View Full Version : Supreme Courts Rule on Nationwide Right to Own Firearms
Batteriesnare
06-28-2010, 12:16
Interesting read, thought I'd share:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_guns
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became Chief Justice.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.
On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, jumped into the nation's charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years.
A short distance from the court, the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Stevens.
In the guns case, Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statutes eventually would fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."
The ruling seemed unlikely to resolve questions and ongoing legal challenges about precisely what sort of gun control laws are permissible.
The response of the District to the court's ruling in 2008 is illustrative of the uncertainty.
Batteriesnare
06-28-2010, 12:19
And forgive me, the title should be "Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Right to Own Firearms"
It's Monday....[Bang]
Ranger353
06-28-2010, 12:41
Anyone that doesn't believe in the importance of voting just has to look at the court decision split, 5-4 along conservative/liberal lines. Send Mr. "O" packing next election before we have another judge retire and he gets to stack the deck against the law abiding citizen.
a 5-4 ruling isn't nessecarily a grand slam... That's downright scary to me...
cowboykjohnson
06-28-2010, 12:53
a 5-4 ruling isn't necessarily a grand slam... That's downright scary to me...
Yep... but at least it was in our favor!
GreenScoutII
06-28-2010, 12:53
I'm glad we won this time, but the fact that it wasn't a 9-0 decision is an outrage!
If the other four actually read and correctly interpreted the constitution it would have been 9-0.
Just remember, liberals know what is best for us.[ROFL1]
Byte Stryke
06-28-2010, 15:05
I Still say that we pass a law that requires all liberals to have a permit before they vote.
First you have to go to a class, pay a few hundred dollars there.
Pay another few hundred for the application fees, provide just cause of WHY you need to vote, File all of the proper papers in the proper format and then wait 3-6 months for the permit. We aren't Denying your right to vote... we are just regulating it.
sound familiar?
[ROFL1]
Liberals can't read they are told how to vote by the Puppet Master.
I Still say that we pass a law that requires all liberals to have a permit before they vote.
First you have to go to a class, pay a few hundred dollars there.
Pay another few hundred for the application fees, provide just cause of WHY you need to vote, File all of the proper papers in the proper format and then wait 3-6 months for the permit. We aren't Denying your right to vote... we are just regulating it.
sound familiar?
[ROFL1]
And you have to vote with a blood fingerprint
rhineoshott
06-28-2010, 17:15
Well you see, this is actually increasing the Federal Government's power... telling the states what to do. They're basically overiding the states right. Even though it's for a good thing.
Byte Stryke
06-28-2010, 18:10
Well you see, this is actually increasing the Federal Government's power... telling the states what to do. They're basically overiding the states right. Even though it's for a good thing.
Ahem
The 14th Amendment of that Constitution thingy everyone is always so fired up about....
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
So ya cant just pass a law usurping/bypassing. negating or otherwise making invalid the provisions and protections of the U.S. Constitution because ya feel like it.
Just Sayin...
rockhound
06-28-2010, 19:01
You know the left has always tried to use the courts to change the constitution. They interpret the constitution to the way they want it to read instead of actually amending it.
if they want to outlaw the guns then they should do it by the constitution instead of by the practice of law. You pass laws that go against the constitution just because they make you feel good.
Its a sad day when the The Supreme Court of the United States of America rules on whether its citizens have the right to own firearms and 4 of them say we don't...
Sad, sad, sad, indeed........
Troublco
06-28-2010, 19:24
Let's just thank our lucky stars that it was 5-4 and not 4-5......
I hope Daley is having a nice apoplectic attack. It would break my heart if he got so upset he had a heart attack.....NOT.
Byte Stryke
06-28-2010, 19:35
Its a sad day when the The Supreme Court of the United States of America rules on whether its citizens have the right to own firearms and 4 of them say we don't...
Sad, sad, sad, indeed........
you want to know whats even more sad?
We have 4 Supreme court judges sitting with alleged degrees in law that can't read a friggin Amendment of the constitution that even I understand...
And I Don't even have a BS.
Pretty straightforward... it says ya cant do it.
Maybe I should run for office er something.
Batteriesnare
06-28-2010, 19:39
I hope Daley is having a nice apoplectic attack. It would break my heart if he got so upset he had a heart attack.....NOT.
Mine too....[BooHoo]
You know the left has always tried to use the courts to change the constitution. They interpret the constitution to the way they want it to read instead of actually amending it.
if they want to outlaw the guns then they should do it by the constitution instead of by the practice of law. You pass laws that go against the constitution just because they make you feel good.
