Bogley

[jumar]

Quote: Supreme Court to issue decision on D.C. gun case
Email this Story

Jun 26, 7:37 AM (ET)

(AP) The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Wednesday, June 25, 2008. The Supreme Court has struck...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is meeting to issue its final three opinions of the term, including defining Americans' right to own guns.

The challenge to the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., is the biggest case left on the court's docket. It also is expected to resolve disputes over a campaign finance law and contracts negotiated during the Western energy crisis in 2001.

The justices won't return to the bench until Oct. 6, the start of their next term.

[jumar]

Quote:
Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off |

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

[tapehoser]

I am beside myself and very, very happy about this. Halelujah!

[JP]

You guys are all happy and I can understand. But, I must add to this and it's not out of being jovial.

That 5-4 vote doesn't bother any of you in the least? That vote should have been 9-0. WTF were those four thinking? Are they not there to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Four of them do not understand the 2nd Amendment? Where are their heads? 5-4 is bothersome to me.

[parrothead_madness]

JP wrote:
That 5-4 vote doesn't bother any of you in the least? That vote should have been 9-0. WTF were those four thinking? Are they not there to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Four of them do not understand the 2nd Amendment? Where are their heads? 5-4 is bothersome to me.

+1

[JP]

parrothead_madness wrote: +1
Think about it, 4 were for it and 4 were against it. That means one person made that decision, ONE PERSON made that all important decision. WTF!

[Brian in SLC]

JP wrote: That 5-4 vote doesn't bother any of you in the least? That vote should have been 9-0. WTF were those four thinking? Are they not there to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Four of them do not understand the 2nd Amendment? Where are their heads? 5-4 is bothersome to me.

Have you read their dissenting arquements?

Not sure I could adequatly summarize, but Stevens' arguement was along the lines of the first phrase of the second amendment ("A well regulated militia) made the amendment applicable to militias.

I think Breyer's arguement was that the amendment was not absolute and that gov't could regulate its interests. Stated that it was never shown that the DC law was unreasonable.

I would have been surprised had it not gone fairly closely. Kind of an amazing decision, really, and one that I don't think will affect much of the status quo out here.

-Brian in SLC

[JP]

Brian in SLC wrote: Not sure I could adequatly summarize, but Stevens' arguement was along the lines of the first phrase of the second amendment ("A well regulated militia) made the amendment applicable to militias.
How was Louisiana doing during Katrina :ne_nau:

[Brian in SLC]

JP wrote: How was Louisiana doing during Katrina

Heckuva job, Brownie.

Ahhh...domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense.

-Brian in SLC

[Gutpiler_Utahn]

This makes me happy. It may not have been QUITE the victory I would have liked, but it is a victory nonetheless.

[MY T PIMP]

I am also happy with the decision. Long ago I posted a reply to a thread and said that millions of Americans cherish their second amendment rights to be their greatest right as an American. Another member replied to my coment; "If that is true that is sad." I replied to him why is it sad? He never replied to my question. If this ruling had gone the other way to be honest I think it eventually through new laws and regulations could of possibly led to our next civil war. I know many of you may think me crazy of making such a statement. But I have lived 33 good years in country where I could live the American Dream. And I would gladly fight to keep that dream alive and preserve it for the generations to come. I thank God for the decision.

[stefan]

MY T PIMP wrote: Long ago I posted a reply to a thread and said that millions of Americans cherish their second amendment rights to be their greatest right as an American. Another member replied to my coment; "If that is true that is sad."


i can tell it's an important right to you. but why the "greatest?"

[James_B_Wads2000]

stefan wrote: i can tell it's an important right to you. but why the "greatest?"

Because with a gun you can take any other right you want without asking. :haha: Na just kidding, I'll let MY T PIMP answer for himself.

This topic is being split between two posts. So I'll put my same response to the verdict here in case anyone missed it.

James_B_Wads2000 wrote: My hatred for guns is legendary here on Bogley. Go back and read some if you dare.

But with that being disclosed I have to say that the Washington D.C. handgun band went too far. It seems only fair that gun control nuts get slapped in the face with this Supreme Court ruling. That handgun band was a political band-aid on a much bigger problem in the D.C. area. Some of the surrounding D.C. areas look more like Fallujah than America. So rather than address the issues of poverty and inequality they decide to just ban hand guns thinking this will solve the violence. All it did is strengthen the rights for people to own guns.

Though I hate guns I am for personal rights. I believe that the framers of the constitution wanted the People to have the right to own guns, but that was to protect themselves from foreign invaders or natives in the frontier. Also this was to protect the states by allowing them to rely on themselves and not on a national army. I also believe that the framers had no idea that one day our country would have virtually no threat from other nations and that the majority of its citizens would be living in dense urban areas.

I just hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will champion future individual’s rights cases with the same zeal as this case. You know when someone sues for equal protection of the law when their right to be married is infringed.



James


James

[MY T PIMP]

stefan wrote: MY T PIMP wrote: Long ago I posted a reply to a thread and said that millions of Americans cherish their second amendment rights to be their greatest right as an American. Another member replied to my coment; "If that is true that is sad."


i can tell it's an important right to you. but why the "greatest?"

My love for the second ammendment is rooted all the way back to the revolutionary war. No doubt small arms owned by farmers, colonialists, and city folk, etc.. had a huge impact in the result of the revolutionary war. I would go as far as saying without those small arms (pistols, muskets, swords, etc...) we would not have won that war which granted our independence. This is one of many reasons I prize my second ammendment rights.

[Brian in SLC]

MY T PIMP wrote: My love for the second ammendment is rooted all the way back to the revolutionary war. No doubt small arms owned by farmers, colonialists, and city folk, etc.. had a huge impact in the result of the revolutionary war. I would go as far as saying without those small arms (pistols, muskets, swords, etc...) we would not have won that war which granted our independence. This is one of many reasons I prize my second ammendment rights.

I wouldn't say a "huge" impact. What was huger (ha ha) was France's gunpowder, guns, men and warships. Read up on Saratoga and Yorktown.

Although, Viginia sharpshooters get the head nod for sure...(and my bet was that a fair number of folks used their own rifles).

Amazing to tour a few revolutionary war sites. I've only been to a few (Valley Forge the last one) and it always amazes me that the guns were largely French.

Anyhoo...wild history.

-Brian in SLC