[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 26, 2008
Author: Mark Sherman
Post Date: 2008-06-26 10:30:14 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 357
Comments: 29

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.



The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Wednesday, June 25, 2008. The Supreme Court has struck down a Louisiana law that allows the execution of people convicted of a raping a child, and also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

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.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws 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.

(2 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

'Roo.

I'm sure the anti-American/RKBA Obamites will be along shortly to tell us all how Stevens is 100% correct. ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   10:33:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Rotara (#0)

If they ruled that we do have a right, and did not strike down all gun control laws, how do they get around the part about the right not being infringed? I can't wait to read that bit of doublespeak.

I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.

Critter  posted on  2008-06-26   10:33:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Rotara (#0)

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-06-26   10:34:38 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: TwentyTwelve, Critter, ALL UPDATE (#3)

Update

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, 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 laws 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.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   10:38:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Rotara (#4)

Thank you, Mr. Heller.

Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org

who knows what evil  posted on  2008-06-26   10:42:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: who knows what evil (#5)

June 26, 2008

U.S. Supreme Court Rules D.C. Handgun Ban Unconstitutional

2008_0626_supremecourt.jpgThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled this morning to uphold an appellate ruling that says the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban is unconstitutional.

The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. The ruling clarifies the court's position that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms, instead of only protecting a collective right for states to form armed militias.

SCOTUSBlog is liveblogging all the Supreme Court decisions this morning. We'll have more soon...

UPDATE 10:24 a.m. You can download a PDF of the Heller decision here, courtesy SCOTUSBlog.

From the Syllabus of the decision:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
The decision does not address gun licensing requirements.

Two separate dissenting opinions were issued, one written by Justice Stevens, and the other by Justice Breyer. But the Scalia decision is in fact a majority opinion, and not a plurality opinion as court watchers had predicted, since it was signed by four other justices - Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.

Photo by M.V. Jantzen

By Sommer Mathis in News | Link | Comments (21) | Recommend this! Loading... |

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   10:49:46 ET  (8 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Rotara (#6)

America's Original Homeland Security Rectangle Mag

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-06-26   10:51:14 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#6)

My Sense of the Bottom-Line from Heller

Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm and to use it in self-defense.  The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill.  And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks.

The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is.  So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.


Heller quotes from the majority - opinion is linked in the next post

Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:27 am | Tom Goldstein | Comments Off |

Email thisShare on FacebookDigg This!

Quotes from the opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”


Heller Opinion

Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:23 am | Jason Harrow | Comments Off |

Email thisShare on FacebookDigg This!

Download it here.


Court: A constitutional right to a gun

Email thisShare on FacebookDigg This!

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.  Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place.  The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.  It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

Justice Scalia’s recitation from the bench of the majority’s reasoning continued for 16 minutes.  Justice John Paul Stevens followed, for seven minutes, summarizing the reasons for two dissenting opinions — his and one written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The decision was the final one of the Term and, after issuing it, the Court recessed for the summer, to return on Monday, Oct. 6.  Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that concluding orders on pending cases will be released by the Court Clerk at 10 a.m. Friday.


LiveBlog: Opinions | 6.26.08

Thursday, June 26th, 2008 6:00 am | Ben Winograd | Comments Off |

Email thisShare on FacebookDigg This!

Note to readers: beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the final session of the Supreme Court term. The Justices are expected to release opinions in all three remaining cases, including the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

In the “LiveBlog” below, we will relay all developments as quickly as possible. We will also post links to PDF versions of the opinions as they become available. One main benefit of the feature is that it automatically updates; in other words, users do not need to refresh their browsers to receive the latest news.

In the event of technical difficulties on our home page due to heavy traffic, users can also follow the LiveBlog by clicking here.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   10:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TwentyTwelve (#7)

UPDATE 10:24 a.m. You can download a PDF of the Heller decision here, courtesy SCOTUSBlog.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   10:53:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Rotara (#9)

UPDATE 10:24 a.m. You can download a PDF of the Heller decision here, courtesy SCOTUSBlog.

Thanks.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-06-26   10:53:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TwentyTwelve (#7)

We should still be concerned that this was a 5 - 4 decision; instead of 9 - 0.

Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org

who knows what evil  posted on  2008-06-26   10:55:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: who knows what evil (#11)

Yes, it should have been 9-0.

Quotes from the opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   10:57:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Rotara (#1)

"I'm sure the anti-American/RKBA Obamites will be along shortly to tell us all how Stevens is 100% correct."

Actually, many who are for Obama are happy to see this ruling. I own handguns and rifles and do not support gun grabbing.

