Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

Grassroots democracy. We need to secure our country from the global elites. Act now! Get informed.

Moderator: Super Moderators

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 06-27-2008 10:22 AM

I own guns and rifles and have since I was quite young. With ownership comes responsibility. It is one thing to own a gun, but you also have to know how to take care of one and how to use it.

The 175 page report takes time to read and I truly have to wonder about the four judges who voted negatively....

---
Heard Chicago mayor was very upset - yet Chicago has one of the highest crime rates - hasn't he read stats from other cities where legal ownership exists - their crime rates are down.
---

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 06-27-2008 10:33 AM

Kaztronic wrote: So for now, I guess I support this decision...


Gee whiz, that's good news. Are you supporting amendments 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 - for now - as well?

The 2nd is crystal clear. If the day has come when we no longer want the typical citizen to be armed (and it may have come) there is only one way to disarm the public legally, and it has nothing to do with "interpretation" of the second amendment!
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

Swerdloc
Pirate
Posts: 4445
Joined: 05-07-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Swerdloc » 06-27-2008 11:20 AM

SquidInk wrote: Gee whiz, that's good news. Are you supporting amendments 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 - for now - as well?

The 2nd is crystal clear. If the day has come when we no longer want the typical citizen to be armed (and it may have come) there is only one way to disarm the public legally, and it has nothing to do with "interpretation" of the second amendment!


Kaztronic was commenting on whether he supported the SCOTUS's decision, not the 2nd amendment or any other.

The language of the 2nd amendment is anything but clear, as even Justice Scalia explicitly noted in his opinion. It might be clear if it stated: "The right of the people [or, even clearer, the citizen] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But it does not. It says:

“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."

So it is arguable that what this is referrring to it is a right of the people, collectively rather than individually, and then only to ensure that we can have a citizen militia, one that is well regulated. At least, the "militia" and "regulated" notions are mentioned before the right to bear arms. Of course, things are not as they were in 1787, and about the closest thing we have to a Militia is the National Guard, most of which has been sent to Iraq.:rolleyes:

All that being said, I believe the SCOTUS ruled correctly and reasonably. Individual, responsible ownership of firearms--for protection, hunting, recreation, and peace of mind--has been a cherished principle of American life since before the Revolution.

It is heartening to see Justice Scalia and the other four conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy) actually supporting individual rights for a change. Usually that's what we depend upon Stevens, Breyer (both of whom wrote dissenting opinions), Ginsburg, and Souter for. So don't be too quick to kick those last four off the bench--we might need them in the not too distant future.
Last edited by Swerdloc on 06-27-2008 11:45 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Anchors Aweigh

User avatar
Iris
Pirate
Posts: 13539
Joined: 01-01-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Iris » 06-27-2008 03:04 PM

Live365 wrote: Humdallah,


Never having heard that expression before, I had to look it up. Are you Arabic?

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 06-27-2008 03:19 PM

Swerdloc wrote: Kaztronic was commenting on whether he supported the SCOTUS's decision, not the 2nd amendment or any other.


Yes, and anyone "supporting" a decision which upholds a two hundred year old, "interpretation" could be said to be supporting the 2nd, for now... no?

It's splitting hairs. I was ribbing over the choice of the words - "for now".
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

bonzelite
Pirate
Posts: 95
Joined: 06-25-2008 01:31 AM

Post by bonzelite » 06-27-2008 05:01 PM

Maybe there is hope for the sovereignty of this nation after all. They also reinstated Habeas Corpus. Thank God for the more conservative judges as they are probably the ones who upheld the 2nd.

We the People don't want the USA to become emasculated and disarmed like the UK, where once they took away your gun, violent gun crime and murders went up.

It ought to be a LAW that you OWN a gun, actually.

User avatar
whskyfan
Pirate
Posts: 2767
Joined: 06-22-2006 11:27 PM

Post by whskyfan » 06-28-2008 09:03 AM

Gun group sues San Francisco, Chicago over gun bans
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A day after the Supreme Court struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., the National Rifle Association gun rights group filed lawsuits on Friday in San Francisco and Chicago against gun bans there.
"The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said in a statement. "These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words."
The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions barring possession of handguns by public housing residents.
The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban similar to the Washington, D.C., law struck down by the Supreme Court. The NRA also filed lawsuits challenging gun restrictions in the Chicago suburbs of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.
"In Washington, D.C., or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," Cox said. "These laws all deny that right."
In its 5-4 decision, the court held that individual Americans have a right to own guns, a finding that struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.
The landmark ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years the high court addressed the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and rejected the argument that the amendment's right to keep and bear arms is tied to service in a state militia.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said he had expected the decision to open the door for a challenge to his city's gun laws.
"I intend to fight any NRA lawsuit that challenges our common-sense gun laws every step of the way," he said in a statement.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera echoed Newsom.
"On the basis of the law as it exists today, I am confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges," Herrera said in a statement.

Link
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 4B1L17Y 704D4P7 70 CH4NG3.
-573PH3N H4WK1NG

Conspiracy Theorist
Pirate
Posts: 264
Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Conspiracy Theorist » 06-30-2008 04:53 PM

The 2nd Amendment was added to the constitution in 1791. Up until now, there has not been a definitive ruling as to whether the right to bear arms guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment was a collective right of states or an individual right to arms for self-defense. Here is the exact wording:

"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."

A little history: The wording of this amendment was a compromise between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were close personal friends, but frequent political adversaries.

At founding, the United States had no standing army in times of peace. Thomas Jefferson, a student of European History, understood that standing armies often staged coups. John Adams wanted a full-time standing army. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms as a compromise so that those with guns could be quickly called up as part of the militia, an intended substitute for a standing Army. Jefferson had no objection to a standing Navy. He wrote one last sentence to the 2nd, which was deleted as a compromise with Adams. That sentence, if included, would have read, "No Standard Army shall be permitted, except in times of declared war."

It's a close call, and the ruling was 5 to 4 in favor of the 2nd being an individual right. Understanding the history of the Amendment, however, I'm afraid that if I were one of the Supremes, I would have come down on the side of the right to bear arms as being a collective right of states in order to quickly raise militias.

Post Reply

Return to “American Survival”