The U.S. Supreme Court today did not release its long-awaited ruling on whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. That means the potentially landmark decision will almost certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.
Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.
Hussein egObama : Vote Half and Half McBush: Old Traitor in '08
“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”
"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." --John McCain at a 1998 Republican fundraiser
Posts: 2085 | Location: Coolsville, USA. Population: Me | Registered: December 05, 2007
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
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.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, 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."
Posts: 3236 | Location: is everything in real estate. | Registered: October 22, 2007
The framers didn't do a very good job of writing that sentence. I can read just fine and it mentions the word 'militia' before addressing a 'persons' right to bear arms. Is the 'person' a member of the militia? Does that mean any person? If so, aren't felons 'persons', and why can't they own guns? The framers should have spelled it out a little more clearly, what's wrong with...
We need a well regulated militia to protect the security of a free state, so those members have the right to keep and bear arms. Citizens also have the right to keep and bear arms, and either shall not be infringed unless they are felons!
Would that have been so difficult? I know they were writing it with ink and a feather but sheesh!
Posts: 3236 | Location: is everything in real estate. | Registered: October 22, 2007
We have to remember, Edmond, that our forefathers were, for the most part, not attorneys or even lawyers. Back in those days, not only was sentence construction and meaning different from what is common today, but the framers of the Constitution didn't count on lawyer-forced knitpicking as they have done over the last century (especially the 20th century). Times were simpler then, and so were most people's thinking processes. In the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, even felons had the right to bear arms. Guns were a necessity in those days, much unlike today.
While I can see both sides of the argument, I am glad that I can still have my guns. Although I have not yet read the entire ruling, it even sounds like we have the right to CARRY those guns, except for "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Depending upon the exact wording of the court's ruling, there may yet be more challenges in store for us. Once I've had the chance to read the majority's opinion, I'll have a much better concept of its effects.
And ANC, the four months "break" does not amount to a "vacation" for the justices. It basically only means the supreme court will not be in session to hear actual cases. It takes a long, long time and MUCH effort to thoroughly research every single court ruling for consideration in making ANY decisions. I bet you can rest assured that those four months are not what any one of us would consider a "vacation."
Excellent points Gary, when I go home tonight I'm going to clean my .357 and tell her that she's been saved by the Supreme Court and will always be safe with me. Then I'm going to hug my wife and kids and tell them that my .357 will keep them safe so long as I'm around to shoot at home intruders.
We've got a .357 in the bedroom and a .38 and .22 stashed in the kitchen. The front door is between the kitchen and bedroom so I figure no matter where any of us are in the house, if some decides to break in we have firepower within reach. They're all revolvers with the first round empty.
Posts: 3236 | Location: is everything in real estate. | Registered: October 22, 2007
Originally posted by Edmond Outlaw: Excellent points Gary, when I go home tonight I'm going to clean my .357 and tell her that she's been saved by the Supreme Court and will always be safe with me. Then I'm going to hug my wife and kids and tell them that my .357 will keep them safe so long as I'm around to shoot at home intruders.
We've got a .357 in the bedroom and a .38 and .22 stashed in the kitchen. The front door is between the kitchen and bedroom so I figure no matter where any of us are in the house, if some decides to break in we have firepower within reach. They're all revolvers with the first round empty.
Whilst you're there, tell them that the chances of them being shot at a supermarket, school, street, home, anywhere, are 100x worse with such lax gun control.
Posts: 817 | Location: England | Registered: April 21, 2007
Originally posted by Morf: Whilst you're there, tell them that the chances of them being shot at a supermarket, school, street, home, anywhere, are 100x worse with such lax gun control.
Hell Morf, there's probably a 10,000x worse chance of us getting swept away in a tornado since we live in Oklahoma. At least I can get off couple of rounds into the vortex before it takes me family out! It may not do much good but I might feel better about it!!
Posts: 3236 | Location: is everything in real estate. | Registered: October 22, 2007
Well Morf oddly enough the opposite is true. It goes against all logic but here in America the States with the toughest gun control laws tend to have higher rates of crime while the states with more relaxed laws tend to have less. Its a cause correlation.
However I'll concede that in countries with a limited supply of firearms there are dramatically fewer deaths by firearms then here in the States.
The problem is that banning and confiscation would have a low chance of working very well here because of the sheer number of firearms in this country. Hence banning firearms would only mean that honest citizens would turn in their weapons, whereas the dishonest ones (the ones we didn't want to have weapons in the first place) would be the only ones with guns. This would leave many an innocent person at their mercy.
Thusly I conclude that Pandora's Box has already been open and closing it wouldn't do much good.
Posts: 219 | Location: Ada, OK | Registered: June 09, 2008
Originally posted by The Lone Ranger: 5-4 vote...if only one of the 5 had voted the other way, then they would have been coming after our guns? WOW......That was close...
They have been "coming after our guns" for 70+ years, now, and they're not going to stop.
This is a great decision, and it breathes life into the 2nd Amendment, which has been routinely ignored for decades, but it won't stop the efforts of the gun banners.
They have been "coming after our guns" for 70+ years
Baloney Best, that is just more NRA propaganda. The right to bear arms is an important one, but common sense gun regulation and laws are equally important.
As Justice Scalia wrote in the majority decision:
"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,"
"The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
The 2nd ammendment does not mean ANYONE, ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME can own ANY gun. There are limits, there are rules, there is common sense to consider, and saying so and fighting for that common sense is not an infringement on you or anyone else's rights.
Posts: 19943 | Location: Dick Cheney's secret bunker | Registered: March 06, 2006