Most people chose a candidate base on how the balance of their ideology jives with their own. If you wait for a candidate with whom you agree with everything, you will wait forever.


"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-06-26   11:13:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: who knows what evil (#11)

"We should still be concerned that this was a 5 - 4 decision; instead of 9 - 0."

Exactly, that worries me as well. This is the SCOTUS' way to justify changing a precedent later. It means there is much work to be done to make sure this does not happen.


"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy

Ferret Mike  posted on  2008-06-26   11:16:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: who knows what evil (#11)

We should still be concerned that this was a 5 - 4 decision; instead of 9 - 0.

This is a major concern.

Ir should have been 9 - 0.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2008-06-26   11:19:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Rotara (#4)

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. ...but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns.

Machine gun sales should not be restricted according to the Constitution. If there was any doubt that the Bush administration wasn't full of shit....

“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941

X-15  posted on  2008-06-26   11:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: TwentyTwelve (#15)

This is a major concern.

should have been 9 - 0.

I've been majorly concerned about the USSC for years. I'm glad this one struck down an outright ban, but the USSC has already ruled against rights too many times in cases that should have been 9-0 the other way.

Shoulda been 9-0, but could have easily been 0-9. We're lucky that 5 of them weren't doing drugs on this case.

Pinguinite  posted on  2008-06-26   11:45:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Rotara (#4)

the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

"Absolute" is a huge loophole, which means Scalia's up to his usual populist trolling, only this time without mentioning religion.

nobody  posted on  2008-06-26   12:07:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Critter (#2)

If they ruled that we do have a right, and did not strike down all gun control laws, how do they get around the part about the right not being infringed? I can't wait to read that bit of doublespeak.

That is the point. The ruling is doublespeak - or "newspeak" if you prefer. "You have a 'right' but we determine what the right is." So, they did not rule in favor of the second amendment but they wiggled around the plain wording of the second amendment to grant the government the right to regulate your "rights".

"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken

Original_Intent  posted on  2008-06-26   12:19:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Original_Intent, all (#19)

That is the point. The ruling is doublespeak - or "newspeak" if you prefer. "You have a 'right' but we determine what the right is." So, they did not rule in favor of the second amendment but they wiggled around the plain wording of the second amendment to grant the government the right to regulate your "rights".

I think you're correct here, OI. I understand the Brady talking heads are happy about the ruling b/c it will allow lots of local interpretation. Youtubes should be available shortly.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-06-26   12:41:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Jethro Tull (#20)

That is the point. The ruling is doublespeak - or "newspeak" if you prefer. "You have a 'right' but we determine what the right is."

Yeah and usually when there's a BIG news story, it's to obfuscate the real happenings.

BTW, stock market's down another - 234. Lesse, what's that, a drop to 11,577 from a high of 14,100. A mere 21% decline?

angle  posted on  2008-06-26   13:06:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: angle (#21)

BTW, stock market's down another - 234. Lesse, what's that, a drop to 11,577 from a high of 14,100.

FWIW, I ran the DJIA peak during the Clinton administration through an inflation calculator six months or so ago. Just to get back to even with the peak then, the DJIA would have to be at about 20,000.

A mere 21% decline?

More like 50% in real terms. GM is trading at its 1955 price today. That's pretty bad.

Esso  posted on  2008-06-26   13:47:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Esso (#22)

GM is trading at its 1955 price today.

GM has been insolvent, on paper, for quite a long time. ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   13:56:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Jethro Tull, angle, christine, TwentyTwelve, Rotara, Wudidiz, all (#20)

That is the point. The ruling is doublespeak - or "newspeak" if you prefer. "You have a 'right' but we determine what the right is." So, they did not rule in favor of the second amendment but they wiggled around the plain wording of the second amendment to grant the government the right to regulate your "rights".

I think you're correct here, OI. I understand the Brady talking heads are happy about the ruling b/c it will allow lots of local interpretation. Youtubes should be available shortly.

One thing we can count on is that there will be major spin in the controlled PsyOps media to convince people that this was a victory for gun rights when it was actually the creation of large new government powers to regulate firearms ownership.

