Topic: The Supreme Court finally got one right!

[Toymin8r]

The Supreme Court upheld the 2nd amendment today.   Hooray!  We retained the right to protect ourselves.   

I heard a good statement on the radio today.   If you were confronted by and armed robber in your home would you rather have a handgun or a telephone?   Sure you could call the police with the phone......and they will come.........and take pictures of your dead body.

[NorCalToy]

saaaweeeeet! i never knew that it was that much in question...

[brainlessfool]

5 To 4. we came within one vote of loosing our guns. to dam close for me to be happy over.

[NorCalToy]

5 To 4. we came within one vote of loosing our guns. to dam close for me to be happy over.

but, we didnt lose them.


i can honestly say i feel very retarded fro not having known we were that close to losing the second amendment. nad yea, one vote is too close.

[Toymin8r [OP]]

Well actually, the City of Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a long time.  it was finally challenged and heard by the supreme court.  The Supreme Court Ruled that it was a violation of the 2nd amendment.  Had they voted the other way it would have started a steamroll effect with other lib cities banning them.

[brainlessfool]

It could have opened the door for anywhere to ban ALL guns. it was the whole 2nd amt. up for graps cuz that was what they choce to stand on.

[BLACKDOG]

It could have opened the door for anywhere to ban ALL guns. it was the whole 2nd amt. up for graps cuz that was what they choce to stand on.

Did ya like what Obama had to say about it?  Talk about a perfect "straddling the fence" statement 

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_guns


Also, here is the AP press release for the decision
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_guns;_ylt=AnfCPx3LwSD9qgHZsK7fjm5h24cA

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago
 


WASHINGTON - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

The court's historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.

The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it's a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, straddling both sides of the issue, said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain welcomed the ruling as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."

The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.

Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

But he said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights advocates praised the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Some Democrats also welcomed the ruling.

"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

richard Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down the district's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President richard Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the matter came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[jimbo74]

here is my view on it... i don't think anyone needs to have a gun, it isn't my thing..... however... i don't believe that banning legal guns will do anyone any good. the people that commit crimes are not the ones with legal guns. i don't think owning a legal gun contributes to more violence, because it isn't the legal owners of legal guns that are criminals.....

[abnormaltoy]

here is my view on it... i don't think anyone needs to have a gun, it isn't my thing..... however... i don't believe that banning legal guns will do anyone any good. the people that commit crimes are not the ones with legal guns. i don't think owning a legal gun contributes to more violence, because it isn't the legal owners of legal guns that are criminals.....

The fact that so many, want so desperately to keep me from having guns...proves the need. The government should tremble in fear of the citizens.

[BLACKDOG]

The fact that so many, want so desperately to keep me from having guns...proves the need. The government should tremble in fear of the citizens.

 

here is my view on it... i don't think anyone needs to have a gun, it isn't my thing..... however... i don't believe that banning legal guns will do anyone any good. the people that commit crimes are not the ones with legal guns. i don't think owning a legal gun contributes to more violence, because it isn't the legal owners of legal guns that are criminals.....

Its the "meh" attitude that causes us to lose our rights.  Upholding the constitution should be a goal of every single American, and its the people with the "meh" attitude that allow the liberal vultures to slowly tear our rights away.  Too many people simply don't care anymore.  There should be no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" guns.  Guns are tools, and should be treated as such.  Crimes are committed with hammers, crowbars, knives, chisels, cars.  Should we outlaw certain types of those things, because of their "potential" to commit crimes.  That is what we do when we outlaw certain types of guns.  Its simply easier to do that then it is to focus on the real problem, and that is the PEOPLE behind the guns, not the guns themselves. 

You wouldn't like it very much if laws started getting passed against people owning pickup trucks would you? You'd hate the attitude that people might have, "eh, its not my thing, so I don't think anyone should have them."

[kneedownnate]

here is my view on it... i don't think anyone needs to have a gun

You have your opinion, I have my guns!  Here's my view, nobody, NOBODY should have the right to tell me what they *think* I should or shouldn't have, period!!! 

This is EXACTLY our problem, the idiots and ignorant who live in the city and have NO FAWKING CLUE about anything outside their little world.  Anybody who links guns to crimes is an absolute moron.  I'm obviously not saying everybody in bigger cities are clueless, but I don't believe anybody should be allowed to vote on something they have no knowledge of based on personal feelings and emotions 

[jimbo74]

Anybody who links guns to crimes is an absolute moron.

that is not what i am saying... i said i don't have one, and that is fine, thats my choice.... i do believe this vote for the peopel was good though.... i do not believe that more guns equals more crime... becasue it isnt the legal guns that the criminals have

[abnormaltoy]

My thinking is this...the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says arms. If I have the wherewithal to buy one, I believe I have the right to own an Abrams.

