Heller LiveBlog on ScotusBlog

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

No LICENSING or REGISTRATION! You pass a background in most cases when you purchase unless FTF. BG are not going to go get a LICENSE. No Restrictions!

I agree 100%, but the Heller decision seems to affirm the notion that local government may require both. For states like Texas or Arizona which have a relatively healthy respect for the 2A, little will change at the state level. For local communities/municipalities with leftist local governments, look for attempts at imposing both licensing and registration requirements, because SCOTUS has not addressed the constitutionality of such requirements as long as they are not imposed capriciously. Look for California's gun laws to become even more draconian as a result. I believe that this was a major mistake on the part of SCOTUS, but I am also guessing that this is a concession that the conservative 4 were willing to make in order to convince swinging Kennedy to come down on the pro RKBA side of the decision.

[LedJedi]

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.

No LICENSING or REGISTRATION! You pass a background in most cases when you purchase unless FTF. BG are not going to go get a LICENSE. No Restrictions!

we're digressing off of the topic at hand, but i'll give clarification.

BG checks required for purchase. good, also support that check including mental history.
I dont think it's such a bad idea to require licensing across the board. We already require a license to drive a motor vehicle.

As with any government operation the difference is not in the requirements, but in how the requirements are enforced. Is it a big deal to require a license to buy a gun? NO, not if you can go down to your local DPS office and get one like a driver's license. They do a background check on you and give the license on a shall-issue basis. The license could be good for an extended period of time and allow anyone with a license to buy a gun johnny on the spot, without need to do instantaneous background checks. Licenses could be cheap like drivers licenses and you could require that records be destroyed just like they are currently with background checks. Anyone with a license could also automatically be given the right to carried concealed.

It's not about the law, it's about the method in which the law is imposed.

[The Annoyed Man]

we're digressing off of the topic at hand, but i'll give clarification.

BG checks required for purchase. good, also support that check including mental history.
I dont think it's such a bad idea to require licensing across the board. We already require a license to drive a motor vehicle.

As with any government operation the difference is not in the requirements, but in how the requirements are enforced. Is it a big deal to require a license to buy a gun? NO, not if you can go down to your local DPS office and get one like a driver's license. They do a background check on you and give the license on a shall-issue basis. The license could be good for an extended period of time and allow anyone with a license to buy a gun johnny on the spot, without need to do instantaneous background checks. Licenses could be cheap like drivers licenses and you could require that records be destroyed just like they are currently with background checks. Anyone with a license could also automatically be given the right to carried concealed.

It's not about the law, it's about the method in which the law is imposed.

1. Your right to drive a motor vehicle is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Your right to keep and bear arms is.

2. If you can impose a licensing requirement to possess a handgun, you can also justify a licensing requirement to practice free speech and religion.

I don't have a problem with NICS, because I agree that there must be a system in place to disqualify certain individuals from firearms purchases - but those disqualifications can only legitimately be argued on the basis of mental health/competence, and/or a record of non-expunged felony convictions. Both are issues which speak to the ability of the applicant to adequately discharge the responsibilities of gun ownership and seek to balance those responsibilities with the public safety.

[carlson1]

1. Your right to drive a motor vehicle is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Your right to keep and bear arms is.

2. If you can impose a licensing requirement to possess a handgun, you can also justify a licensing requirement to practice free speech and religion.

I don't have a problem with NICS, because I agree that there must be a system in place to disqualify certain individuals from firearms purchases - but those disqualifications can only legitimately be argued on the basis of mental health/competence, and/or a record of non-expunged felony convictions. Both are issues which speak to the ability of the applicant to adequately discharge the responsibilities of gun ownership and seek to balance those responsibilities with the public safety.

That is it in a nutshell! We are being shot at from the inside of our own group.

[LedJedi]

1. Your right to drive a motor vehicle is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Your right to keep and bear arms is.

2. If you can impose a licensing requirement to possess a handgun, you can also justify a licensing requirement to practice free speech and religion.

I don't have a problem with NICS, because I agree that there must be a system in place to disqualify certain individuals from firearms purchases - but those disqualifications can only legitimately be argued on the basis of mental health/competence, and/or a record of non-expunged felony convictions. Both are issues which speak to the ability of the applicant to adequately discharge the responsibilities of gun ownership and seek to balance those responsibilities with the public safety.