The Rot-Childs - Rockefuckers et. al., (Bankers and their Psychiatrists) fear an armed populace because their activities are more and more in the open as to their open establishment of a global Police State with Psychiatrists writing the score (and it is an evil tune). At some point their fears, all criminals fear exposure and punishment, are that an armed populace will rise in open revolt. That is the why for of the para-militarization of Police Departments and intentional police brutalization and SWAT raids for common crimes, the establishment (illegally) of CIA offices in State Capitols, the collapse of the economy to weaken the free American Citizen, the ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGED invasion by Mexican peasants and criminals (to destabilize our culture), the attacks on parental rights, poison vaccinces which they are trying to force on us, fluoridation of water supplies to pacify the populace (and increase mortality), decrease I.Q. through brain damage) and on and on. These are mechanisms of control being established by a psychotic Plutocracy bent on reducing the population to a controllable level, and puttling in place slave controls to mind control and intimidate the mass population into submission.

Dante was an optimist.

"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken

Original_Intent  posted on  2008-06-26   14:03:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Original_Intent (#24)

One thing we can count on is that there will be major spin in the controlled PsyOps media to convince people that this was a victory for gun rights when it was actually the creation of large new government powers to regulate firearms ownership.

That's exactly right.

Alex Jones had Pratt (GOA) and I believe Zelman (JPFO) on the other day and said exactly that.

The bottom line is this:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   14:15:14 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Rotara (#0)

They'll have to pry my Vulcan minigun out of my cold, dead hands.

Once I get one, that is.

It is impossible to decutify me.

Turtle  posted on  2008-06-26   16:09:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Latest Update from Source Author (#0)

High court affirms gun rights in historic decision

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

The court's historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.

The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it's a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, straddling both sides of the issue, said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain welcomed the ruling as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

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, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."

The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.

Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

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."

But he said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights advocates praised the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Some Democrats also welcomed the ruling.

"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down the district's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the matter came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

BTW, I don't need a bunch of politick 'roos to tell me what rights I have, nor to give me rights, nor to eff up the reading of the Constitution for me.

REGISTER THIS YOU SMELLY 'ROOS!!

Long Live the Republic!

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-26   18:56:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: All (#0)

I find it hysterical to travel the web listening to libtards and other bed wetting pansies fret about the 'Roos decision in this case.

Stuff that makes me wonder why I would lift a finger for them, but rather tempts me to wish them grave ill. ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-27   20:32:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: All, Jethro Tull, Christine, TwentyTwelve, lodwick, Old Fud (#0)

Adventures of Citizen X

The DC Gun Ban Pandora's Box

Posted by Citizen X at 6/28/2008 9:43 AM and is filed under Gun Control

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem [gun crime], including some measures regulating handguns."—Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in DC v. Heller

As I predicted, the Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller, the Washington handgun ban case, will be hailed by both sides of the gun control debate.  The media in general and conservative talk radio in particular are claiming that this decision is a victory for gun rights activists and a vindication of the 2nd Amendment.  While the Court should be applauded for finally putting the spurious individual right versus authority of the states to form militias debate to rest, its decision was by no means a defense of the Constitution.  In fact, just as they did in the Kelo v New London case, the justices have amended the Constitution by stealth.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for anything other than "public use."  In Kelo, the Court effectively changed the term "public use" to "public purpose," meaning that takings no longer needed to be used by the public directly as in roads, government buildings, etc., but simply needed to serve the public good, a much lower barrier to cross and one that gives politicians and bureaucrats much more arbitrary power.  In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor even went so far as to say that the Court had eliminated the phrase "public use" completely, thus leaving Americans with no protection from arbitrary government seizure of their private property.

In DC v Heller, the Court added a word to the 2nd Amendment.  The final four word of the Amendment are very important.  They read, "shall not be infringed."  How clear is that?  Simply, the government shall not infringe upon any person's natural right to acquire and possess the tools necessary to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty.  However, now even the most conservative justice on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees that's not what the Framers really meant.  

According to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment now 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 unreasonably infringed."  This change is very troubling for the future of gun rights in America.  The focus of the argument will now change from the right to bear arms, to what is reasonable.  The term "reasonable" will be used as a club to beat gun rights activists into submission.  After all, why won't you support this anti-gun legislation; you're being unreasonable.  In addition, "unreasonable" will be used as a fulcrum to lever in more and more "reasonable" anti-gun laws.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to eliminate or greatly restrict private ownership of firearms.  Many Americans would never have stood for an outright ban on individual firearms ownership.  Recognizing this, the anti-gun lobby has softened its rhetoric and pushed for more regulation instead.  In the end, however, its goal remains the same: to take guns out of the hands of private individuals.  This will now be done through even more licensing, permits, waiting periods, regulation of commerce, and high taxes.  Thanks to the DC v Heller decision, the Supreme Court has given these efforts official sanction.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2008-06-29   14:48:45 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]