Moderators John317 Posted June 26, 2008 Moderators Posted June 26, 2008 Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, 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 restrictions 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. Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." See the following link for the entire article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Shane Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 This ruling, above all else, shows that elections matter. If Al Gore Jr. or John Kerry had been elected it is doubtful this ruling would have went this way. Now it is precedent and will be very difficult for any future court to overturn - just as Roe v. Wade is now difficult to overturn. The ban-guns movement in America is essentially over. This is a very big victory and will make many that voted for George W. Bush feel that they have gotten something back for their vote. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
carolaa Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 I think you're basically right, although a 7-2 decision is stronger than a 5-4 decision. Quote
jasd Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 QR frame: Sheesh! but what of the rationale of the dissenting (four liberal Justices) Court? how ever, do they arrive at their opinions? And they sit on the highest court of the land – the third Branch of Govt. Sheesh! The above stated, the majority Court did not go far enough. They left in place the police powers (read: policy) of the State and of local govt: ipso...,the mind-numbing maze of permit processing, registration, regulations, excessive taxing, etc..., effectively controlling and/or denying the individual right to defense of person (never mind property). That is – without even addressing the ever-increasing difficulty obtaining ammunition (OSHA interference) for those Supreme Court restated ‘rights’. It hardly needs mention that guns require ammunition. “What the King gives, the King may take” gives pause to placing the question of inalienable rights before the Court. "Ideas are more powerful than guns. If we do not allow our enemies to have guns, why should we let them have ideas?". – Stalin Re: >>service in a state militia.<< As presently constituted, the popular conception of ‘state militia’ devolves to the National Guard. US Civil Codes disallows that interpretation as the National Guard receives remuneration (monie$) from the Feds. That’s a no-no re militia. In fact, the militia is comprised of every male citizen who is physically able and is between certain limiting ages. Further, it is incumbent upon this constituted militia to provide for his own weapon and ammunition which is in common use – ready to assemble in the town square in times of National Emergency. Since the Civil Rights Act, the definition of ‘militia’ applies across the board to all equally qualifying females. That’s y'all, ladies Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.