Then I'd just have to open a shooteasy
some of these anti gunners are simply cracked in the head
they disagree with the ruling and have absolutely nothing coherent or relevant to say about it, they just spout sarcasm over and over and claim victory.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/06/28/dnt.sc.boating.accident.wsoc?hpt=C2
No one ever mentions that guns have been able to be carried in bars for longer than they've been alive, as well as that machine guns are legal in most states and always have been. I wonder if they purposely don't bring it up.
some of these anti gunners are simply cracked in the head
they disagree with the ruling and have absolutely nothing coherent or relevant to say about it, they just spout sarcasm over and over and claim victory.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/06/28/dnt.sc.boating.accident.wsoc?hpt=C2
I kind of liked all the stupid jokes, made those two look like the morons they are while the "pro-gunners" tried to make legitimate arguments under the screaming. Reminds me of a kid with his fingers in his ears, "nah nah nah I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"
Byte Stryke
06-29-2010, 08:44
I wanted to punch the slippery-slope scare-tactic bitch right in the fucking head.
Arming Babies in Bars?
Does she really think that Legal and legitimate gun owners would do this?
and they always bring up Bambi and Assault weapons...
Sometimes it isn't Bambi... Its a Gang Member, and he has an illegal assault weapon....
I couldn't finish the video. Stupid gives me a headache.
CrufflerSteve
06-29-2010, 09:11
Ahem
The 14th Amendment of that Constitution thingy everyone is always so fired up about....
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
So ya cant just pass a law usurping/bypassing. negating or otherwise making invalid the provisions and protections of the U.S. Constitution because ya feel like it.
Just Sayin...
Yes the constitution can be usurped/bypassed. Just narrow the focus of a part. The Privileges or Immunities Clause that you highlight was pretty much restricted to nothing by the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, very early in the life of the 14th. The decision yesterday was actually a 4-1-4 split. Thomas wanted to use the P or I clause. 4 others applied the due process part and it became pro-gun. Here's a discussion of it http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=4744
One reason the NRA muscled into the case was to push the due process part. The original people pushing this were trying to overturn Slaughter-House. It was billed as the fight between the constitution nuts and the gun nuts. I can understand. If the Supremes had been pushed too hard they might have ruled the other way or ducked. If they would have found using the P and I all sorts of laws could have been overturned. (Actually, it would have been a lot of fun.)
Steve
Its a sad day when the The Supreme Court of the United States of America rules on whether its citizens have the right to own firearms and 4 of them say we don't...
Sad, sad, sad, indeed........
This wasn't just about the right to bear arms. This was also a decision, or indecision, on what power the 14th Amendment should have. Hence the reason for the split. And it was really 4-1-4. The majority couldn't even agree on how the 14th Amendment should apply.
And do you really think this will change anything in Chicago or anywhere else? The ruling, just like Heller, still allows government to have "reasonable" gun-control measures in place. Reasonable? DC shows you what reasonable means. Even after Heller handguns are still essentially banned in that city. Anytime a right has "reasonable" controls it becomes nothing more than a privilege.
A truly conservative and 'pro gun' majority would have simply affirmed the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental individual right that cannot be infringed with 'reasonable' controls. Yet they chose not to upset the balance of power that favors the government. They can still take away our rights by instituting 'reasonable' controls.
buffalobo
06-29-2010, 16:49
This wasn't just about the right to bear arms. This was also a decision, or indecision, on what power the 14th Amendment should have. Hence the reason for the split. And it was really 4-1-4. The majority couldn't even agree on how the 14th Amendment should apply.
And do you really think this will change anything in Chicago or anywhere else? The ruling, just like Heller, still allows government to have "reasonable" gun-control measures in place. Reasonable? DC shows you what reasonable means. Even after Heller handguns are still essentially banned in that city. Anytime a right has "reasonable" controls it becomes nothing more than a privilege.
A truly conservative and 'pro gun' majority would have simply affirmed the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental individual right that cannot be infringed with 'reasonable' controls. Yet they chose not to upset the balance of power that favors the government. They can still take away our rights by instituting 'reasonable' controls.
Which is what they will attempt to do.
Well you see, this is actually increasing the Federal Government's power... telling the states what to do. They're basically overiding the states right. Even though it's for a good thing.
How is this an increase to the power of the fed? are you suggesting that a state or city should be able regulate my other rights too, like free speach, or just the second amendment? Somebody please correct me if im wrong, but in easy terms, the 14th says that the states can not be more strict on these rights, they apply to everywhere, and all levels of government in this nation. Basically, Massachusetts can't say no free speach, New York City can't say that illegal search and seizure is now OK. So why should a Chicago suburb be able to say your second amendment rights are not valid in their city? As i see it, this is a huge win, by overthrowing a city law that should have never been passed because it was unconstitutional. I just wish it had been a little more lopsided in our favor! Either way, glad to see the supreme court doing their job even I it did take 30 years and they still seem to be scratching their noggins!
theGinsue
06-30-2010, 08:00
Anyone that doesn't believe in the importance of voting just has to look at the court decision split, 5-4 along conservative/liberal lines. Send Mr. "O" packing next election before we have another judge retire and he gets to stack the deck against the law abiding citizen.
a 5-4 ruling isn't nessecarily a grand slam... That's downright scary to me...
