have a glass
I keep seeing folks take issue with:
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.
Like Kevin.
Stop freaking out. The court is stating appropriate relief and specifically stating that they’re not addressing the requirement.
Remember, Heller was very narrowly tailored on purpose.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I was about to kill the neighbors cat with a machete over this. Thanks for calming me down.
(and cats with machetes are hard to kill, let me tell you!)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Point conceded. But you can bet your a@@ that the gun-grabbers are going to go full-tilt boogey for licensing and registration laws, pointing at that paragraph in support of their position.
As someone commented at my site, this was probably the point on which Justice Kennedy’s support hinged.
And as the Geek put it: Damn, that was close!
June 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Yup, that’s what I was thinking. The had to get support, and they couldn’t really go beyond what Heller asked for. I do like that it specifically says that the ruling “does not address the licensing requirement.”
June 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
That’s my concern, as well. I’m hoping to avoid as much of the two-steps-forward, one-step-back shuffle as possible.
I just don’t like the idea of the SCOTUS even remotely implying that licensing and registration are “good enough.”
June 26th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
They didn’t address it as part of scope but now if that needs to be addressed, it will take a boat load of cash and time and luck (to get standing) to challenge any law made to restrict something that shouldn’t be possible in the first place.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
That was the sort of thing I was expecting on a number of issues: barring a challenge, the status quo remains.
As to other groups trying to impose licensing, they are doing that anyways. I don’t think this makes their job much easier, it just doesn’t make it harder.
Without the licensing being challenged, the court did the right thing in not addressing this issue. As much as we may want it struck down, I prefer things to be done properly, not through judicial activism.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
And what purpose was that? I certainly hope it wasn’t limited in order to build a bigger consensus, because the consensus wasn’t that big and if it had to be watered down this much to even get five, we’re in big trouble.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
To get the right to arms legally defined as a fundamental right of individuals independent of militia service. All else follows from that.