Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Opinion Today

[edge]

IMO, had not Bush won (with all of his faults), Gore/Kerry would not have nominated a Roberts or an Alito. Instead we would have had two more Ginsburgs and this ruling would have been decided VERY poorly for us!

I suppose that McCain can be counted on for an O'Connor and probably not a Roberts NOR a Ginsburg, but after Obama we might pray for an O'connor!

edge.

 

[royinidaho]

In celebration of the day and in happiness for those who live in areas were HGs were not allowed I went against my better judgement, I really wanted a better set of binos but bought me a Springfield Armory XD subcompact 9mm.

I had the subcompact, two other XDs a Baretta Cougar and another Beretta and the binos.

Sorted things out and ended up w/the HD Subcompact. Pretty sweet.

Congradulations to all of you DC guys

 

[Pdvdh]

Good idea,

Think I'll go buy an AR15 of some sort. Take advantage of the moment. The one good thing about the high cost of gas is that it starts to make the rifles look less and less expensive.

I've been looking at getting an XD in 40 S&W. Still may end up with one of those too.

 

[jwp475]

In all seriousness, if that's the ruling from the Supreme Court, then how can there be any restrictions on any Americans who want to own a firearm? Does this mean that felons will be able to legally possess firearms now?

The decision allow reasonable restriction but, a ban is a denial of your rights. Machine gun ownership has restrictions, they are not banned.

 

[Nvhunter]

2nd amendment does not guarantee your rights

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatsoever purpose.

Now Don't Start! I did not come up with that idea. That is a direct quote from the Supreme Court Decision today 6/26/2004. I suggest that you take the time to read it directly on our Supreme Court Website.

www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If a decision Had To Be made. It appears that it was a good one for Mr. Heller in Washington D.C. My personal opinion is that debating whether the 2nd amendment, stating that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms really means that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms is equilavent to debating if the sky is blue.

What I fear is that this opens up the discussion to: What qualifies a legal "arms". Also the Supreme Court stated loosely quoted, criminals and the mentaly unstable have no right to arms and arms cannot be carried into sensitive areas.

Now. Who will decide whether you are mentaly stable. What constitutes which degree of criminal. What about an unpaid parking outstanding warrant? That makes you a criminal in the eyes of the court. Finally, tell me who decides if any or all areas are determined to be sensitive. I fear that this decision transfers the authority from the US Constitution to verbal interpretation of the details by the courts.

I pray this decision supports our rights to responsible freedom. But do not let down your guard. Government is incrementally encroaching upon our personal freedoms. The struggle to maintain personal freedom will continue. Make an effort to FULLY inform yourself of your representatives (Local State and Federal) actions. Vote with an informed decision this next go around.

 

[dbhostler]

It's about time that something good like this happens to the people of restricted cities like DC, Chicago and Frisco. Have always cringed to hear of citizens prosecuted for defending themselves and their families. NRA says they're taking them to court. They now have the ammo, so to speak. All I can say is I hope they make them eat it! It will be a pleasure to see these people crying in front of the cameras. Mr. Jackson, if you read this, you can go first!
db

Update:
The ISRA has filed suit in Federal Court in Chicago and the mayor was the first to cry.
db

 

[EddieHarren]

DC Gun Laws

On yesterday's news (local Wash DC staion) they mentioned the upcoming decision every 10 minutes. This morning not a word. Hmmmm?

 

[7mmSendaro]

Well put! After all the Chicago hand gun ban has totally eliminated gun crime in Chicago.........................................

It's about time that something good like this happens to the people of restricted cities like DC, Chicago and Frisco. Have always cringed to hear of citizens prosecuted for defending themselves and their families. NRA says they're taking them to court. They now have the ammo, so to speak. All I can say is I hope they make them eat it! It will be a pleasure to see these people crying in front of the cameras. Mr. Jackson, if you read this, you can go first!
db

Update:
The ISRA has filed suit in Federal Court in Chicago and the mayor was the first to cry.
db

 

[davewilson]

in my opinion, this was not a very good thing. OK, it passed to our liking, but it only went through with a 5-4 decision. the supreme court has become an untouchable entity. they're supposed to interpret the law, not make it up. 4 of these a-holes voted against this and it should have been a 9-0 as is spelled out very clearly in the constitution. this just scares the bejevees out of me. Ol Barry gets in there with a majority in congress and our guns are on the way out.

 

[silvertip-co]

The PEOPLE won, the commies lost. And pay your NRA dues.

 

[kcebcj]

in my opinion, this was not a very good thing. OK, obvioucly it passed to our liking, but it only went through with a 5-4 decision. the supreme court has become an untouchable entity. they're supposed to interpret the law, not make it up. 4 of these a-holes voted against this and it should have been a 9-0 as is spelled out very clearly in the constitution. this just scares the bejevees out of me. Ol Barry gets in there with a majority in congress and our guns are on the way out.

I agree with the statement above. 5-4 is not a good deal even if it went our way. In the future it will be a struggle at best.

 

[jwp475]

It will always be a battle to keep our rights in general but, a victory is a victory. The scary part is that 4 Judges interpreted the constitution to fit the polictical views.
Make no mistake the decision was a great victory for individual rights as well as for firearm ownership.

 

[edge]

In a vacuum, a lawyer could easily argue both sides!

This CLEARLY NOT a vacuum! Our Founding Fathers used words judiciously. When they wrote The State, that meant that it was the Government ( or the States ), but not an individual right or duty. When they wrote The People, it meant just that!!!!!!

They also meant that this was not a right granted by the Constitution, but a Right that pre-dated the Constitution!

The 12 Original Amendments were offered all at once, the First, had no more force than the twelfth. Ten were adopted, NOT the First, and NOT the Second, but the Third thru the Twelve!
When some SOB want to tell you that the First is the First, tell him it is really the Third!

edge.

 

[dbhostler]

Unless I missed something, the decission was 5 to 4 in favor that the 2nd ammendment was ruled a right of an indiviual to keep and bear without being a member of a military group. This is a landmark decission that will make it impossible for the government to disarm the ordinary citizen. If the ruleing went the other way, the process would have begun to disarm all not authorized by the government to keep and bear as has happened in other nations in the last 80 years. This truly was a victory for the gun owners of America.
db