TexasCHLforum.com

KC5AV wrote:And the time frame for those lucky enough to get approved will probably make our current 'Waiting Room' look like the Express Lane.

I think we'll have to wait and see what the future holds on that score. Scalia did very specifically say in that section re: license/registration for ownership is that the City could not apply the requirement arbitrarily or capriciously. It might take a few people who don't want to wait X months for the City to tell them they can own a handgun to take it to court but I doubt a lower court would let it get very high before they referenced Heller and said to the City, "You're doing it arbitrarily and capriciously, just let them have their guns."

'Course, I could be overly optimistic on that count.

KBCraig wrote:but the truth is, the ruling is far from an absolute RKBA celebration.

I think Steve said it best:

srothstein wrote:My conclusion is that this is this first step in a long journey. It is not the baby step it could have been, nor is it the giant step we wanted it to be.

In a comment on another blog, I quoted Steve and added:

The big question that has underpinned all gun control/victim disarmament debate has now been answered, and it was answered in Holding #1 on Page #1. THAT’s what we’re all so excited about. With that issue settled once and for all, the future will hopefully be a fertile ground for continuing the steady erosion of gun control that’s been happening since Florida started both the concealed carry wave and the Castle doctrine wave.

Gun-grabbing Feinstein wrote:I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who has lost a youngster that I mentored who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found. I speak as somebody who authorized assault weapons legislation, who believes that it was working when it was allowed to expire. I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate.
I speak as somebody who has a concealed weapons permit even when the vast majority of my constituents either
1) want one but can't get one
2) wish no one could have one
thereby making me the enemy of the entire state's populace.
I speak as somebody who can't believe these idiots keep re-electing me.
I speak as somebody who rejects the notion, put by Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn to the Gungan Jar-Jar Binks, that "the ability to speak does not make one intelligent."

Fixed.

neal6325 wrote:Good new but what are the details......

We'll have to see when we get to read the decision. Also this:

It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.
Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.

Dare we begin to hope?

10:12 Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

So it is 5-4. Hopefully Scalia will make us proud in the decision.

HerbM wrote:No ruling on DC v Heller for Monday, June 23rd.

Next opinions: 10 AM Wednesday June 25th. Quite possibly there will be opinions released on Thursday if any remain then.

Yep, guess I misunderstood the "last day" thing - apparently it's more a "last week" thing. Fingers crossed for Wednesday!

It's likely, given that it's the last day for announcements of the term, but you just never know, hence the question mark.

A great post from last night on what today's decision will portend.