I can waltz down to my local S Mart and procure an HK G36K?
New York won't listen or care.
Eurodriver
03-24-16, 06:57
This does nothing but state the 2nd Amendment applies to all bearable arms.
It doesn't say all bearable arms are protected.
horseman234
03-24-16, 07:12
I'm not an attorney, but I think they were interpreting the Heller decision in this case, and it will be up to the courts to determine exactly which weapons fall under our right to self defense. I don't have time to go back and read the case today, but here is a summary of the Heller decision from Wikipedia:
Second Amendment findings and reasoning for the decision
The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]
Issues addressed by the majority
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming 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." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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."[47]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 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."[48]
The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[49] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[50]
SomeOtherGuy
03-24-16, 07:46
I can't appreciate the gravity of Alito's comments. What did Ginsberg have to say? There seems like a massive piece of puzzle missing. There appears to be uniform clarity which to me makes no sense.
A per curiam opinion is a short, unsigned opinion that disposes of the specific case the court is looking at, but doesn't discuss the law in great depth, and doesn't normally make any change in the law. Here, the action of the majority of the court - and presumably all eight, but I wouldn't take that to the bank - says that Heller is still good law (no surprise there) and that under its rule, the anti-stun-gun law in Mass. is barred, and the lower court has to reconsider the case with that in mind.
Two Justices, Thomas and Alito, signed a concurring opinion with much more discussion. This is at their option and simply emphasizes their view of how Heller should be interpreted and applied here. No other Justices wrote or signed any other opinions, concurring or dissenting, so there is no specific information on the views of the other six. However, if any of them had felt strongly that the holding was wrong, it's likely they would have written a dissent. It's also possible that some may dislike this but chose to be silent as a strategic move to increase the likelihood of getting future justices with their views to rule otherwise in the future. It remains a topic of debate among lawyers and legal academics whether Supreme Court justices do such strategic moves or not. I would think it depends on the individual.
I don't know guys..... Unintended consequences and all that.
Drat. And here I was putting together a lawsuit claiming the 1st Amendment does not apply to the internet or any other electronic media, including radio and television. Since they did not have them back then.
BrigandTwoFour
03-24-16, 09:23
Others nailed it. As much as I loved the concurring opinion for all the nuggets of wisdom that are very supportive of our cause, that portion of the ruling isn't usable as precedent. The only portion of significant value is the first two pages that basically say, "The lower courts are not following our ruling, and are twisting the "dangerous and unusual" clause to apply to things it is not intended to. The lower court must hear the case again."
To my non-lawyer mind, this appears to render the NFA, FOPA, GCA, state AWB's and most of the ATF's operations unconstitutional.
All arms includes FA, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs. Suppressors are not an arm, hence cannot be regulated anyways, as the Constitution never authorized that power to begin with.
I've often pondered that but haven't done any research. How the heck do they get away with charging a $200 tax on a muffler?
I've often pondered that but haven't done any research. How the heck do they get away with charging a $200 tax on a muffler?
A part... Not a firearm. Not something that makes a bullet fire. Certainly not something that "silences" a firearm.
Heck, if Hollywood had to stop their use of suppressed weapon sound effects, and use actual audio levels, most of America would feel that the NFA regulations around suppressors were stupid and unnecessary.
A per curiam opinion is a short, unsigned opinion that disposes of the specific case the court is looking at, but doesn't discuss the law in great depth, and doesn't normally make any change in the law. Here, the action of the majority of the court - and presumably all eight, but I wouldn't take that to the bank - says that Heller is still good law (no surprise there) and that under its rule, the anti-stun-gun law in Mass. is barred, and the lower court has to reconsider the case with that in mind.
Two Justices, Thomas and Alito, signed a concurring opinion with much more discussion. This is at their option and simply emphasizes their view of how Heller should be interpreted and applied here. No other Justices wrote or signed any other opinions, concurring or dissenting, so there is no specific information on the views of the other six. However, if any of them had felt strongly that the holding was wrong, it's likely they would have written a dissent. It's also possible that some may dislike this but chose to be silent as a strategic move to increase the likelihood of getting future justices with their views to rule otherwise in the future. It remains a topic of debate among lawyers and legal academics whether Supreme Court justices do such strategic moves or not. I would think it depends on the individual.
That's my take on it. The law itself is invalidated, so they can't retry her on the strength of that law alone. They'd have to prosecute her under a different law, correct?
The key should be how the case went to SCOTUS. If it were a procedural complaint the law wouldn't have been invalidated, just the procedure used. If it was that the stun gun law is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment, wouldn't the per curiam opinion still have the weight of a full case hearing and ruling? Isn't it just a way of saying "the state's case is so utterly absurd, it doesn't even merit the time wasted on a full hearing"??? :confused:
I've often pondered that but haven't done any research. How the heck do they get away with charging a $200 tax on a muffler?
Because no one will stop them. It's the same reason government anywhere does a lot of things. Because they can.
.... most of America would feel that the NFA regulations around suppressors were stupid and unnecessary.
Most of America don't even know the NFA exists much less what it does. Also don't expect that if they all did know, that they would be on your side of reason.
I am absolutely stunned that a judge in the Supreme Court of MASS would use this reasoning in rejecting the appeal.
This is the absurdity of the Left in plain view. Thank goodness at least every member of the US Supreme Court agreed with this decision.
I wonder what this ruling does to the ban on Switchblades that is so common in many States.
But this could be used as a challenge to the NFA.
SomeOtherGuy
03-28-16, 13:12
That's my take on it. The law itself is invalidated, so they can't retry her on the strength of that law alone. They'd have to prosecute her under a different law, correct?
The law in Mass. is invalidated and they cannot prosecute her, or anyone else, using that law as far as electronic stun guns are concerned.
It would not surprise me a bit if Mass. keeps prosecuting people for other things that would appear to be obviously protected under this precedent (knives, collapsible batons) but were not the specific subject of the ruling.
The key should be how the case went to SCOTUS. If it were a procedural complaint the law wouldn't have been invalidated, just the procedure used. If it was that the stun gun law is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment, wouldn't the per curiam opinion still have the weight of a full case hearing and ruling? Isn't it just a way of saying "the state's case is so utterly absurd, it doesn't even merit the time wasted on a full hearing"??? :confused:
Even as a lawyer I'm not completely clear on the precedential value of this per curiam opinion. I think that per curiam opinions are sometimes used when the court can agree on the desired outcome of the specific case, but can't agree on the specific legal basis for that outcome. This is a positive ruling, but not one that settles much, other than the legality of stun guns in Massachusetts. (It would also seem to establish their legality throughout the US, but I'm not certain if it will be recognized that broadly by state governments and prosecutors.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.