• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Big Blow For Liberals

Mike

Well-known member
The Supreme Court has ruled that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and upheld the lower court's decision!

Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginzburg dissented!

Scalia wrote the opinion, can't wait to read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This was not a surprise to me- I actually thought that more might rule in favor of it-as it was apparent after oral arguments that the Supreme Court wasn't buying the guns for militia only B.S.- and that this was an individual right...

Could open up a whole bunch of gun related cases and rulings- on what the governments right to limit is-- machine guns? insane persons? convicted felons? convicted felons that have been restored their rights? :???:

A lot depends on the wording of their ruling....

Could be interesting....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Turned tv on-- sounds like this is a narrow ruling on a broad right-- still allows limits on firearms- and allows limits like felons, insane, waiting periods, packing in government buildings, etc. etc., but upholds the individuals right to own and possess a firearm for protection of your person and home.....

But the pundits are saying the same as I just did-- they believe it will open up a huge number of challenges on points that weren't ruled on....

Going to depend on what Judges rule from now on are "reasonable" limits...
Scalia reportedly said that the owning of a handgun in your house for your protection is considered "reasonable"...
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
How is this a blow for liberals? Certainly a blow for those legislators who want to disarm everyone everywhere, but most liberals I know are hunters and shooters as well as armed forces veterans and who are willing to defend themselves......just like me.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by facts.
 

woranch

Well-known member
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 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 struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went 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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
How is this a blow for liberals? Certainly a blow for those legislators who want to disarm everyone everywhere, but most liberals I know are hunters and shooters as well as armed forces veterans and who are willing to defend themselves......just like me.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by facts.

You think it was conservatives behind the various gun control laws?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Goodpasture said:
How is this a blow for liberals? Certainly a blow for those legislators who want to disarm everyone everywhere, but most liberals I know are hunters and shooters as well as armed forces veterans and who are willing to defend themselves......just like me.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by facts.

You think it was conservatives behind the various gun control laws?

Oh I'm sure there were many conservatives backing several of them--laws like the possession of firearms by felons and the insane were backed by some of the most conservative law enforcement groups...Several of these same groups have/are supporting easing the ability to get records to prevent these folks from getting guns too...

So far this sounds like a very good- very reasonable- well thought out decision....The best part of it, is it sets precedent saying the Constitution gives an individual the right to own and bear arms- and clears up some of the murky water always being brought up about militias.....
 

NMRANCHER

Well-known member
woranch said:
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

I thought this was a DEMOCRACY.

In 1776 the colonies fought a King George to Make us one.

We, as a country had many battles and wars to keep one.

So, WHO in their right mind would want our so called ELECTED officials to RULE over us...?

It has been my opinion that the Second Amendment is there to protect the citizens from the Tyranny of those that wish absolute power gained by subversion of the electriate or taken by misuse or their powers to make laws detrimental to the life of the republic.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure ALL the tools were available for citizens to use against government if they had to. Stevens doesn't realize that the framers set up a government to be ruled from the bottom up, not the top down.

That guy does't impress me much.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Mike said:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and upheld the lower court's decision!

Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginzburg dissented!

Scalia wrote the opinion, can't wait to read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like this would have happened if Obama was elected and had the opportunity to change the make up of the Supreme Court.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal said:
Mike said:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and upheld the lower court's decision!

Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginzburg dissented!

Scalia wrote the opinion, can't wait to read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like this would have happened if Obama was elected and had the opportunity to change the make up of the Supreme Court.

You never know- the most liberal, legislate from the bench Supreme Court Justice I know of- was a die hard very popular Republican politician appointed by a Republican President- Eisenhower--- Chief Justice Earl Warren....

Remember who gave us the Miranda warning, court appointed taxpayer funded public defenders, Brown vs the Board of Education- outlawing segregation, reapportionment and gerrymandering, 100's of search and seizure rulings- including a broad expansion of the exclusionary rule both on seized evidence and on confessions , etc., etc?

The main factor in choosing a Supreme Court Justice should be knowledge of the law and the Constitution-- not what their politics are- or how much of a partisan supporter they've been...
 
Top