Gun Ban struck down

[mikehn]

It wasnt a surprise, but a close 5-4 decision. The streets of DC will finally be safe to walk.

 

[need_a_Disney_fix]

I welcome this decision and our Constitution lives on!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I welcome this decision and our Constitution lives on!!!

I agree! As an owner of a handgun and a rifle myself, I agree with the Supreme Courts decision 100%.

 

[Chicago526]

Was this the hand gun ban in DC?

We've got one of those in Chicago. Doesn't do much good, the crooks just buy their hand guns in the 'burbs.

 

[addicted_to_WDW]

It wasnt a surprise, but a close 5-4 decision. The streets of DC will finally be safe to walk.

Oh, that's funny. The streets of DC outside of the federal center will never be safe to walk.

 

[corndog]

I tried to read Breyer's dissent and only got about 2 pages into it. It is so intellectually dishonest it made me physically ill.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Right on. I agree 100%.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Was this the hand gun ban in DC?

We've got one of those in Chicago. Doesn't do much good, the crooks just buy their hand guns in the 'burbs.

It was the ban in DC, but the NRA is going to file lawsuits now against Chicago and other cities based on this ruling.

 

[GeorgeG]

Was this the hand gun ban in DC?

We've got one of those in Chicago. Doesn't do much good, the crooks just buy their hand guns in the 'burbs.

The ruling came about over the ban in DC, but it addresses rights in the entire country.

It's a good ruling. The arguments, pro and con, will probably never go away, but at least those who wish to protect themselves and their families will have a fighting chance.

 

[legalsea]

Link to the actual written decision:

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

 

[SeeVee]

I am reading the dissenting opinions and it is incredible to me how such idiots can acutally function without assistance.

The liberals on SCOTUS just make stuff up as they go along.

 

[corndog]

The ruling came about over the ban in DC, but it addresses rights in the entire country.

It's a good ruling. The arguments, pro and con, will probably never go away, but at least those who wish to protect themselves and their families will have a fighting chance.

Don't be so sure.

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

 

[LukenDC]

I wonder how many conservatives will scream "judicial activism" about this decision? The modern "right to bear arms" is a far stretch from a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, thanks in large part to a militant gun lobby that works hand in glove with the ACLU.

 

[corndog]

I wonder how many conservatives will scream "judicial activism" about this decision? The modern "right to bear arms" is a far stretch from a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, thanks in large part to a militant gun lobby that works hand in glove with the ACLU.

Perhaps try reading the opinion before commenting?

 

[LukenDC]

Perhaps try reading the opinion before commenting?

A little passive aggressive this morning?

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I wonder how many conservatives will scream "judicial activism" about this decision? The modern "right to bear arms" is a far stretch from a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, thanks in large part to a militant gun lobby that works hand in glove with the ACLU.

I don't think it's judicial activism, considering it states in the constitution the right to bear arms. Yes, and it also says in order to keep a well regulated militia, however, I'm of the opinion that that right to bear arms goes beyond the militia.



Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.


When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".

Love your country, but never trust its government.

-- Robert A. Heinlein

 

[Charade]

I wonder how many conservatives will scream "judicial activism" about this decision? The modern "right to bear arms" is a far stretch from a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, thanks in large part to a militant gun lobby that works hand in glove with the ACLU.

"Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder...

This decision IS strict interpretation. It's just late by 200 years (give or take). The question was a simple one. Is the right to bear arms an individual right or a group right? It all fell on a little tiny punctuation mark. The "," before "the right of the people (that's you and me) to bear arms..." means AND. It's meaning is not connected in anyway to the first part other than being in the same sentence.

An example of judicial activism is the Kelo decision. I don't know how anyone can see it any differently.

 

[SeeVee]

I wonder how many conservatives will scream "judicial activism" about this decision? The modern "right to bear arms" is a far stretch from a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, thanks in large part to a militant gun lobby that works hand in glove with the ACLU.

JA, as traditionally intended, has been that judges just toss stuff out that was nowhere to be found in the Constitution. (Right to an abortion comes to mind.)

The first ten Ammendments in the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. They ALL deal with individual rights - right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, protection against cruel unusual punishment, habeus corpus, right to be secure in your person and effects, etc. Why would the 2nd--NUMBER TWO IN A LIST OF TEN- not deal with an individual right?

"A well regulated mitilita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Simply stated, if the government has weapons to provide for its security, then the people have the right to have weapons to protect themselves from the government.

If you and others dont like the fact that the Constitution guarantees that right, you can not change the meaning of the Amendment by interpreting it in far fetched ways. You and others are WHOLLY within your rights to try to change the Constitution, though.

 

[SeeVee]

"Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder...

This decision IS strict interpretation. It's just late by 200 years (give or take). The question was a simple one. Is the right to bear arms an individual right or a group right? It all fell on a little tiny punctuation mark. The "," before "the right of the people (that's you and me) to bear arms..." means AND. It's meaning is not connected in anyway to the first part other than being in the same sentence.

An example of judicial activism is the Kelo decision. I don't know how anyone can see it any differently.

YOU got it!

 

[LukenDC]

"Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder...

That is perhaps the most honest statement that I will hear all day, if not all week.