The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,532 Posts
Most importantly, this was another 5-4 vote by the SCOTUS.

Whenever you hear Democrats say they are not against gun ownership, just look at these votes. Democrats are against gun ownership, Period!!

If we ever lose the majority on the SCOTUS, and there is a Dem majority, you can kiss your guns goodbye. These rulings will immediately be challenged, and will lose 5-4.

Democrats who think Dem politicians have no interest in taking away their guns are fools!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
The key part of this decision is the extension of the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms to State and Local laws.

NRA and others will have to file still more suits to clean up these laws, but in the end, this decision should finally put to rest the idea that it is a collective and not an individual right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,634 Posts
I am very happy with the decision, but I agree with John Henry, very narrow margin of victory and anti-gun politicians will keep trying to get more of their own on the SCOTUS. But at least for now are rights are protected, we just have to keep it that way.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
The woman who is being interviewed now for the vacant SC seat is very anti 2nd amendment, if she makes it and I have no doubt she will, the next 2nd amendment cast to go before the SC may have a very different outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,784 Posts
I don't think it will make that much difference John, She is replacing Stevens..Whose last day was today and he was one of the four vote minority.

I just don't want to see Obama naming a replacement for a conservative justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
She'll merely be replacing a sitting Commie-Lib justice, so no gain nor loss.

What many of us worry about, is Obama having the opportunity to replace any one of the sitting five justices that voted in the majority.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Yep, we would be in much better shape if this one was not a lefty as well. We shouldn't have to worry about the balance of left and right on the court, they should all be neutral on political leanings and committed to upholding the intent of the founders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,330 Posts
Yep luckily this time she'll just be replacing another commie.
We gotta get rid of O'bama next election.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
If they all stuck to interpreting the constitutionality of legislation when needed, rather than "legislating from the bench", the nation would be far better off.

Probably depends on one's perspective?

Back in the 50s and 60s, the passage of Civil Rights legislation granting the same rights to minorities, that us ol' honkies already had, would've taken forever.

About the only instance of "judicial activism" I can think of in my lifetime, that was justified. Just my opinion, everyone else is free to have their opinions.

Far as I'm concerned, the Second Amendment speaks for itself and means exactly what it says: We have the right to keep and bear arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
I gotta believe that the founding fathers were all conservatives by our definition today.

Why can't we have that again?

A great day for all interested in TRUE PERSONAL FREEDOM!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
Actually, most of them would be considered radical revolutionaries, just as they were by the British in the 1770s. Conservative by today's standards, only in their dedication to the original tenants of the US Constitution, as finally adopted in 1778.

I suspect most of them would regard what our government has now become, to be more repressive than the British government was, that sparked the Revolution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
do any one know what the court actually made clear..only that all citizens could keep and bear arms in there homes..nothing more..said that states could pass some laws example they would proably up hold a law for registration..etc...

now what do you think the constitution says and actually means..

they just may have help those that want regulation on the selling of guns.. at gun shows...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
<a href="http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/" target="_blank">In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.



</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/28/john-lott-supreme-court-guns-ban-washington-chicago-daley-kagan-sotomayor/" target="_blank">With another closely decided 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that state governments are not able to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The court ruled that firearms are "essential for self-defense." The court found that if the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own a gun, the notion that the government can't ban all handguns is the minimum protection the Constitution can offer.

The decision is an important win for Americans who want the right to self-defense, but the decision also indicates how many questions still must be answered.

The expected narrowness of the court's decision today had already encouraged Mayor Richard Daley and the city of Chicago to threaten last week to effectively undo the Supreme Court decision with new regulations.

Daley promised to quickly adopt all the regulations that Washington adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down, as well as some additional ones. To get a handgun permit in Washington, applicants must pay fees over $550, make four trips to the police station, and take two different tests.

Taking the court's 2008 decision that all handguns can't be banned, Washington went so far as to still ban all semi-automatic handguns that can hold a clip. Chicago plans on doing the same but adding a requirement that gun owners buy insurance that covers any incidents that might arise from the weapon.

Obviously, if Chicago were to impose any tax on newspapers, the courts would strike it down as an infringement on free speech.

But the new Chicago and Washington gun "fees" will be allowed until the Supreme Court revisits that issue.

</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Wrong - this was not the decision.

Post deleted.

Looking...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
<a href="http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13956" target="_blank">Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago


Monday, June 28, 2010


Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.

The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment -- as every citizen’s constitutional right -- is now a real part of American Constitutional law.

But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.

The intent of the founding fathers -- and the Supreme Court -- was to provide access. Words must have meaning.

The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

We are practical guys. We don’t want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes – anywhere they live!

This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.

The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.

What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you can’t buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?

Here’s a piece of paper – protect yourself. That’s no right at all!

Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose.


</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,309 Posts
John S said:
We shouldn't have to worry about the balance of left and right on the court, they should all be neutral on political leanings and committed to upholding the intent of the founders.
In a nutshell. But we realize things for what they are not what sould be.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top