TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:From SCOTUS Blog:

Tom Goldstein - It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.

He just corrected himself, two dissents.

Gee Charles, you are fast.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I will upload the Heller Opinion as an attachment soon as I can.

Chas.

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.

It is so ordered.

3. 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 scru-
tiny 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. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm� in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ �

The Annoyed Man wrote:There seem to be some self-imposed limits on their decision:

3. 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 scru-
tiny 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. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

So, you still have to register the firearm (????) and obtain a license to carry it in your own home in DC. Now look for California to require registration of all firearms, which is apparently now a constitutional requirement, and to require a license for possession of said firearm in the home. This is not a perfect decision.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So, you still have to register the firearm (????) and obtain a license to carry it in your own home in DC. Now look for California to require registration of all firearms, which is apparently now a constitutional requirement, and to require a license for possession of said firearm in the home. This is not a perfect decision.

LedJedi wrote:I actually support licensing. It gives everyone a central point to clear checks and make sure you are actually legally allowed to carry. That being said, licensing should be given on a shall-issue basis and I believe that there should be some relief provided for the indigent.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So, you still have to register the firearm (????) and obtain a license to carry it in your own home in DC. Now look for California to require registration of all firearms, which is apparently now a constitutional requirement, and to require a license for possession of said firearm in the home. This is not a perfect decision.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

LedJedi wrote:I actually support licensing. It gives everyone a central point to clear checks and make sure you are actually legally allowed to carry. That being said, licensing should be given on a shall-issue basis and I believe that there should be some relief provided for the indigent.

You support licensing for use in the home??? SCOTUS affirms the right of your local government to require that you have a license to possess a handgun in your home. Don't think for one minute that many local governments will now head down this road. Houston, for instance, and Austin for another are examples that spring to mind.