It's my understanding that the Supreme Court chose to address this case BEFORE their summer break (which began Tuesday) because they knew that, upon their return, there would be a new member of the Supreme Court (Kagan) - a member who is clearly anti-gun. Had this case been heard with Kagan on the Court, the vote would most likely have gone the other way.
No, 5-4 is not a "grand slam", as we, citizens, should have (but knew better) expected. This just proves once again that any of your "Rights" can be taken away at any time by a governmental body and while the Supreme Court will return some of those rights after a lengthy legal battle, you'll never have the same measure of freedom you had before the fight began.
some of these anti gunners are simply cracked in the head
they disagree with the ruling and have absolutely nothing coherent or relevant to say about it, they just spout sarcasm over and over and claim victory.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/06/28/dnt.sc.boating.accident.wsoc?hpt=C2
That's because the finding is so watered down, just as the finding in the Heller vs the District of Columbia case that the anti-gunners HAVE won a victory. In their findings on this case, the Supreme Court
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html
Indeed, over the course of 200 pages of opinions, the court did not even decide the constitutionality of the two gun control laws at issue in the case, from Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The justices returned the case to the lower courts to decide whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the possession of handguns, can be reconciled with the Second Amendment.
In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/richard_m_daley/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said he was disappointed by the ruling because it made the city’s handgun ban “unenforceable.”
This decision hasn't slowed Chicago down one bit. On Tuesday, the city of Chicago was already bustling to establish NEW gun control legislation to maintain as many restrictions on firearm ownership/possession as possible while just barely meeting the new rules. I expect the citizens of Chicago will be met with the same nonsensicle, overly restrictive, rules that the people of D.C. have had to face since the Heller decision. In effect, few actual changes for the citizens will occur.
The anti-gunners are declaring a victory in this case and they very well should. The Court stated that "reasonable restrictions" to the Second Amendment were okay. Since the decision has been made and the findings have been posted with this "reasonable restrictions" clause, your Right has been limited and the door is open for future restrctions on your Right.
The Second Amendment clearly states that there can be NO "reasonable restrictions" to this Right by including "shall not be infringed" into this amendment. It is this writers opinion that ANY restriction is an infringement - period!
While its possible (however unlikely) that the definition of the word "infringe" has changed over the past 200+ years, the current definition of this word by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is:
Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringing) : violation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violation)
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
Doesn't a restriction meet the definition of infringement? You be the judge. The justices of our nations highest court already have, and the result is that YOU lose.
Mutt: Sorry for essentially repeating what you posted. I just read the first page of posts before making my own post so I missed your response. You are dead on with your comments!
A truly conservative and 'pro gun' majority would have simply affirmed the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental individual right that cannot be infringed with 'reasonable' controls. Yet they chose not to upset the balance of power that favors the government. They can still take away our rights by instituting 'reasonable' controls.
And this is precisely why (1) the anti's are so sure they've won a victory here and (2) you should be afraid as now every "right" is subject to "reasonable restrictions". Sadly, YOU don't get to decide what is deemed "reasonable"; that's the governments job.
It's my understanding that the Supreme Court chose to address this case BEFORE their summer break (which began Tuesday) because they knew that, upon their return, there would be a new member of the Supreme Court (Kagan) - a member who is clearly anti-gun. Had this case been heard with Kagan on the Court, the vote would most likely have gone the other way.
Didn't the member that Kagan will be replacing vote against though?
theGinsue
06-30-2010, 12:00
I do believe that you are correct.
I didn't say that the logic they are said to have used made any sense, just that this is what the buzz is for why it was addressed when it was.
Byte Stryke
06-30-2010, 17:19
I Still say that the reasoning and logical conservatives and moderates legislate a law that requires all Democrats and other miscellaneous liberal freaks to register to vote in the exact same manner that we have to apply for a CCW.
One civil liberty for another
funkfool
07-01-2010, 14:04
The Uninvited Ombudsman's Analysis of the McDonald v. Chicago Decision
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Co-author--
The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! (w/Dave Kopel)
Co-author--
Supreme Court Gun Cases (w/Kopel and Stephen Halbrook)
June 30, 2010
http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2010/07/the-uninvited-ombudsmans-analysis-of-the-mcdonald-v-chicago-decision.html#more
A bit long but a good read...
Prairiedogsfearme
07-02-2010, 21:14
Husain O, said that we would have change. He just didn’t say it would be change we would be willing to go for. All hail the great “O” he knows what is good for us and that lord (or in his case ALAH) that we don’t need the constitution, and the bill of rights is just a little hindrance. Soon my people it will be the United Socialistic Republic of “O”. And to make things better these idiots are lapping up his bullshit & telling us that these roses are good for us. Is it too late to vote twice?[Swim]
Here's Chicago's idea of reasonable controls:
The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.
Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers.
Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.
Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.
Sounds like nothing's changed. So much for Scotus standing up for our rights. More like paying lip service while maintaining the status quo. And of course every thug and criminal will continue to ignore these controls, maintaining the city's high standing when it comes to murder and violent crimes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.