US Supreme Court Supports the 2nd Amendment

[BWalker]

US Supreme Court

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[kevsett]

What amazes me is that 4 SC Justices would rather mingle politics and preferences in with the Constitution. This should have been a slam dunk 9-0 or at the very least 8-1. We are a nation in trouble when the only thing protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the President in office and their SC Justice picks. But it's still a great victory!

[BAGN1T]

Originally Posted by kevsett

What amazes me is that 4 SC Justices would rather mingle politics and preferences in with the Constitution. This should have been a slam dunk 9-0 or at the very least 8-1. We are a nation in trouble when the only thing protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the President in office and their SC Justice picks. But it's still a great victory!

+1 to all that

[Thealien]

And the next president will most likely appoint 2-3 Justices to the bench!!

Remember that in November. Seeing how this topic is getting so little attention here I guess many here don't see this decision as important as it is! I also agree this should have been 9-0!!

[Munky]

And to think that I never thought this was an issue. Shows how ignorant I've been about our "rights". And the sad thing is, I'm not the only one.

[Camera108]

I read somewhere that Montana didn't send a brief, but expressed in some form to the Court that a Law also states if the US Government ignors part of the Bill of Rights, that US States can step away from the US Government. Other states would not commit, but expressed knowledge of that little know Law.

I am not suggesting a civil division of the US is an any way a good thing, but we all seem to forget that this great country is really a Republic made up of 50 individual states. That is why one state cannot just send Army or Air National Guard across state borders during emergencies unless "requested" but the receiving state. It becomes an issue because each state is soverign. It is exactly what the difference was between Russia and the USSR was. (note with a lot of difference in human rights and democratic process before the flaming starts).

[Fred1369]

In the Spotlight

Supreme Court Backs Individual Gun Rights

In a landmark gun control decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a 5-4 ruling overturning a District of Columbia law banning the possession of handguns. The decision marks the first time in its history that the Supreme Court has clearly established that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to individual citizens, rather than granting the states a "collective" right to form armed militias.

D.C. v. Heller Leaves Big Second Amendment Question

Here's a big question for you and thousands of trial lawyers across the nation: Now that the Supreme Court, in its D.C. v. Heller decision, has established that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess firearms, rather than the right of the states to form armed militias, can the Second Amendment also be extended to block strict state and local gun laws?


D.C. v. Heller Has No Effect on Federal Gun Laws

While the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of D.C. v. Heller represents a landmark victory for firearms rights advocates, its immediate legal effect was only to overturn a District of Columbia handgun control law. The ruling in no way affected existing federal firearms laws.


More Topics
VA Can Help Veterans Avoid Foreclosure
Foreclosure on Vets Just Not Right
Two 500-year Floods in 15 Years? USGS Explains
Term Confused Mid West Flood Victims
EPA Proposes Standards for Water Efficient Homes
Savings of 20 Percent Possible
Insect Research Leads to New Blood Pressure Treatment
First BP Breakthrough in 20 Years
Who Cannot Own a Gun in America?
Nine Categories Prohibited
Read the Blog!
Your Government at Work

[winpitt]

Also, interestingly enough it won't completely change things in DC. Heard on NPR this morning (interview with DC Police Chief) that the ruing will not affect things like prohibiting semi-auto pistols from being licensed in DC. That's right. She specifically said you would STILL not be able to legally own a Colt .45 Auto 1911 style pistol in DC. Only single shot pistols and revolvers will be permitted. Unbelieveable.

[Totenkopf]

hahaha..!!

hours after the USSC decision on the 26th, the NRA, SAF and ISRA filed lawsuits against the city of Chicago and several suburbs on their unconstitutional handgun bans.

So there little Richie!
An "outraged" Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.'s handgun ban as a "frightening decision" and a "return to the days of the Wild West."

Daley predicted that Chicago's 1982 handgun freeze would be next in the crosshairs of the powerful gun lobby and that gun violence will surge if they'e successful.

The mayor said he would vigorously defend Chicago's ordinance, in spite of what he called the dangerous precedent set by the nation's highest court.

"This is a very frightening decision for America. …Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken. Then, why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle in the streets," Daley told reporters.

and Jesse Jackson is still a moron....
Jackson called the Supreme Court's ruling of the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional a "reckless interpretation of the Second Amendment" -- and one that Chicago doesn't have to accept.

"We must fight for the legal restrictions on where these gun shops can be," Jackson said. "We will fight the easy access to guns and gun flow. We can picket and boycott stores that can endanger us."

locals to Chicago and IL State residents may get some enjoyment out of reading some of the comments in the news here.....
http://www.isra.org/

btw, I agree with the earlier post that it is scary to think that something that seems this obvious to us, is only carried by a 5-4 decision.

[NewHawk]

I am glad to hear the decision.

[Fourcats]

Originally Posted by NewHawk

I am glad to hear the decision.

...but there was nothing "SUPREME" about it.

[geoffreyt]

Originally Posted by Fourcats

...but there was nothing "SUPREME" about it.

It tells us we need 4 new Justices.

[kevsett]

We'll likely be getting at least 2 new justices under the next POTUS. Whether they protect and preserve the Constitution or not will also likely be based on who the POTUS was that picked them.

Originally Posted by geoffreyt

It tells us we need 4 new Justices.