Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: Supreme Court Affirms Gun Rights
06-28-10, 12:04 PM #1
Supreme Court Affirms Gun RightsThe Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said 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. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.Pleasing nobody, one person at a time.
That which does not kill me, better start fucking running.
If I lived every day like it was my last, the body count would be staggering.
I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones
Hunt the wolf, and bring light to the dark places that others fear to go. LT COL Dave Grossman
06-28-10, 12:37 PM #2
The court ruled like I thought they would and kept the decision to a narrow focus. The big question is to what degree can the States and cities limit those rights and that issue wasn't addressed this time. Just like the Heller case it will only create new cases that the court will have to rule on. Some time in the future the court will likely go liberal and the 2nd Amendment individual right along with it will be gone.
06-28-10, 01:08 PM #3
SCOTUS Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (shocker!) that the Chicago handgun ban is unconstitutional.
Big win for 2nd amendment supporters.
High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban - CNN.com
06-28-10, 01:19 PM #4
I posted this in the "In the News" section because I didn't notice it here first.
I'm not surprised by the ruling, but the 5-4 margin makes me uncomfortable. We're a razors edge away from a very liberal court...
06-28-10, 01:48 PM #5
Awesome! one step closer for my state to overturn their ban on concealed carry which our state sc has already ruled unconstitutional hopefullyHe who has the money, signs the cheques.
He who signs the cheques, makes the rules.
He who makes the rules, has the power.
He who has the power, has the money.
06-28-10, 05:07 PM #6
I'm still upset that it is that narrow of a verdict.'Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a
delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly
promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely
possible to pick up a turd by the clean end!'
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” Sigmund Freud
06-28-10, 06:00 PM #7
I love the headline "Gun rights extended by...."
The SCOTUS does not extend rights any more than the constitution does.I'm your huckleberry...
Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!
You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.
I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
but every girl I found was either one way or the other...
06-30-10, 02:40 PM #8
Powerfull ruling - Full text: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I would be shocked if this part of the ruling were printed in the Chicago Tribune, Washington post, or New York Times:
The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that "the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all lawsand proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens
. . . without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.... 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasisadded).22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that "all the citizens," black and white, would have "the constitutional right to bear arms."
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as afundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three "indispensable" "safeguards of liberty under our form of Government." 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
"Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete." Ibid.Even those who thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary believed that blacks, as citizens, "have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for selfdefense." Id., at 1073 (Sen. James Nye); see also Foner258–259.25
Evidence from the period immediately following theratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirmsthat the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental.
In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: "Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty."
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)