PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights


TackleMeBen
06-26-2008, 09:56 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/busi...=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Guns.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Hammer Of The GODS
06-26-2008, 12:26 PM
The day they take away the right of honest Americans to own firearms is the day I leave this country! I'm serious!
The platform that these douchebags (rosy o'dumbass) stand on is that by banning guns in the US is going to solve the violent gun crimes commited. That whole idea is just naive and retarded! Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not illegal to purchase or sell controlled substances!?! Yet people do that all the time! Point is, that banning the sale and ownership of firearms only puts guns in the hands of criminals! It just can't be simpler than that! The war on drugs is a failure and the war on firearms would be an even worse one!

Preacher
06-26-2008, 12:29 PM
That's OK...

I am still not happy... because with a 5-4 decision... it just means that it if Obama gets in, he will put another left leaning activist on the court that will overturn the decision.

millwalldavey
06-26-2008, 12:30 PM
Thank the Libertarians for ths one!

Heller ruling a 'preservation of liberty in the United States'
Party says firearms are distinct component of the national character


Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis called the case a "landmark victory for the preservation of liberty in the United States."

The Libertarian Party was the only political party to file a brief in the case.

"Firearms are a distinct component of the American national character," says Davis. "The Libertarian Party is more than pleased to see that the Supreme Court recognizes this American tradition as an individual right, and seeks to protect it as such. Today's decision is a giant step forward in protecting the rights of millions of American gun owners."

The Libertarian Party's amicus brief, written by Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr, can be found here.

In the brief, Barr, who also serves on the board for the National Rifle Association, stated the Libertarian Party "is an established political party dedicated to a strict adherence to the Constitution," which includes "the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the defense of life, liberty and property."

The Heller decision is expected to be a major component of presidential politics in the upcoming election, and is an issue with which both presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama have struggled.

"Given that the NRA once called McCain one of the 'premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment,' it is clear which political party truly cares about the Second Amendment," says Davis. "The Bush administration has consistently tried to undermine the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and the GOP seems poised again to nominate a candidate for president with a horrible track record on gun rights."

Davis remarked that "Obama isn't any better than McCain" when it comes to the Second Amendment.

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange a media interview, please call Andrew Davis at (202) 731-0002.

revefsreleets
06-26-2008, 12:35 PM
That's OK...

I am still not happy... because with a 5-4 decision... it just means that it if Obama gets in, he will put another left leaning activist on the court that will overturn the decision.

Well, there'll need to be another case that reaches that point, and given the fact that this is the first ruling of any kind on the issue since 1791, I wouldn't hold my breath.

This precedent will probably stand for a good long time.

Preacher
06-26-2008, 12:36 PM
Well, there'll need to be another case that reaches that point, and given the fact that this is the first ruling of any kind on the issue since 1791, I wouldn't hold my breath.

This precedent will probably stand for a good long time.

I would hope so... but doubt it.

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2008, 01:55 PM
That's OK...

I am still not happy... because with a 5-4 decision... it just means that it if Obama gets in, he will put another left leaning activist on the court that will overturn the decision.

Have you read the majority opinion and dissent or did you just launch that ASAP?

How, for better or worse, is overturning what the District of Columbia imposed not "judicial activism"? I am not saying it is a bad decison; just saying "activism" is a nice shorthand for judicial actions with which someone disagrees.

http://www.slate.com/id/2193813/entry/2194352/

Moreover, "left leaning" is a nice catch phrase that does not readily lend itself to every Supreme Court decision.

E.g. - The Supreme Court yesterday threw out the conviction of a man accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend because the defendant could not challenge an incriminating account she gave the police weeks before her death. Sounds like a typical bleeding heart judge letting a murderer out on a "technicality" doesn't it?

Who wrote the majority opinion? - Antonin Scalia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062502614.html

Hammer Of The GODS
06-26-2008, 02:59 PM
Well, there'll need to be another case that reaches that point, and given the fact that this is the first ruling of any kind on the issue since 1791, I wouldn't hold my breath.

This precedent will probably stand for a good long time.

I would like to think you are right, but with the way things are now I don't think we'll have to wait very long. To many douchebags who are under the illusion that tossing out the 2nd will make for a more peaceful America.

Godfather
06-26-2008, 07:26 PM
I would hope so... but doubt it.

Think about it this way: Most of the recent decisions have been in favor of individual rights over government power. That trend is encouraging in terms of Second Amendment rights and in general.

Also, remember that a dissent doesn't necessarily mean the dissenting justice believes a ban on guns is constitutionally permissible.

TackleMeBen
06-26-2008, 07:30 PM
The platform that these douchebags (rosy o'dumbass) stand on is that by banning guns in the US is going to solve the violent gun crimes commited.
well dont rosie o'donnell's bodyguards carry weapons?? i am sure that most bodyguards carry weapons to protect their clients.

btw, i own a handgun

Atlanta Dan
06-26-2008, 07:49 PM
Think about it this way: Most of the recent decisions have been in favor of individual rights over government power. That trend is encouraging in terms of Second Amendment rights and in general.

Also, remember that a dissent doesn't necessarily mean the dissenting justice believes a ban on guns is constitutionally permissible.

And a "leftist activist" might actually respect the doctrine of stare decisis and not vote to reverse a decision simply because that Justice would have ruled differently is he or she happened to be on the Court when the previous decision was issued.

Louis Brandeis, whom some might call the original "lefist activist" wrote "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1199786729322

PisnNapalm
06-26-2008, 09:35 PM
I still don't understand why it went to the Supreme Court in the first place. The 2nd Amendment is pretty cut and dried.

The Second Amendment says: 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.

There are several interpretations of it, but one thing is crystal clear.... "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arms are the only personal property the people are guaranteed ownership of by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were very wise...

Hammer Of The GODS
06-26-2008, 09:42 PM
well dont rosie o'donnell's bodyguards carry weapons?? i am sure that most bodyguards carry weapons to protect their clients.


Exactly! These assplugs only want the "regular" people to be without the protection of a firearm!