Medary.com

The Supreme Court strikes down the District of Columbia's gun ownership ban. (Link is a PDF file.)

People have forgotten that in the United States, people possess rights innately--nobody gives anybody any rights here.  We already have them.  We have ALL of them.

In the interest of a stable society, we, the people (hey, nice phrase, where have we heard that before?) agree through a Constitution (oh, yeah, that's where) to delegate a few of those rights to a limited government.  That's how it's supposed to work.

My only problem with this decision is that some people still have a little reading comprehension problem with the phrases "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed."  If you want to know why, just go read Breyer's dissent to this opinion, where he takes the stand that it's "reasonable" to do exactly the opposite of what the plain text of the Constitution says.  I think a fair term for his dissent's argument is "laughable."  It is so convoluted and nuanced that it is quite obvious that he is bending over backwards rhetorically to try to prove that black is, in fact, white.

Everybody's homework assignment tonight is to read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Meanwhile, here's the preamble to today's decision:

Held:
1.  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.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.  The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause.  The "militia" comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizen's militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.  The response was do deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizen's militia would be preserved.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion.

(f) None of the Court's precidents forecloses the Court's interpretation.  Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.  United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2.  Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court's opinion should not 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 or government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications for the commercial sale of arms.  Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

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 scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerate 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 arbitrarily 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 his 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.