What's new

til they change the balance of the court

hdroadglide

BoM x 2, BoY 2011
Rating - 100%
514   0   0
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
10,486
Location
south of KCMO
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:21 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said 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 the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
 

CAJoe

King Dude
Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
2,350
Location
Olivehurst, CA
Alito wrote a good Majority Decision. The Dissenting Decisions were outright frustrating. One of them complained that in a democracy where people can vote the way they want why should a court make this decision. That shows that the judge does not realize that that is what the Bill of Rights is there for, to keep our rights no matter what is put into law. I don't know what the judge was thinking when he wrote that. It is good to see one of our basic rights held up for the right to bare arms protects all of our other freedoms. Unfortunatle in CA where all handguns must be registered they are now working on requiring all rifles and shotguns to be registered. Well as far as the government knows I got none...
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   1
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
2,403
Location
Plainville, MA
Tell that to the peoples republic of Massachuesetts. Its really hard here. Me and a friend came home from shooting to meet people to work on his condo. Well the next time they were scheduled to come and his wife took time off from work they noshowed. She called and asked WTF? They said that her workers felt threatened because of the two large tattoed men that were there cleaning multiple firearms at the kitchen table. She said that they looked like they just got out of jail and were going to hurt someone. Heres the kicker, you ready for this one, My friend is sleeved as I am but instead of being a chef hes a STATE COP. Stupid asshats.
 

Ratbert

BoM Oct '07
Rating - 100%
107   0   0
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
1,508
Location
Too far from the mountains
Clarence Thomas hit the proverbial nail on the head with his Privileges & Immunities opinion. The dissenters are frustrating, as they just don't get it...but I'll take 5-4. Time to keep laying another row of blocks and and little by little, overturn these bad laws.

Can't wait to see what ridiculous parameters Chicago sets for registration, ownership, storage, etc. Then we'll challenge again.
 

Fox

BoM May '07
Rating - 100%
70   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
1,827
Location
Northwest
It is great that the 2nd is now incorporated. I had a chance to glance through some of the dissents yesterday and was appalled at some of the reasoning. My first thought was "How ignorant of history can these justices be?" Ginsberg in particular came across as an angry, petulant child with no concept of sovereignty, liberty or individual rights.
 

Jwrussell

April '05 BoM
Rating - 100%
105   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
9,828
Location
Tampa, FL
If the Dissents irked you, check out Scalia's rebuttle to Steven's dissent. It's his concurring opinion. If you open up the PDF from the SCOTUS site it starts around page 55 or so of the document. Absolutely wonderful. Scary that someone like Stevens was ever in such a position though considering the damn loopy concepts he has.
 
Top