Not a huge win IMHO.

[artherd]

Let's review.

Hickman nullified.

Silveira nullified.

All Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 9th Circuit wiped clean.

ATF put on a very short leash (think about that one for a moment.)

Silly interpretations of Miller ended.

Open Carry specifically called out as legal under Federal Con Law.

An actual individual right to keep and carry weapons and most all common firearms.

This is not a win how again?

-Gene

I'm honestly still processing it all emotionally. Case law I've thought of as etched stone collums that created the room within which we must work, are now simply gone.

Clear span.

I am intellectually errect.

[Pryde]

ingrates....

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Let's review.

Hickman nullified.

Silveira nullified.

All Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 9th Circuit wiped clean.

ATF put on a very short leash (think about that one for a moment.)

Silly interpretations of Miller ended.

Open Carry specifically called out as legal under Federal Con Law.

An actual individual right to keep and carry weapons and most all common firearms.

This is not a win how again?

-Gene

This is why:

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...

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

It's going to take a lot of legal battles just for clarification.

[leelaw]

“dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Has already been gone over.

In the past it was "these assault wepaons are dangerous - so lets ban them"

Nopthing unusual about them, just the "danger" aspect.

That bit alone is huge.

As to carrying on sensitive areas.. well, gosh, you didn't expect them to repeal every firearm law with one single swoope on this case, did you? The case simply wasn't crafted to do that.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

As to carrying on sensitive areas.. well, gosh, you didn't expect them to repeal every firearm law with one single swoope on this case, did you? The case simply wasn't crafted to do that.

I didn't expect things to be contingent upon vague definitions stemming from future cases.

[edsel6502]

I am intellectually errect.

Sig quote. Permission please?.

[hill billy]

Let's review.

Hickman nullified.

Silveira nullified.

All Second Amendment jurisprudence in the 9th Circuit wiped clean.

ATF put on a very short leash (think about that one for a moment.)

Silly interpretations of Miller ended.

Open Carry specifically called out as legal under Federal Con Law.

An actual individual right to keep and carry weapons and most all common firearms.

This is not a win how again?

-Gene

Sounds like a pretty clear summation to me.

Why all the negativity? I just don't get it.

[leelaw]

Sounds like a pretty clear summation to me.

Why all the negativity? I just don't get it.

Because some expected Heller to be the be-all end-all "you get all your rights back!" decision, which it was never supposed to be.

Heller is.. well, here:



It was designed specifically to accomplish what it did, which is a solid platform from which to go after other laws. It wouldn't have been posisble for it to win if it included such sweeping changes. It's merely a foundation for our fight.

[hill billy]

Because some expected Heller to be the be-all end-all "you get all your rights back!" decision, which it was never supposed to be.

It was designed specifically to accomplish what it did, which is a solid platform from which to go after other laws. It wouldn't have been posisble for it to win if it included such sweeping changes. It's merely a foundation for our fight.

I clearly understand that, I just can't figure out why so many others seem to be missing it.

[dadoody]

This is a huge win 6 years in the making.

There's a lot of other things to be changed, but I was so encouraged by the win that I joined the NRA. Fighting and winning a city's (WASHINGTON DC no less) illegal bans and supporting the constitution and every free man (and woman) 's rights to self defense and self determination uplifts my morale.

[hoffmang]

This is why:
...
It's going to take a lot of legal battles just for clarification.

On June 25th the confusing language was "We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." - Hickman v. Block

You really want to go back there?

-Gene