That is it in a nutshell! We are being shot at from the inside of our own group.

maybe i should change my name to evil jedi? :)



gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

[flintknapper]

I expect D.C. will come up with a whole list of restrictions though.

Revolvers only, etc...

[Pinkycatcher]

I expect D.C. will come up with a whole list of restrictions though.

Revolvers only, etc...

derringers only, with only one shot loaded, .25 cal maximum

[HerbM]

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.

It did not do what you think it did. It assumed that the licensing would be constitutional and sufficient, it did not require it, nor even rule that such would be constitutional. The matter was not at issue.

[The Annoyed Man]

I expect D.C. will come up with a whole list of restrictions though.

Revolvers only, etc...

The mayor of DC issued a statement about .30 minutes ago saying that "semi-automatic and automatic" handguns are still illegal in DC. That would seem to imply that only revolvers will be permitted. I hope that the predators out there will respect this and restrict themselves to the use of only semi-automatic pistols with capacities of 6 rounds or less.

[boomerang]

2. If you can impose a licensing requirement to possess a handgun, you can also justify a licensing requirement to practice free speech and religion.

That's correct, and don't forget the license required to protect yourself from unreasonable search and seizure.

[Pinkycatcher]

I expect D.C. will come up with a whole list of restrictions though.

Revolvers only, etc...

The mayor of DC issued a statement about .30 minutes ago saying that "semi-automatic and automatic" handguns are still illegal in DC. That would seem to imply that only revolvers will be permitted. I hope that the predators out there will respect this and restrict themselves to the use of only semi-automatic pistols with capacities of 6 rounds or less.

Can you link to that?

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

It did not do what you think it did. It assumed that the licensing would be constitutional and sufficient, it did not require it, nor even rule that such would be constitutional. The matter was not at issue.

Reread what I posted. I did not say that the Heller ruling requires registration and licensing. I said that the ruling affirms the authority of your local government to require them if it chooses to do so. If the ruling affirms such authority, then it is affirming the constitutionality of that authority.

Again, the ruling says:

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.

The court chose to sidestep the issue of whether or not licensing and registration are constitutional in an of themselves. Therefore, until someone challenges DC or some other government entity on the government's authority to compel licensing and registration, government's authority to compel the same remains in force. You can make the semantic argument that Heller does not affirm such authority because the court did not specifically state "This court affirms the constitutionality of government's authority to compel licensing and registration;" but that is merely a semantic argument because the net effect of refusing to address it directly has the net effect of affirming it indirectly. It is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences in action.

Therefore, DC will continue to require licensing and registration. DC will also continue to insist - as the the mayor of DC announced less than an hour ago - that semi-automatic handguns will continue to be illegal in DC. Therefore, you will be lawfully allowed to use a revolver to defend yourself against criminals armed with semi-autos with high-cap magazines.

That's just grand. How magnanimous.

The ruling is a step in the right direction. There is no denying that. But, it is a halting and incomplete and stumbling step, and it leaves much to be desired.

[The Annoyed Man]

I expect D.C. will come up with a whole list of restrictions though.

Revolvers only, etc...

The mayor of DC issued a statement about .30 minutes ago saying that "semi-automatic and automatic" handguns are still illegal in DC. That would seem to imply that only revolvers will be permitted. I hope that the predators out there will respect this and restrict themselves to the use of only semi-automatic pistols with capacities of 6 rounds or less.

Can you link to that?

I will try to find one. I watched him say it, on video, during a press conference aired by Fox News. I'll post a link as soon as I can find it.

[Pinkycatcher]

I will try to find one. I watched him say it, on video, during a press conference aired by Fox News. I'll post a link as soon as I can find it.

I hope they put it on the net, cause that's really interesting

[HerbM]

He did say that "automatic and semi-automatic handguns remain generally illegal in the District" -- I thought (at the time) that the implication was outside the home but your reading that he means only revolvers is quite possible and even likely considering the perfidy of the DC government.

There is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court would allow this however -- they were pretty clear you cannot ban commonly owned firearms and claim others are available -- but they used rifles vs. handguns for the example and the specifics.

I think the DC courts would understand and strike this if they attempt it, but that won't stop them initially probably.