This part doesn't affect me...but the US Code states, regarding militias, that all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the "unorganized" militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+174+42++%28militia%29

[NorCalToy]

My thinking is this...the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says arms. If I have the wherewithal to buy one, I believe I have the right to own an Abrams.

This part doesn't affect me...but the US Code states, regarding militias, that all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the "unorganized" militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+174+42++%28militia%29

an Abrams

[BLACKDOG]

My thinking is this...the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says arms. If I have the wherewithal to buy one, I believe I have the right to own an Abrams.

This part doesn't affect me...but the US Code states, regarding militias, that all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the "unorganized" militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+174+42++%28militia%29

Aren't you older than 45? 

[kneedownnate]

No    you said:

here is my view on it... i don't think anyone needs to have a gun, it isn't my thing.....

I simply took what you said and went off on a rant    I summed up my thoughts on your opinion here

You have your opinion, I have my guns!  Here's my view, nobody, NOBODY should have the right to tell me what they *think* I should or shouldn't have, period!!! 

[jimbo74]

i want an rpg!

[yotacrwlr]

im so happy we won. there isnt any way that there gunna take my guns  i think i just might go celebrate and buy another one.

[abnormaltoy]

Aren't you older than 45? 

See the highlighted portion of my post.

My thinking is this...the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says arms. If I have the wherewithal to buy one, I believe I have the right to own an Abrams.

This part doesn't affect me ...but the US Code states, regarding militias, that all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the "unorganized" militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+174+42++%28militia%29

The point being, you can't have the unorganized part of the militia if there is a gun ban.

[Trunkz]

My thinking is this...the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says arms. If I have the wherewithal to buy one, I believe I have the right to own an Abrams.

This part doesn't affect me...but the US Code states, regarding militias, that all able bodied males between 17 and 45 are part of the "unorganized" militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+174+42++%28militia%29

according to websters an "arm" is a man portable weapon so meh, pay the taxes and the fee's and the several mil and enjoy!

i want an rpg!

http://www.tapco.com/catalog.aspx?id=311

[BigMike]

Caller: "....guns don't kill people, death kills people.
Ask a doctor, it's a medical fact. You can't die from a bullet.
You can die from a cardiac arrest or organ failure or a major
hemorrhage, small piece of metal ain't the problem. Besides, I
only use my machine-gun in the safety of my own home and car. I
ain't hurting nobody. And countries that don't have guns ain't
American."

Lazlow: "Y-you know that's a really good point. Countries that don't
have guns aren't American. You know, if more people had guns,
we'd have less shootings in this country."


- Chatterbox, Grand Theft Auto 3

[yotacrwlr]

if guns kill ppl then my pencil miss spells my words

[BLACKDOG]

See the highlighted portion of my post.

The point being, you can't have the unorganized part of the militia if there is a gun ban.

Damn, shot down in my attempt at a facetious response by a lack of reading comprehension

[kneedownnate]

if guns kill ppl then my pencil miss spells my words

  bwahahahahahaha  you and unc have the same law breaking pencils then!

[abnormaltoy]

if guns kill ppl then my pencil miss spells my words

and my fork made me fat!

[abnormaltoy]

according to websters an "arm" is a man portable weapon so meh, pay the taxes and the fee's and the several mil and enjoy!http://www.tapco.com/catalog.aspx?id=311

Neither the Oxford Dictionary or Merriam-Webster make any mention of man portability, they say weapon. Anyway...I might rather have a Stryker, seems much more practical for everyday use. An 8x8, armored grocery getter!

[abnormaltoy]

Damn, shot down in my attempt at a facetious response by a lack of reading comprehension

See, you tried to out-smart-ass the old timer and were hoist on your own petard! Old age and guile will outdo youthful exuberance every time.

[BLACKDOG]

See, you tried to out-smart-ass the old timer and were hoist on your own petard! Old age and guile will outdo youthful exuberance every time.

I hang my head in shame, and tip my hat to you, you old curmudgeon! 

[BLACKDOG]

Just to bring this back up to the top, as there is still dissent in many areas.     I guess that security guard that brought the case STILL can't take his gun home.  I did a little poking around, and read some more stuff on it.  Frightening the mentality people have, including one of the Supreme Court Justices!!    Here is his dissenting opinion!

“In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting opinion in the D.C. case

Sounds like a good reason to me!! 

What really bothers me though, is this part: there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment

does that mean that we do not have untouchable constitutional rights?    If the second amendment isn't protected by, well, its greater part (the whole constitution) are the others?