Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 06-26-2008 11:28 AM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Full Story

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washi ... tml?ref=us

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 06-26-2008 02:35 PM

Those evil conservative judges just saved the 2nd Amendment....how's it feel?

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 06-26-2008 03:03 PM

It wouldn't have mattered to me because I would still be a gun owner no matter how they ruled.:p

Iris · Post by **Iris** » 06-26-2008 06:02 PM

HB3 wrote: Those evil conservative judges just saved the 2nd Amendment....how's it feel?

You should go to the largest Democratic board on the web -- are we allowed to say it's underground name or not? -- and type "guns" in the search engine. You'll find a whole board devoted to pro-second amendment folks there. Yes, on a liberal site.

The decision was far closer than it should have been and the judges who voted against our rights would be dismissed from the bench (and more things I can think of but won't say here) in a just world. Of course, this isn't a just world so they'll keep right on living on a much better salary than you and I will ever see, at our expense.

pennylane7 · Post by **pennylane7** » 06-26-2008 06:44 PM

I was surprised and amazed. I still would have kept my gun anyway!

badspell · Post by **badspell** » 06-26-2008 06:49 PM

Gee I don't even own guns

but for those of you that do. Congratulations.

whskyfan · Post by **whskyfan** » 06-26-2008 08:20 PM

YES!!! A step in the right direction.

Shirleypal · Post by **Shirleypal** » 06-26-2008 08:41 PM

Great news, I don't own a gun anymore but grew up with guns, learned to target shoot, skeet and clay pigeons.....I was a decent shot but my sister had a natural ability...gave up trying to beat her.

vigo · Post by **vigo** » 06-26-2008 09:03 PM

HB3 wrote: Those evil conservative judges just saved the 2nd Amendment....how's it feel?

Interesting how you worded this...how do you feel?

I have mixed feelings. Some distinct feelings for the evil conservative judges and different distinct feelings about the second amendment.

Live365 · Post by **Live365** » 06-26-2008 09:41 PM

Teacher told me, in I believe the fifth grade, that the Second Amendment was among the most important of the Amendments to our Constitution. Giving the People the right to bear arms was the only insurance that the People would be able to fight an oppressive governement. Indeed, in all dictatorships throughout time, the first tactic was to take away the right of the People to defend themselves.

I do not own a gun. Hope I'll never have to. They scare me. But my father always kept a 12-gage (spelling?) underneath the bed. Humdallah, he never needed to use it. But it was there for the protection of his family. He had that right.

Put yerself at Columbine. Or on a September 11th plane. Or at Virginia Tech. Or at the Westroads Mall in Omaha last December. If you'd had a gun and could have stopped them, how many lives would you have saved? How many?

Depsite the consequences -- of which many I can see -- I agree with this decision today.

Jon-Marcus · Post by **Jon-Marcus** » 06-26-2008 10:37 PM

Live,

I do not own a gun. Hope I'll never have to. They scare me.

Don't be. Guns are inanimate objects, No more dangerous that a baseball.
Dumb or disturbed people with guns ARE dangerous.

Put yerself at Columbine. Or on a September 11th plane. Or at Virginia Tech. Or at the Westroads Mall in Omaha last December. If you'd had a gun and could have stopped them, how many lives would you have saved? How many?

If only I could have. Alas, at all those places you named us "law abiding citizens" are NOT allowed to carry a gun.
Still, I believe I would have tried to save as many lives as possible, even at the cost of my own.

rumike · Post by **rumike** » 06-26-2008 10:38 PM

Live365 wrote: Giving the People the right to bear arms was the only insurance that the People would be able to fight an oppressive governement. Indeed, in all dictatorships throughout time, the first tactic was to take away the right of the People to defend themselves.

I'm not worried about private ownership of most guns, although I certainly do think they should be regulated. I am glad that the justices allowed for gun regulations to remain.

However, this justification by your teacher, Live365, is one I've heard before, and I just don't get it. Access to weapons like pistols and rifles was certainly effective in earlier times. The French Revolution is Exhibit "A" in that regard. If the peasents wouldn't have gained access to the Bastille things might have turned out very differently.

But today - what would a gun owner do, facing down a blackhawk helicopter? It's just not going to work. A guy with small arms fire just ain't going to put up a restitance to the strongest military power on earth. It's just an unrealistic notion, IMO.

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 06-26-2008 11:12 PM

We own two--a hand gun and a rifle. Neither are registered in the State of CA because they are that old... (lol) But we keep them cleaned, keep the ammo fresh, and keep them handy. I've threatened a few trespassers, from time to time, but never had to do more than "cock the hammer" because it's so loud, they run for their lives.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 06-27-2008 12:38 AM

It will take ten years probably, but this decision may finally help us work out the long-standing question about whether or not crime will decrease when the public has legal access to handguns in those areas where they are currently prohibited, and it will also be interesting to track murder rates and see whether they increase or decrease.

I honestly can't even begin to form an opinion as to how that will work out.

All I can say is that there will be no guns in my house.

That said, what is right for me is not necessarily right for others, and I'm not willing to vote based upon my personal anti-gun bias. So for now, I guess I support this decision, as well as licensing & registration (I do not support loosening restrictions on concealed weapons permits however). Any future opinion on the matter will crystalize as data becomes available over time.

Shirleypal · Post by **Shirleypal** » 06-27-2008 09:31 AM

All said and done the criminals will always get guns no matter what laws they pass, gun control just doesn't work, but do support individual gun rights.