Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment...

[jdmidwest]

The Supreme Court of the United States of America today UPHELD the rights of gun owners to the Second Amendment right to have a gun, carry a gun, own a gun, and use a gun if you want to. Sorry BRADY, Nobama, DC Liberals, criminals, and all others that oppose my 2nd Amendment Right. Things are starting to turn back to the good.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The Supreme Court of the United States of America today UPHELD the rights of gun owners to the Second Amendment right to have a gun, carry a gun, own a gun, and use a gun if you want to. Sorry BRADY, Nobama, DC Liberals, criminals, and all others that oppose my 2nd Amendment Right. Things are starting to turn back to the good.

Not quite, there was nothing in the ruling concerning carry or use. Basically it dealt with possession, and it struck down laws that prohibited possession in ones own home.

Rulings like this generally have a long life and the court has been ducking the question. This will probably prevent an Australia like ban, or an outright handgun ban for decades to come.

[jdmidwest]

Well the ruling upheld the "Right To Keep and Bear Arms" stated in the second amendment. Keeping arms is owning, possessing, buying, selling, trading, displaying on one's person, property, home. Bearing arms is the carrying, transportation, and use of the firearm. It does not usually assume you can conceal. The DC law forbide the ownership of guns.

The high court's 5-4 ruling Thursday said for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, similar to the First Amendment right to free speech.

This should turn the tide back against all the infringements that have happened in other states. We have been lucky in MO.

I feel that while background checks are needed to weed out the nuts, there should never be any fees or taxes on gun ownership as it is an infringement on the Second Amendment also.

NY Times report on the ruling.

[wildhunter066]

Well the ruling upheld the "Right To Keep and Bear Arms" stated in the second amendment. Keeping arms is owning, possessing, buying, selling, trading, displaying on one's person, property, home. Bearing arms is the carrying, transportation, and use of the firearm. It does not usually assume you can conceal. The DC law forbide the ownership of guns.

The high court's 5-4 ruling Thursday said for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, similar to the First Amendment right to free speech.

This should turn the tide back against all the infringements that have happened in other states. We have been lucky in MO.

I feel that while background checks are needed to weed out the nuts, there should never be any fees or taxes on gun ownership as it is an infringement on the Second Amendment also.

NY Times report on the ruling.

The only problem with background checks is the nuts usually dont bother with the background checks.

[hoglaw]

I haven't read the opinion yet, but it was a 5-4 decision. As I understand it, the crux was determining whether the second amendment applied to individuals. It's a darn tough question. The text of the second amendment references a well regulated militia, so the question is whether the framers of the constitution meant the second amendment to apply to everyone, or just in context with a "well regulated militia." I'm actually a bit suprised at the decision as I thought it would go 5-4 the other way.

Restrictions on gun ownership will still be allowed, they will just be judged with "strict scrutiny." If the court had gone the other way, gun restrictions would likely have been judged on a "rational basis" review. As I understand things, any law restricting gun ownership will now be allowed to stand only if it is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest." After this decision, we should look forward to cases challenging prohibitions on convicted felons owning firearms, and bans on assault rifles and machine guns. In any event, this is the first case analyzing the second amendment in a long time.

[Al Agnew]

I read some of the highlights of the decision, and the SC does address the "reasonable restrictions" such as felons owning guns and bans on certain types of firearms. So this may NOT lead to further court cases on those issues.

I also read a statement by Obama pretty much applauding the decision.

[hoglaw]

I have access to published opinions and would be happy to copy and paste it here. However, it's probably around 50 pages and I'm not sure what the text limit is. I don't have a way to link it since it's only available by password, but I'd be happy to help anyone out who wants to read it. Also, you can probably get it on the Supreme Court's website. That is free, and there might even be a recording of the oral arguments just in case anyone else is as big a nerd as I am.

[jdmidwest]

And the criminals don't use legal guns. This is just going to affect the normal, law abiding citizens.

Here is the story out of the local paper with each judge that was for or against.

Supreme Court affirms gun rights in historic decision

Friday, June 27, 2008

By MARK SHERMAN

The Associated Press

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.

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 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.

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.

The answer: 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."

And 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.

Dick 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 Dick 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.

[Trav]

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS..........................

As an long standing NRA member, all this proves is that the gun lobbys need alot more money! The decision was too close for my liking. I for one think, if I couldnt have my firearms, I would just pack up and move out of the country.

[Danoinark]

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS..........................

As an long standing NRA member, all this proves is that the gun lobbys need alot more money! The decision was too close for my liking. I for one think, if I couldnt have my firearms, I would just pack up and move out of the country.

And Trav old Pal, to what country would you move that would allow you to own any gun????

Your friend

Dano