"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 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 "does not address the licensing requirement".
Basically Dick Heller said, "I want my license so I can have my gun", and the court said, "OK, since you're not asking us to strike down licensing, we won't touch that one way or the other. Here's your license."
No, and for exactly the reasons that most of you are pointing toward...and we all knew it was going to turn out this way.
However, considering the grounds for the argument, the result is good, if not expected. Anything else (consider the dissents and their opinion papers, they're FAR more important) would have been unacceptable.
I found this bit to be more than a little bit unpalatable,
"There is no indication that the framers of the amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution," wrote Justice Stevens in his dissent.
Rather diseased thinking, and please keep in mind that we all know how pervasive this exact thought is amongst the proles.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/06/interesting-statistics.html (6 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
It's affirmed!
Ah, but here's the rub:
"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 Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
So, licensing appears to pass muster.
Now, for some serious reading ...
I'm not pleased, but in the sense that I don't like the fact that 4 justices dissented.
I'm not pleased that licensing and registration are not seen as "infringement."
Dammit.
The court "does not address the licensing requirement".
Basically Dick Heller said, "I want my license so I can have my gun", and the court said, "OK, since you're not asking us to strike down licensing, we won't touch that one way or the other. Here's your license."
No, and for exactly the reasons that most of you are pointing toward...and we all knew it was going to turn out this way.
However, considering the grounds for the argument, the result is good, if not expected. Anything else (consider the dissents and their opinion papers, they're FAR more important) would have been unacceptable.
I found this bit to be more than a little bit unpalatable,
"There is no indication that the framers of the amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution," wrote Justice Stevens in his dissent.
Rather diseased thinking, and please keep in mind that we all know how pervasive this exact thought is amongst the proles.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>